Heuristics for the sustainable harvest of wildlife in stochastic social-ecological systems.

Sustainable wildlife harvest is challenging due to the complexity of uncertain social-ecological systems, and diverse stakeholder perspectives of sustainability. In these systems, semi-complex stochastic simulation models can provide heuristics that bridge the gap between highly simplified theoretical models and highly context-specific case-studies. Such heuristics allow for more nuanced recommendations in low-knowledge contexts, and an improved understanding of model sensitivity and transferability to novel contexts. We develop semi-complex Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) models capturing dynamics and variability in ecological processes, monitoring, decision-making, and harvest implementation, under a diverse range of contexts. Results reveal the fundamental challenges of achieving sustainability in wildlife harvest. Environmental contexts were important in determining optimal harvest parameters, but overall, evaluation contexts more strongly influenced perceived outcomes, optimal harvest parameters and optimal harvest strategies. Importantly, simple composite metrics popular in the theoretical literature (e.g. focusing on maximizing yield and population persistence only) often diverged from more holistic composite metrics that include a wider range of population and harvest objectives, and better reflect the trade-offs in real world applied contexts. While adaptive harvest strategies were most frequently preferred, particularly for more complex environmental contexts (e.g. high uncertainty or variability), our simulations map out cases where these heuristics may not hold. Despite not always being the optimal solution, overall adaptive harvest strategies resulted in the least value forgone, and are likely to give the best outcomes under future climatic variability and uncertainty. This demonstrates the potential value of heuristics for guiding applied management.

Introduction

Harvest is one of the most common forms of management for many wildlife species [1, 2]. Wildlife harvest is important socially, culturally and economically, both for creating direct benefits (e.g. meat, income, recreation, tradition) and to avoid costs due to human-wildlife conflicts (e.g. vehicle collisions, predation on domestic animals, and competition or pathogen spread between wild and domestic stock) [1, 3–5]. Because of their socio-economic and ecological importance, wildlife-harvest systems are typically managed with an overarching aim of sustainability [6]. Yet ‘sustainability’ is a multi-faceted, ill-defined, and evolving term: whilst the early optimal harvest literature focused on ensuring persistence of the species and maximal harvests, contemporary perspectives on sustainability encompass diverse economic and social concepts, ecological, habitat, and ecosystem-based criteria, and precaution under uncertainty [7, 8]. This includes an increasing appreciation of diverse stakeholder perspectives (i.e. social equity) [9, 10], animal welfare, animal rights, and ‘compassionate’ conservation [11, 12].

Under the lens of these complexities and stakeholder conflicts, it is no surprise that concepts of sustainability are often poorly applied in wildlife harvest systems [6]. Established theory on optimal harvest strategies can often seem highly abstract through a focus on limited objectives, typically maximization of harvest volumes without sacrificing population persistence [13-16]. More recently, theoretical objectives have included variability of population sizes and harvest [17]. While some highly detailed applied models exist [e.g. 2, 5, 18–21], in many cases these are unavailable: many wildlife management systems lack all but the most rudimental parameters, due to limited resources and poorly developed institutional frameworks [6, 22]. In practice determining quotas in terrestrial systems is often an inexact, adaptive science at best [23]. Further, even in the best studied cases, important elements of the social-ecological system remain uncertain or contested [24-28], and there is a trend away from defining single ‘best’ harvest strategies, in order to avoid over-reliance on models with assumptions that may not hold in reality [29].

Heuristics are practical and accessible guidelines designed to give good ‘rules-of-thumb’, e.g. management recommendations that lead to good outcomes over a wide range of cases and contexts [30]. In a wildlife management context, heuristics developed from semi-complex case studies can bridge the gap between highly simplified models developed to demonstrate theory, and highly context-specific case studies [31]. Benefits to addressing this space are three-fold. First, more nuanced heuristics can be developed for application in knowledge-poor contexts [30]. This is required in wildlife harvest because in most cases the socio-ecological contexts are more complex than those addressed by existing theoretical models. From an implementation perspective, managers are also more likely to accept and utilize evidence that is more specific to their context [32-34]. Second, heuristics can help to guide sensitivity analyses in knowledge-rich contexts, where complex case-study models can be developed, but the range of parameters is too great for a meaningful development or interpretation of a global sensitivity analysis [35]. Third, heuristics can improve the understanding of context comparability. Causal inference, i.e. where specific causal impacts can be robustly identified (e.g. through analysis of pairwise comparisons in which only the variable of interest changes) is challenged in complex socio-ecological contexts such as wildlife harvest due to the low number of comparable empirical examples to study [36], and this often results in comparisons across contexts [33]. Heuristics at semi-complex levels can give us knowledge on the potential comparability of different contexts, and thereby inform the appropriate transfer of causal inference estimates across different contexts [37].

Heuristics can be derived by induction from empirical experience, or by deduction from simulation models [38, 39]. However, it is challenging to robustly derive heuristics from empirical case studies in wildlife harvest, even with meta-analyses, because of the conceptual, logistical, and ethical difficulty in conducting systematic experimentation at the scales required (i.e. while it is theoretically possible, there are practical challenges in collating enough comparable studies for comparisons without confounding factors complicating interpretation) [36, 40]. As a result, mathematical and stochastic simulation models are well established in the conservation and wildlife-management literature. Typical simulation models focus on stochastic population dynamics, for example applied in population viability analysis [6, 21, 41]. In traditional harvest models, population dynamics is coupled with harvest to assess how variation in harvest intensity affects population persistence and harvest off-take [14, 16, 17]. Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) models expand from these, encompassing stochastic simulations of management in socio-ecological systems incorporating a more holistic set of ecological and social components [42]. MSE models are well established in fisheries [43] and increasingly used in terrestrial management scenarios, typically as highly detailed case study simulations [e.g. 2, 5, 18–21]. MSE models have been used to address key knowledge gaps regarding the implications of uncertainty in the multiple socio-economic facets of wildlife harvest systems [3], and allow levels of systematic assessment impossible in real-world experiments. From fisheries management systems, literature syntheses of MSE case studies that contrast different harvest strategies suggest strong context-dependencies of optimal strategies [39]. No such synthesis has been conducted for terrestrial systems.

To develop heuristics for sustainable terrestrial wildlife harvest, we constructed a semi-complex MSE framework that allowed us to assess sustainability under a range of environmental contexts and from diverse socio-ecological perspectives, and thereby identify patterns of context dependencies over environmental and evaluation contexts. We simulate a set of species (moose, Alces alces, roe deer, Capreolus capreolus, and willow ptarmigan, Lagopus lagopus) from across the fast-slow life-history gradient, a commonly used heuristic for theory development in wildlife demography describing patterns of covariation in life-history traits across body size, longevity, and fecundity [44, 45]. In contrast to most previous harvest system models that focus on a narrow set of objectives, we evaluate sustainability over 10 evaluation metrics reflecting volumes and variability of both population abundance and harvest, combined into 6 stakeholder perspectives relevant for terrestrial contexts. In this way, our working definition of sustainability operates at the system level and aims to capture both outcomes and potential conflicts between stakeholders that may moderate these. To simulate the variability often inherent in socio-ecological systems, we include multiple types of variability [46] representing both temporal stochasticity, as well as parameter uncertainty related to monitoring, management decision, and harvest implementation components. This MSE framework bridges a gap between simplified harvest models with a narrow focus on harvest off-take and highly context-specific applied case studies, with the intention of producing heuristics that are directly applicable to real-world settings. We compare the 289,848 simulation models to uncover: 1) How do wildlife harvest outcomes differ in different contexts? 2) How do different contexts influence optimal harvest parameters in the different systems? 3) Which harvest systems are optimal in different contexts? 4) How much can decision-making improve through integration of environmental and evaluation context-specific heuristics?

Materials and methods

We develop a MSE model that generalises a terrestrial wildlife-harvest system, with components of 1) resource dynamics, 2) monitoring observations, 3) quota setting, 4) harvest implementation, and 5) sustainability evaluation. Simulations occur in yearly time steps (t), across a time series of 20 years (broadly considered long term for applied management plans), with multiple replications (i = 1000) per scenario. Full model description and parameter values are available in S1 Appendix, and summarised here.

MSE framework

The MSE framework developed here consists of five main components (Fig 1), representing the main components of a socio-ecological harvest system. The resource component simulates growth of a population N, using logistic growth determined by the population’s intrinsic growth rate, r, and carrying capacity, K. The monitoring component is simulated by a single variation factor (m) acting on N, to give an estimate of the population size (), to be used as the basis for management decisions. The management-decisions component comprises two parts. First, a harvest strategy is applied, converting into an initial quota, Q, given a set of quota parameters. Q is then subject to random variation (q) to simulate variability of stakeholder influence during the quota setting process, to give a modified quota . The harvest implementation component simulates imperfect harvest implementation, effected as variation (h) around to give the realised harvest (H). This amount is then removed from N before continuing to the next timestep. Stochastic parameters include r, m, q, and h, which simulate environmental stochasticity, imperfect implementation, and parameter uncertainty. We assumed that the uncertainty followed a normal distribution, partitioned over years (t) and replications (i).The evaluation component occurs after each simulation is complete, calculating performance metrics of each iteration over the entire timeframe, and summarising over replications in the scenario run (see details below and in S1 Appendix).

Fig 1

MSE framework.

The Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) model simulates a wildlife harvest system over a 20 year timeframe, with each environmental and decision context including 1000 stochastic replications. Evaluation contexts are simulated through combinations of different evaluation metric sets. Species types span a fast-slow life-history gradient, determining growth rates and carrying capacity, variation levels in growth rates and monitoring variability, and critical thresholds. Stochastic parameters simulate yearly stochasticity and iteration level uncertainty. A full description of the model and parameter values are specified in S1 Appendix.

Environmental context and decision variable parameters

In our modelling framework, species life-history, level of environmental variability and parameter uncertainty, and starting population scenarios collectively represent the environmental context within which the simulation takes place. We simulate three species spanning a slow-fast life-history gradient of common game species (S1.1 Table in S1 Appendix). The species are based on wildlife harvested in a Norwegian context, but with global relevance. The moose (Alces alces) is a large ungulate, with a relatively low growth rate, carrying capacity, monitoring variation, and critical thresholds for evaluating population size. The roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) is a small ungulate with a moderate growth rate, carrying capacity, monitoring variation, and critical thresholds. The willow ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus) is a game bird with a large potential growth rate, carrying capacity, monitoring variation, and critical thresholds.

For each species, variability and starting population scenario combinations are identified numerically (SID 1–6) defined in Fig 1. We simulated two variability scenarios, where variability in r, m, q, and h was either all low (SID 1,3,5) or all high (SID 2,4,6), to represent systems with different extremes of variability and parameter uncertainty. Each of these species -variability scenarios were coupled with three distinct scenarios for the population size at the start of the simulation period: 1) moderate (best case), i.e. the midpoint of low and high critical thresholds (SID 1,2), 2) quasi-extinction (SID 3,4), and 3) overabundance (SID 5,6). Alternative starting populations test the robustness of the harvest strategies to extreme perturbations in population size, as well as being relevant for special management cases (e.g. overabundant species, or recovery of endangered species into harvestable populations). In total, we evaluated 3 species × 2 variability × 3 starting population size scenarios, yielding a total of 18 environmental contexts.

For each of these environmental scenarios, we evaluated a range of harvest alternatives. The 4 harvest strategies and their respective range of harvest parameters together represent decision variables. We define the harvest strategy to include constant harvest (a set number of individuals harvested yearly), proportional harvest (a set proportion of the population harvested yearly), threshold-proportional harvest (a set proportion of the population taken yearly, provided the population is above a certain threshold), and a no harvest baseline. Harvest parameters define the intensity of harvesting under a given harvest strategy. For example, for constant harvest, the ‘constant’ parameter specifies the fixed annual quota size, and for proportional harvest the ‘proportion’ parameter specifies the harvest fractions. We searched across a wide range of constants, proportions, and thresholds in order to identify and compare optimal strategies across a diversity of potential objectives. Constants were varied in increments of 1% of the respective species ‘moderate’ population sizes, proportions were varied in 1% increments, and thresholds also in 1% increments ranging from the respective species ‘quasi-extinction’ population threshold, to a ‘moderate’ population size (see S1.2 Table in S1 Appendix). Within one simulation, the harvest strategies and parameters remain consistent throughout the timeframe, although the simulated harvests themselves vary due to variability in quota setting, available population size, and harvest imperfections. Thus, the 18 environmental contexts were each subject to 4 harvest strategies, totalling 72 environment × harvest strategy cases. Overall, we simulated 289, 848 different environment × harvest strategy × harvest parameter models, each with 1000 iterations.

Evaluation contexts

In our MSE framework, evaluation contexts are designed to reflect different stakeholder values and perspectives relevant to terrestrial wildlife harvest scenarios. We first define 10 individual metrics representing different stakeholder objectives over various socio-ecological and harvest-based sustainability objectives (Table 1), and then combine them into six composite scores representing alternative evaluation contexts with different emphases (Table 2). While we aimed to include as broad a range of sustainability metrics as possible, these may not be adequately representative of ecological or socio-economic objectives that are not a function of volumes or variability of either harvest or population sizes, for example spatial, sex, and age distribution of individuals and consequent effects on ecological functions and equity of opportunity. We standardise each individual metric so that 0 represents the worst score (e.g. zero years of stable population, a mean harvest of zero, or the maximum observed harvest variability), and 100 represents the most desirable expected outcome possible (e.g. all years with stable population, zero harvest variability, or the largest observed harvest) over all replications and decision variables for each respective environmental context. Full details and summaries of raw and transformed scores are provided in S1 Appendix.

Table 1

Individual sustainability metrics.

Objective group	Objective	Criteria	Code
Persistence	Avoiding extinctions. A fundamental objective of ecological and economic sustainability.	For individual replications, this is a binary score (0 = extinction, 1 = persistence of the population over the time frame). This is averaged over replications as a probability.	persistence
Population	Population stability. Avoiding population extremes.	Number of years population remains between high and low critical thresholds	stable population
	Avoiding low or functionally extinct populations. To provide adequate populations for harvest, ecological functionality, and buffer against extinctions.	Number of years population remains above the quasi-extinction critical threshold	above quasi-extinct
		Number of years population remains above the low critical threshold	above low
	Avoiding high and overabundant populations. To minimize wildlife conflict and ecological damage from overabundant populations. Note, this may not be a concern for small game species.	Number of years population remains below high critical threshold	below high
		Number of years population remains below the overabundance critical threshold	below overabundant
Harvest	Mean annual harvest. To provide the maximum opportunity for economic and social benefits of harvest.	Mean yearly harvest	harvest mean
	Minimum harvest experienced across the timeframe. To maximize harvest opportunity over every point in the timeframe.	Minimum harvest size across the timeframe	harvest minimum
	Avoiding years experiencing zero harvest. To provide consistency of harvest experience and income for harvesters and associated economies.	Number of years harvest is not zero	harvest non-zeros
	Limiting harvest variability. While some variability may be accepted as an inevitability in variable contexts, consistency of harvest improves predictability and the consistency of capital required for its implementation.	0 –Standard deviation of harvests over the timeframe	harvest consistency

Sustainability metrics used in this analysis represent a wide variety of common stakeholder concerns, and include fundamental sustainability objective of persistence, as well as other population-based and harvest-based metrics. Here they are defined so that, within each metric, higher scores are more desirable.

Table 2

Composite metrics.

Composite metric set	Individual metric
	Persistence	Above quasi-extinct	Above low	Stable population	Below high	Below overabundant	Harvest mean	Harvest minimum	Harvest non-zeros	Harvest consistency
Classic harv.	✓	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✓	✘	✘	✘
Classic pop.+harv.	✓	✘	✘	✓	✘	✘	✓	✘	✘	✘
Population focus	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✘	✘	✘	✘
Harvest focus	✓	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✓	✓	✓	✓
Complete (small game)	✓	✓	✓	✘	✘	✘	✓	✓	✓	✓
Complete	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓

Composite metrics are comprised of six different sets of individual metrics designed to reflect alternative evaluation perspectives. Inclusion in sets is denoted by a tick (included) or cross (not included); included metrics are averaged to give the composite score.

Evaluation contexts are represented by the composite scores via the individual metrics contributing to the composite score. These range from a complete set including all metrics, to a classic set that includes metrics most commonly included in the classic theoretical literature, namely maximize harvest and population persistence. Other sets represent particular contexts, such as a focus only on population or harvest related metrics. Composite metrics are the mean score of the set of individual metrics from which it is comprised. Due to co-dependencies among individual metrics, composite scores are first calculated for each replicate, before averaging over each harvest scenario. As a side note, this is equivalent to a risk neutral expectation of a utilitarian ‘aggregate benefit’ ethic, and ensures composite scores remain on a similar scale when involving different numbers of individual metrics. Composite metric scores therefore represent outcomes as perceived under specific stakeholder contexts, but simplistically assume that these individual metrics represent stakeholder utility, that individual metric utilities are equivalent and substitutable, and that aggregate utility is reflected through the average of the individual metrics, and that stakeholders display linear preferences.

Comparative analysis, heuristics, and potential improvement in decision-making

We sought heuristics for a) determining the likely impacts of environmental and evaluation contextual factors, and b) choosing optimal harvest parameters or strategies, based on the expected (i.e. average) composite metric scores. This assumes a ‘benevolent decision-maker’ basing their decisions on a rational, risk-neutral optimization of the composite score. Assuming the composite score could be an accurate reflection of social utility, this reflects the potential for stakeholders to be satisfied with the respective outcome. Use of a semi-complex MSE model with the same framework across multiple environmental and evaluation contexts allows a full factorial design in which pairwise comparisons can be made between models that are the same in every way except for the variable of interest. Overall, we compared 18 environmental contexts × 4 harvest strategies × a custom range of harvest parameters × 6 evaluation contexts, totalling 108 environmental × evaluation contexts, 432 environmental × harvest strategy × evaluation contexts, selecting optimal harvest parameters and strategies or each of the evaluation contexts from the 289,848 environmental × decision variable (i.e. harvest strategy and parameters) contexts.

If more information is known (e.g. the environmental context, or the evaluation context), decision-makers are likely to be able to make more appropriate decisions within that context. This is not always the case, however, for example if the same strategy is chosen regardless of the availability of the information. We quantify potential improvement in decision making effected through the use of context-specific heuristics, versus a generalised heuristic, using both the relative frequency of the chosen strategies being optimal, as well as the average value forgone. Value forgone represents the difference in composite score value achieved when using a (potentially suboptimal) strategy within a specific context, compared to the optimal strategy for that respective environmental and evaluation context. If a strategy is suboptimal, potential value forgone can range from negligible, to 100% of the optimised value.

Code and data availability

We constructed the model in R [47], using tidyverse [48] and truncnorm [49], parallelized with doSNOW [50]. For graphics, we used ggplot2 [51], ggtable [52], cowplot [53], and magick [54]. For links to all data, code, and results, see data availability statement.

Results

Composite scores

Composite scores show considerable overlaps in outcomes between the various harvest strategies and parameters (Fig 2). In general, suboptimal harvest strategies with optimised harvest parameters can often perform better than optimal harvest strategies with poorly selected harvest parameters (Fig 2). This was even more clear when considering potential variability (S2.1 Section in S2 Appendix). Overall, only 11% of the 432 environmental and evaluation context combinations had composite metric scores of over 85% (i.e. performing well across all included metrics), highlighting that poor performances are common, and conflicts between individual metrics, and thus between stakeholder interests, are likely in terrestrial harvest management. Contexts resulting in high composite scores were typically related to relatively stable environments, adaptive harvest strategies (i.e. proportional or threshold proportional), and for evaluation contexts with a population metric focus. Only 4 cases achieved expected maximum scores of 100% (Fig 3); these included threshold proportional harvest for moose in SID1 and SID 2, and roe deer in SID 1, and proportional harvest for moose in SID 1, all based on the population focus evaluation context.

Fig 2

Composite scores across harvest strategies and parameters.

Composite scores (y-axis) for each composite metric set (panel rows), under each harvest strategy (panel column) and harvest parameter (x-axis). For the constant harvest strategy (second column), the x-axis shows the constant scaled by the maximum constant per species. For the threshold proportional strategy (fourth column), the x-axis shows the proportion, and multiple lines per species show selected thresholds from across the range of thresholds tested. Species are indicated by line colour, and are here shown for the environmental context with high variability/uncertainty and moderate starting-population sizes (SID 2). Results for other scenarios and including variability are in S2.1 Section in S2 Appendix.

Fig 3

Composite scores across harvest strategies and contexts.

Composite scores (colour) for each environmental (x-axis, and panel rows) and evaluation context (y-axis), under each harvest strategy (panel column), assuming harvest parameters are optimised under each harvest strategy. Environmental contexts (SID) codes are provided in Fig 1. Score classes (symbols) highlight where scores are maximal (i.e. 100, achieving the highest theoretically possible scores across all included metrics). This figure shows how scores are typically higher for slower life history species (e.g. moose) than faster life history species (e.g. ptarmigan), and for more complex harvest strategies (e.g. threshold proportional) than simpler strategies (e.g. constant harvest), but also that few maximal scores were found across the simulated contexts. Differences are further summarised in text and the following figures.

To determine the impact of environmental (i.e. species, variability and starting population size) and evaluation context factors (composite metric types), we assessed the pairwise contrasts between simulations varying only in terms of each specific factor respectively (Fig 4). For the majority of the pairwise contrasts, faster life history species, extreme starting population sizes, and higher variability scenarios result in lower composite metric scores, indicating either irresolvable poor scores and/or stronger conflicts between objectives. However, there are exceptions to these general patterns for most contrasts (Fig 4). Contrasts between evaluation contexts are less predictable, as these scores reflect the number of metrics included, as well as their themes. More complex composite metrics that include more individual metrics were often higher scoring than simpler metrics. For example, the Complete set typically scored higher than Classic pop.+harv. (true for 94% of the pairwise contrasts). This occurs because the majority of the additional metrics in more complete sets were often less conflicting than those included in the classical sets. Overall, the Population focus set was the highest scoring in the majority of pairwise contrasts, likely reflecting the lack of conflict with harvest objectives.

Fig 4

Influence of environmental and evaluation factors on composite scores.

Differences in composite score outcomes (x-axis) due to differences in environmental and evaluation factors (y-axis), with all other factors held at equivalent levels for each pairwise contrast. Contrasts are given as change in the left-hand level vs. right-hand level, for example, moose typically result in a higher composite metric score than roe deer, all other factors equivalent. Violins show the data distributions (i.e. the values of pairwise contrasts, across all environmental and evaluation factors such as composite metric sets, that are not the focus of the pairwise contrast), with the colour indicating the median. Boxplots show the median, the first and third quartiles, and the whiskers extend to the smallest or largest value no further than 1.5 times the inter-quartile range from the hinge, with outliers plotted as points. Proportions of the observations below or above zero difference are given on the left and right grey panels respectively (and may not sum to one if some cases do not differ).

Optimum harvest parameters

Optimum harvest parameters (that maximize the composite metric score) varied across environmental and evaluation contexts (S2 Appendix). Within a given harvest strategy, different environmental and evaluation contexts had most influence on optimal parameter values (Fig 5). For instance, starting population size was the most universally important determinant for the score within constant harvest strategies (Fig 5A). Higher variability typically decreased the optimal constant harvest rate, whereas optimal constant harvest rates did not vary much between evaluation contexts. For proportional harvest strategies, differences in optimal harvest proportions were most definitively linked to species life history, with higher proportion optimal for faster species. While larger initial population sizes tended to allow larger proportions, this was not always the case (Fig 5B). In contrast to the constant harvest strategy, there were also clear differences between the different evaluation contexts in term of optimal harvest rates. For the threshold-proportional harvest strategy, optimal harvest parameters (both thresholds and proportions) showed substantial sensitivity to all environmental and evaluation factor contrasts (Fig 5C and 5D). This likely reflects the flexibility of this strategy to be tailored to different (conflicting) stakeholder interests, in contrast with the constant harvest strategy which has a relatively narrow sustainable operating range that is primarily environmentally determined, leaving low flexibility to cater for social preferences.

Fig 5

Influence of environmental and evaluation factors on optimal harvest parameters.

Thumbnail figure (full figures given in the S2.3 Section in S2 Appendix) showing pairwise differences in optimal harvest parameters (i.e. those parameters giving the highest composite metric scores in each respective context) given environmental and evaluation factor contrasts, for a) constant, b) proportional, and c) and d) threshold proportional harvest strategies (proportion in c) and threshold in d) respectively). For further plot description, including colour legend, see Fig 4. The * indicates that the constant and threshold are scaled by the number of individuals considered as a ‘moderate’ population size for each of the species (i.e Moose = 600, Roe Deer = 6950, Ptarmigan = 17500). This overview figure shows how harvest parameter decisions are influenced relatively more by evaluation contexts in more complex harvest strategies (e.g. threshold proportional), compared with a simple ‘constant harvest’ strategy.

Optimum harvest strategies

After optimizing the harvest parameters for each strategy and context, our simulations show that there was no universally optimum harvest strategy across all environmental and evaluation contexts (Fig 6). In fact, all harvest strategies could be perceived as an optimal choice in at least one environmental and evaluation context (Fig 6). However, in the evaluation contexts Population focus, Classic pop.+harv., and Classic harv. a constant harvest strategy is never identified as optimal. In contrast, for Harvest focus, Complete (small game) and Complete composite set contexts, constant harvests are identified as optimal in 10 of the respective 18 environmental × evaluation cases for moose, as well as 2 cases in roe deer and once for ptarmigan (Figs 6 and 7).

Fig 6

Optimal strategy, and value forgone through choice of harvest strategy, across environmental and evaluation contexts.

Harvest strategy optimality (symbol), and value forgone (tile colour) by using the harvest strategy in each environmental and evaluation context, instead of the optimal strategy for the respective environmental and evaluation context. Harvest strategies (panel columns) are represented by their optimal harvest parameter outcomes. Environmental contexts are combinations of species type (panel rows), and starting population and variability (SID codes are described in Fig 1; x-axis). Strategies are compared for optimality only within equivalent species x environmental x evaluation comparisons. This figure shows how proportional and threshold proportional strategies are typically the most optimal, and typically result in lower value forgone when not. Differences are further summarised in text and the following figures.

Fig 7

Optimal strategy across environmental and evaluation contexts.

Relative frequency of optimal harvest strategy (or jointly optimal strategies) by environmental and evaluation context factors (y-axis). Each bar summarises the simulations including the factor specified on the y-axis. Optimal strategies are determined by ranking their respective best performing harvest parameter levels across harvest strategies. Pairwise comparisons between contexts are given in S2.4 Section in S2 Appendix.

Overall, the most optimal harvest strategy was threshold proportional, which was optimal in 55.6% of the 108 species × environment × evaluation cases (and intermediate otherwise; Fig 6, comparing across panel columns). Proportional strategies were most often intermediate (57.4% of cases, with the remainder as best). In contrast, constant harvest strategies were optimal in only 12% of cases, and worst in 14.8%, while no harvest was an optimal choice in only 2 cases, and the poorest choice in 85.2% of cases.

Pairwise contrasts in environmental factors show that more complex harvest strategies are generally more preferable with faster life history species and higher variability scenarios (S2.4 Fig in S2 Appendix). For the more extreme starting populations, there were preferences towards both simpler and more complex harvest strategies, although most did not change. Pairwise contrasts between evaluation contexts show more definitive trends for many comparisons (S2.4 Fig in S2 Appendix).

Improvement in decision-making through use of environmental and evaluation context-specific heuristics

Without consideration of the environmental or evaluation contexts, the best choice for harvest strategy was threshold proportional. This would be the correct optimal choice in 55.6% of the 108 species × environment × evaluation cases, and result in an expected value forgone of 1.19% (Figs 6 and 7). Proportional, constant, and no harvest strategies would result in a mean value forgone of 2.75%, 12.2%, and 27.0% respectively.

Information on environmental contexts resulted in few improvements over the baseline of no contextual information. Use of species information resulted in an optimal decision in 59.3% of cases (with expected value forgone of 0.92%), selecting proportional for moose (optimal in 47.2% of cases, with expected value forgone of 1.64%), and threshold proportional for roe deer and ptarmigan (optimal in 61.1% and 69.4% of cases, with and expected value forgone of 0.58 and 0.54% respectively). Starting population information also improved decisions in 3.7% of cases compared to no information (expected value forgone 1.17%), and suggested proportional when population sizes are initially very low (at quasi-extinction; optimal in 52.8% of these cases, expected value forgone of 2.58%), and threshold proportional otherwise (optimal in 63.9% of cases with moderate starting population sizes, and 61.1% of cases with overabundant starting population sizes, with expected value forgone of 0.39% and 0.56% respectively). Information on variability level did not result in a change in strategy choice. Threshold proportional was optimal in 59.3% of low variability cases, and 51.9% of high variability cases, with expected value forgone of 1.53% and 0.86% respectively.

If all environmental context information was considered (i.e. decisions made based on species and environmental context, but not evaluation context), optimal decisions could be made in 63.9% of cases, with an expected value forgone of 0.57%. A constant strategy was selected for a third of the moose contexts (specifically, for moderate or overabundant starting populations, with low variability only), however this would be optimal in only half the cases within, and a threshold proportional strategy was preferable for the latter when aiming to minimise value forgone. Proportional was selected for moose contexts starting at quasi-extinction (optimal in 66.7% and 83.3% of cases for the low and high variability scenarios, respectively), and was selected as jointly optimal for 2/6 of the roe deer contexts, and one ptarmigan context (and therefore optimal in only half the cases within). Threshold proportional was optimal in all cases for roe deer with moderate starting populations and low variability, and for ptarmigan with overabundant starting populations and low variability, but for the remaining cases would provide between 50–66.7% optimality. Decision-making based on minimising value forgone dropped proportional and threshold proportional from being jointly preferable in three and two environmental contexts, respectively.

In contrast, information on evaluation context could result in optimal decisions in 74.1% of cases (with an expected value forgone of 0.49%). This suggested a threshold proportional strategy for Population focus, Classic pop.+harv., and Classic harv. composite metric sets (100%, 88.9%, and 61.1% of the respective cases). For Complete (small game) and Harvest focus composite metric sets, a proportional strategy is preferred, optimal in 72.2% and 66.7% of respective cases. For the Complete composite metric, either a proportional or threshold proportional strategy would be optimal in 55.6% of cases, but the threshold proportional strategy would result in a lower expected value forgone.

Discussion

Aiming to develop heuristics for sustainability in wildlife harvest systems, we ran 289,848 stochastic models simulating harvest management under diverse environmental and evaluation contexts. The scarcity of contexts across our simulations resulting in high overall composite metric scores demonstrates the inherent complexity of achieving sustainability in terrestrial wildlife harvest systems with diverse stakeholders objectives [3, 4]. This large potential for conflicts and trade-offs emphasises that wildlife harvest decisions are likely to benefit from tools designed for decision-making under conflict and complexity. These tools include MSE models that can be used to evaluate and compare outcomes for multiple models, actions, and metrics [42, 43, 55], and Structured Decision Making (SDM) tools for management of conflicts through stakeholder negotiations [5, 56]. Avoiding exacerbating conflicts is endorsed in environmental management [57], and our analysis demonstrates how MSE can be used to map out conflict potential, and thereby contribute to conflict-sensitive stakeholder engagement.

Our results confirm that adaptive harvest systems such as proportional harvest, and particularly threshold-proportional harvests, were generally more likely to deliver good outcomes and be perceived as more sustainable. Adaptive harvest systems were higher scoring in more varied contexts, involved a less precipitous risk of population declines compared to constant harvest, and, result in the lowest levels of value forgone. This supports prior analytical and review comparisons showing general preference towards these adaptive strategies [15, 39, 58], including as a precautionary approach under uncertainty and variability, and importantly, extends systematic assessment across a diversity of environmental and evaluation contexts likely to be encountered in applied wildlife harvest management.

We found that no single harvest strategy was optimal across all environmental and evaluation contexts tested, however. Every harvest strategy was optimal in at least one case in every environmental context (Figs 6 and 7). The overall best strategy, threshold proportional harvest, was optimal in only 55.6% of cases evaluated. This supports the literature review findings of Derboa and Bence [39] in that optimal harvest strategies can differ depending on environmental contexts and evaluation procedures. In our simulations, information on environmental context (represented in this study as species, variability, and starting population size) could improve decision-making to be optimal in 63.9% of cases. Information on the evaluation context was more valuable, identifying optimal strategies in 74.1% of cases. There was large variation in outcomes of the harvest strategies when using different harvest parameters, however, and optimal parameters for suboptimal strategies can often score higher than suboptimal parameters for (potentially) optimal strategies (Fig 2). Information on environmental contexts was particularly influential in determining optimal harvest parameters in constant and proportional harvest strategies, while both environmental and evaluation context information were influential for determining thresholds and proportions in a threshold-proportional harvest strategy (Fig 5). This likely reflects the superior ability of threshold-proportional strategies to be tailored to stakeholder perspectives, but simultaneously highlights the non-triviality of accounting for stakeholder perspectives in environmental management [9, 10].

The extent of the differences in outcomes across evaluation contexts suggests that, by focussing on limited evaluation metrics, prior theoretical analysis present a rather narrow and sometimes misleading perspective on the outcomes of harvest in socio-economically complex terrestrial wildlife systems. Differences due to composite metric sets were difficult to characterise, likely due to the interaction of the number and types of metrics included: more metrics can buffer each other and thus can increase scores, but can also increase the likelihood of trade-offs and thereby reduce mean scores. This emphasises the importance of identification and weighting of evaluation metrics in harvest management [56, 59, 60]. However, two key implications can be drawn from our results: 1) simpler ‘classic’ metrics commonly used in theoretical models may give a false perception of the magnitude of the benefits of more complex harvest strategies over constant harvests in some cases, and 2) the formulation of harvest objectives has a strong influence in determining optimal harvest strategies and parameters. This is particularly important to consider in the context of terrestrial wildlife harvest, where there is seemingly a widespread tendency for the objective of maximizing yields to be included, which persists even in cases where extensive stakeholder and manager engagement do not indicate maximum yields as a universally valued objective, and even while recognising the strong trade-off between population stability and harvest goals [61, 62]. In all of our simulated species the critical thresholds for a socio-ecologically desirable population size specified for management evaluation during expert elicitation were often well below the corresponding theoretical maximum sustainable yield levels (S1 Appendix). Inclusion of yield maximization is likely due to the classic tradition of yield being the sole focus of ‘sustainability’ in wildlife harvest outside a complementary and low bar objective of persistence (for example in early fisheries ‘maximum sustainable yield’ models), despite development of more diverse definitions [8]. Perhaps in fisheries contexts of the past this may have seemed appropriate, but in contemporary, predominantly recreational, terrestrial wildlife harvest there is no a priori reason to value maximizing mean harvests above or even equally to other objectives, especially given the diversity of human-wildlife conflicts associated with high density populations of some of the harvested species [4].

Faster life history species and higher variability contexts (due to stochasticity and uncertainty) were generally associated with reduced scores (Figs 3 and 4), and typically a greater preference towards more complex, adaptive harvest strategies. Much emphasis within the harvest literature has been on variability (stochasticity and uncertainty), typically revealing reduced sustainability with higher variability [13-16]. In these cases, thresholds can be used as a buffer from extinction [15, 17]. Our results are in line with these prior studies, but we also detected some noticeable exceptions. Many of the exceptions in our pairwise comparisons are due to threshold based evaluation criteria: for example when increased variability allows some replications to cross desirable threshold criteria (i.e. stochastic resonance [63]), without causing equivalent crossing of undesirable criteria thresholds. Other exceptions were likely due to closer alignment of ‘ideal’ population sizes (i.e. socially preferable levels) with populations sizes delivering maximum yields (as was the case for roe deer in our study), or due to a lack of perceivable difference in strategy outcomes under more extreme starting population sizes.

Management of slower life-history species was typically easier, and generally yielded relatively high scores even under simpler harvest strategies. However, the risk of precipitous declines via choosing suboptimal constant harvest parameters was greater, and the potential to recover from such low populations should be considered. In faster life history species recovering from extreme low populations, harvest strategy trades off speed, magnitude, and likelihood of recovery with harvest early in the time period, a trade-off likely to depend on the productivity of the population [64]. In slower life history species recovery from low population sizes could be lengthy, with very low possibility of harvest [65]. Overall, this supports adaptive harvest strategies (including proportional and/or thresholds) as a precautionary strategy, providing economic and ecological resilience of harvest under both scientific and environmental uncertainty, and particularly uncertainty in the face of directional threats such as climate change [65].

Given our aim of developing heuristics across a range of species contexts for a set of harvest strategies, we developed our model using a consistent but relatively simple population dynamics framework. We specified our MSE models as one closed-population harvested species, undifferentiated by age, sex, or spatially, with logistic growth and simple characterisations of uncertainty and variability. We included prey species only, and do not explicitly consider biotic interactions such as their natural predators (these are assumed as captured within the variable demographic rates). We applied single decision rules over the whole time frame, and had no time-discounting or monetary valuation of costs and benefits, and a simplistic translation of outcomes into stakeholder values and utilities. We discuss these issues as they pertain to this analysis more in the full model description in the S1 Appendix. Further developments of the model would be valuable to extend the results to more complex and realistic contexts, in particular to examine impacts of different distributions and particular sources of uncertainty and variability (e.g. of population structuring during low abundances and infrequent extreme events [40, 66–68] and directional biases (e.g. in monitoring, quota setting, and harvest [19, 69]). We also do not consider starting conditions for stakeholders, such as current entitlement to harvest, which serves to frame outcomes as losses or gains. Current entitlement levels can severely constrain management decisions in practice [5], for example if Pareto improvements (no loss for any stakeholder) are emphasised in decision-making. While alternative assumptions may change the particulars of results, even the simple assumptions we employed resulted in many complex trade-offs among the diverse metrics evaluated, and we would expect the main conclusion of context dependency and importance of evaluation perspective to hold.

Conclusions

Sustainability is a central, but often elusive goal of wildlife harvest management, challenged by complex socio-ecological systems, with many potential conflicts and uncertainties. Our stochastic simulation analysis provides the first detailed and consistent comparison of multiple sustainability metrics, across a representative range of common terrestrial wildlife game harvest systems. While we conclude, similarly to prior studies, that adaptive harvest systems including thresholds and proportional harvest were more likely to be perceived as sustainable in more variable contexts compared to constant harvest, our analysis reveals the many exceptions to this heuristic. Indeed, every harvest strategy was found to be optimal in every environmental context under at least one evaluation context. We found that the strongest driver of outcomes, optimal harvest parameters, and strategies was the evaluation context (i.e. the set of metrics used), rather than environmental contexts. However, adaptive strategies led to the least potential value forgone, and are likely a better risk-adverse strategy to employ to avoid low population sizes, which are likely to give poor outcomes for all stakeholders. Key implications for applied management are, first, that outcomes based on simplified metrics (e.g. persistence and maximizing mean harvest only) popular in the theoretical literature may give misleading impressions of the relative benefits of different harvest systems in complex socio-ecological systems. Second, while a threshold proportional strategy remains the optimal strategy across the majority of cases, both environmental and evaluation contexts have substantial influences on the optimal harvest parameters within this strategy. Our results highlight that trade-offs between sustainability objectives are largely inevitable, and, with no single optimum strategy, ‘optimal’ harvest systems need to be identified with careful consideration of the appropriateness of sustainability metrics. Overall, heuristics derived from semi-complex MSE models such as this provide a useful bridge between over-simplistic theoretical models and complex context-specific models. We showed the potential of such heuristics to improve applied decision-making in low information contexts, and they are also likely to prove useful for guiding context-dependent sensitivity analyses in high information contexts, and the appropriateness of cross-context empirical comparisons.

Additional methods.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Additional results.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

5 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-14753

Sustainability of wildlife harvest in stochastic social-ecological systems

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Law,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please consider the comments from both Reviewers. In particular, please address the suggestion to define sustainability from Reviewer 1. Given that this term is ill-defined (line 48), how do we know that this paper captures it, as suggested by the title? Also, please discuss alternative ways to combine information across performance metrics (e.g., MinMax, or minimax), as suggested by Reviewer 2.

Also, please consider the following comments and editorial suggestions.

Much of the focus of MSE in fisheries has moved away from identifying single best harvest strategies to identifying those that “satisfice” stakeholder criteria to avoid over-reliance on models assumptions that often do not reflect reality (e.g., Harford and Carruthers 2017,). This paper diverges from that approach because of its focus on identifying heuristics for data-limited contexts. I suggest mentioning how and why this paper diverges from the current paradigm in fisheries MSE in the Introduction.

Did you consider ecological objectives. Are these species important prey or predators? I suggest describing how the performance metrics (evaluation metrics) chosen are a subset of a much larger set of possible metrics, including those related to income/jobs from harvest which are not directly related to number harvested and depend on the management strategy.

Why is performance poor on all metrics with no harvest? (even population persistence scores)? (Fig. 3)

Why is performance poor for moderate, but not high and low environmental variability for Moose (and some extent Roe Deer)? (Fig. 3)

Results depend on the caveats and assumptions of the model as partly explained in S1. Given that these assumptions are largely untested, they should be brought forward to the Discussion. For example, how realistic is the performance metric on extinction given limited knowledge about population dynamics at low abundances (i.e., allele effects).  Also, alternative distributions of population variability could be considered with longer tails to account for infrequent extreme events that strongly impact on performance (e.g., Anderson et al 2017). This can be included as a caveat in S1.1, and brought forward to the main discussion as well. In addition, biases in observation errors and harvest implementation can significantly impact performance, yet are not included and can be highlighted in the Discussion.

Given the sensitivity of results to environmental variability, evaluation context, etc. and all the caveats of missing components/assumptions highlighted in S1 and by Reviewer 1, the conclusions and abstract should highlight the need for adaptive management. This is especially true under climate change where future scenarios may not resemble historical conditions/trajectories or those simulated in the MSE.

Editorial suggestions

The difference between single composite metrics and holistic metrics is not immediately clear in the abstract on first read. I suggest giving brief examples in the abstract to illuminate your point.

Is 1000 MC trials enough for risk-based performance metrics, especially those that pertain to low frequency events like extinction?

How were the individual sustainability metrics chosen? (based on previous experience with management of those 3 species in particular, review of the literature, etc.?)

The “Complete” composite score weights all metrics equally, so is a function of the number of metrics on each category. It would be more transparent to label it as equal weighting to population and harvest. “Complete” may be mean different things to different stakeholders.

I suggest adding a description of the range of harvest parameters to the main text. It’s not clear how 289, 848 model runs are generated (line 213) from the text alone.

In Figure 4, top three panels, is the composite score comparison for the complete set?

Line 259, “result in lower composite metric scores, indicating stronger conflicts between objectives”. Can lower composite metric scores occur simply because of low score on all component metrics, i.e., without conflict?

Please refer to Table S1.3 in caption or lead up to Fig. S2.1.1 to define SID1, SID2, etc…

The 6 SID plots within Fig S2.1.1 look the exact same, despite representing different environmental contexts. This is not expected given the sensitivity of performance to environmental context in Fig. 3. The same for Fig. S2.1.2. The figures are not consistent with the text, “Optimum harvest parameters (that maximize the composite metric score) varied across environmental and evaluation contexts (Supplementary S2).” (lines 280-1).

Fig S.2.2.1 and S2.2.3 Caption/text need to be added. Currently state “Description to be added.. These show the parameter levels that result in top scores (black outline) or within 5% of this top score (coloured areas).” (S2.2.1) and “Description to be added.. These show the parameter levels that result in top scores (black outline) or within 5% of this top score (coloured areas).” (S2.2.3).

Suggest renumbering Fig S.2.2.3 as S2.2.2 is missing

Line 331 “Pairwise contrasts in environmental factors show that more complex harvest strategies generally become more preferable with faster life history species and higher variability scenarios (Supplementary Fig S2.4).”  This is not obvious from Fig. S2.4. Moving from Moose to Ptarmigan, it looks like there is a high frequency of shift to simpler optimal  harvest rules. Moving from low to high variability it looks like optimal harvest rules generally stay the same in complexity. Figure S2.4 needs a caption and description.

Line 339. Can you clarify what “cases” means in this sentence (all scenarios within 6 harvest rules, optimal harvest parameters, 6 SIDs, 3 species?), “This would be the correct optimal choice in 55.6% of cases, and result in an expected value forgone of 1.19% (Fig 6-7). Proportional, constant, and no harvest strategies would result in a mean value forgone of 2.75%, 12.2%, and 27.0% respectively”

Line 354, Please clarify that these results aggregate over evaluation contexts and species with optimal harvest parameters “If all environmental context information was considered, optimal decisions could be made in 63.9% of cases, with an expected value forgone of 0.57%.”

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 19 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Carrie A. Holt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript.  (Auhtor’s contribution)

“Conceptualisation and writing-review (EL, JL, BvM, EN), data curation, formal analysis, validation, visualisation and writing-draft (EL), investigation and methodology (EL, EN), funding acquisition and supervision (JL, BvM, EN).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This study was funded by the Research Council of Norway (https://www.forskningsradet.no/; grant 251112; JL, BM, EN). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf."

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have reviewed the manuscript entitled “sustainability of wildlife harvest in stochastic social-ecological systems” prepared by Law et al. The authors use a MSE framework to simulate the effects of harvest on wildlife under different combinations of environmental, harvest and evaluation contexts. In general, the paper is well written and presented with a lot of simulation work supporting the results. However, I do have a few concerns that need to be addressed before considering for publication in PLOS ONE.

1. The title needs to be more informative. The current title is fairly broad and vague and it’s difficult for the readers to capture what the authors are trying to address in this paper. Furthermore, I don’t think the simulation work done in this paper is adequate to address this broad topic.

2. The purpose of this paper is not quite clear to me. The authors used MSE to simulate and compare outcomes under different combinations of environmental, harvest and evaluation contexts, and then basically conclude the outcome is context-dependent (isn’t this something self-evident?). There are numerous combinations in the simulation and I don’t quite get what is the focus/main question. It is important to have a hypothesis-driven topic in scientific papers, and I encourage the authors to further think about this and reorganize the paper on some specific question/hypothesis/prediction.

3. For the environmental context (others may refer to operating model in MSE), the authors used logistic model for the population dynamics with 18 combinations of 3 species, 2 levels of variability and 3 starting population sizes. The variability levels apply to 4 parameters (r, m, q and h), so there should be 2^4=16 scenarios of variability, unless the authors assume the 4 parameters are inter-correlated (if so, why?).

4. To introduce stochasticity in the simulation, the authors assume normal distribution of the 4 variable parameters, which is likely to generate negative values. To avoid negative values of abundance et al., a method “round to nearest positive value” is used, but this will generate bias in the simulation. A better practice is to use log-normal distribution to introduce stochasticity.

5. For the evaluation context, the authors need to further explain how these individual and composite metrics are related to definitions of “sustainability”. If sustainability is the theme of this paper, the authors should try to give their own definition upfront, so that they can better quantify this term in the evaluation context.

6. When calculating composite metrics, do you give equal weight to individual metrics? If so, how do you balance the number of individual metrics related to population or harvest?

7. In the result section, different composite metric score reflects different perspective on sustainability, and I’m not sure how this can be summarized across composite metrics. In line 234, what is the meaning of 85% of composite metric score? Does this reflect different things among composite metric scores. Line 236, “better performing context” is a weird statement, so some environment/evaluation contexts are better than others?

8. The resolution of figure 1 is a bit low.

Reviewer #2: I had the chance to review the paper “Sustainability of wildlife harvest in stochastic social-ecological systems” for consideration as a Research Article in PLOS ONE. Overall, I really like this paper and recommend that it is suitable for publication with some minor revisions. Great job! The focus of this paper is on using a robust combination social, management, and ecological scenarios of a harvested ecosystem to provide general rules of thumb for decision-making in complex systems. I found the model competently executed, the scenarios explored were interesting, and the paper is very well written. I don’t have many major comments or critiques to the paper. The main comments that I have are on interpreting the visuals and the Discussion text and begin in no particular order below:

Did the authors consider some sort of minimax (MinMax) decision rule to evaluate which harvest strategies minimized the maximum possible loss among all scenarios considered? In this case, the loss function could be the composite score or the average value forgone. I think this would provide a very generalizable heuristic on the decision rules that help to achieve an acceptable level of value across the uncertain range of management and ecological contexts. Is this already captured in Figure 7 with the ‘optimal strategy’?

What is meant by L. 75 deriving general inferences from case studies? Do you mean that we lack heuristics from empirical case studies because these case studies aren’t experimental? What about meta-analyses?

Table 2: in the composite metric set, are the individual metrics weighted equally or unequally? I think L. 200 suggests they are equal. In some fisheries literature (Carruthers et al. 2018; van Poorten & Camp 2019) there is consideration that some metrics should be weighed quite differently (e.g., Persistence weighed 2x more than Harvest Mean). Or, in other words, management may only really care about Persistence when it is low (near some conservation-relevant levels) but not when its high, otherwise we care more about the Harvest Mean (or other criteria).

Carruthers, T. R., Dabrowska, K., Haider, W., Parkinson, E. A., Varkey, D. A., Ward, H., ... & Post, J. R. (2019). Landscape-scale social and ecological outcomes of dynamic angler and fish behaviours: processes, data, and patterns. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 76(6), 970-988.

van Poorten, B. T., & Camp, E. V. (2019). Addressing challenges common to modern recreational fisheries with a buffet-style landscape management approach. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 27(4), 393-416.

I really like the description of the model methods and procedure. Nicely done.

I found several of the Figures difficult to make intuitive sense of, particularly Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6. As these are the main results Figures, I suggest either some changes to the figures, the figure captions, or the accompanying text in the main Results to help the reader make these more intuitive to take inferences from. Figures 3 and Figure 6 are quite similar but showcase different metrics (composite scores versus value forgone) so my comments pertain to both.

For Figure 3/6: I am unsure on how the ‘rank’ symbols are meant to be inferred and how the reader is supposed to compare and contrast rows vs. columns vs. colours vs. symbols. Let’s take Figure 6 for example: for Moose managed under Threshold Proportional with a Population Focus: there are 3 ‘clear bests’ outcomes across the environmental contexts and within an environmental context (for example Context 2) there are 2 clear bests and 2 joint bests strategies. What is the main takeaways from this figure that you are trying to communicate to the reader? I am not sure if it is clear how the reader is supposed to read and compare the scenarios. It looks really great though!

For Figure 4: I think it shows the difference between composite scores between two scenarios (all else equal). But does a negative difference mean that the left-hand side had the higher score or the lower score? Example of some of my confusion can be illustrated in the first comparison Moose v. Roe Deer: across all scenarios, all else equal, a Moose life history had a negative difference in the composite score than a Roe Deer life history – so does that mean that Moose tended to have the higher score or the lower score? What does the 0.76 and 0.13 mean? And can you walk through what the takeaway here is for Moose, as an example? If I read this right and Moose have a negative difference in the composite score, is the Moose life history harder to manage (under the assumptions of this model) than a Roe Deer life history? I think based on Figure 3 that Moose are slightly easier to manage (likely because they are less variable), so I think part of my challenge can be helped by having the Figure caption or results text better walk through these figures.

For Figure 5: the figure caption discusses optimum harvest parameters. But is this meant to be a sensitivity test? Or what is it? How can you have a difference in the threshold/harvest constant when I think you have set the threshold as an input parameter? And what do the colors represent (there’s no color legend provided). When I see this figure and the axis labels, I though it was showing a sensitivity test but the boxplot seems to indicate it is the outcome of many simulations.

Some of the Discussion paragraphs read more like Results. For example, L. 392 mostly focuses on the paper results. I suggest broadening the Discussion out a bit more to engage with the ongoing conversations about adaptive management, monitoring, and decision-making from wildlife and fisheries papers.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

22 Sep 2021

Please refer to the "Response to Reviewers" file.

Submitted filename: Comments reply 20210922.docx

Click here for additional data file.

1 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-14753R1Heuristics for the sustainable harvest of wildlife in stochastic social-ecological systemsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Law,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please consider the following editorial comments

Line 191-2. I suggest adding some additional text on these lines “While we aimed to include as broad a range of sustainability metrics as possible, these may not be adequately representative of ecological or socio-economic objectives that are not rooted in volumes or variability of either harvest or population sizes. For example, objectives related to ecosystem function or economic equity may not be captured here” (or something similar).

Fig 3 Would you consider putting the SID scenarios in order from low to high. I was confused in my earlier comments, as I assumed SID 3-4 represented moderate initial population sizes, being in the middle (not low).  The current order is not intuitive.

Fig 4 caption. “Differences in composite score outcomes (x-axis) due to differences in environmental and evaluation factors (y-axis), with all other factors held at equivalent levels for each pairwise contrast”. Apologies, but this caption is still not clear to me. I suggest adding “across all composite metric sets” to clarify (as you mentioned in your reply to E12).

Fig S2.1.1 and S2.1.2 Some text in the Supp. Mat. explaining Figures for SID 3 and 4 might helpful, e.g., describing how lines are often not visible because…

Fig S2.4. I suggest adding an explanation of the legend. In particular, “+ Simpler”, “-More Complex”, “- Simper”, and “+More Complex” are not intuitive.

Discussion or S1 (Section on Caveats). I suggest adding future research that includes other distributions of random variables. I agree with Reviewer 1, that the normal distribution is not the most biologically appropriate approach, but arguably can be used here, at least provisionally, for this study on heuristics.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 15 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Carrie A. Holt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

2 Nov 2021

Please see the response to reviewers document.

Submitted filename: Comments reply 20211013.docx

Click here for additional data file.

4 Nov 2021

Heuristics for the sustainable harvest of wildlife in stochastic social-ecological systems

PONE-D-21-14753R2

Dear Dr. Law,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Carrie A. Holt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

11 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-14753R2

Heuristics for the sustainable harvest of wildlife in stochastic social-ecological systems

Dear Dr. Law:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Carrie A. Holt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE