Search

Decision science emphasizes necessary elements required for robust decision‐making. By incorporating decision science principles, frameworks, and tools, it has been demonstrated that decision‐makers can increase the chances of achieving conservation aims. Setting measurable objectives, clearly documenting assumptions about the impact of available actions on a specific threat or problem, explicitly considering constraints, exploring and characterizing uncertainty, and structured deliberation on trade‐offs have been identified as key elements of successful decision‐making. We quantify the extent to which these five elements were utilized in published examples of decision making in conservation in both academic and conservation practice between 2009 and 2018. We found that less than 50% of identified examples included all five elements, with differences in the degree of decision science applied across five commonly used decision support approaches: adaptive management (AM), systematic conservation planning (SCP), structured decision making (SDM), multi‐criteria decision analysis, and cost‐effectiveness analysis. Example applications that utilized the SDM framework were limited in numbers but used on average more than 50% of the five key elements we considered. Although SCP and AM constituted the majority of examples, they were more prevalent in academic studies rather than management applications. SCP and AM examples were widespread in protected area planning, threat abatement, and restoration. Strong geographic bias exists in documented conservation activities that deploy all five decision science elements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Offsetting policies have increased worldwide, utilizing a range of biodiversity metrics to compensate for development impacts. We conducted a global analysis of offset legislation by reviewing policies from 108 countries, which have voluntary offsets, or which require offsets by law. We sought to understand how well biodiversity metrics and offset currencies are documented in current policies. Where biodiversity metrics are documented we aimed to understand how metrics were scored, combined, and multiplied to create offset currencies. We found only 22 jurisdictions (from 14 countries) had guidelines documenting how biodiversity should be assessed during offsetting, representing a significant gap in the guidance available for offsets. Of the 22 guidelines, 14 (63%) documented use of aggregated currencies, eight (23%) did not aggregate biodiversity metrics into a single currency, and three (17%) did not specify either approach. Habitat type and condition, as well as area, were widely recommended across policies (>50%). Where species‐level metrics were considered, guidelines generally focused on habitat distributions rather than abundance or population metrics. The lack of consistent and clear guidance about how biodiversity should be measured in offsets reduces our ability to determine the effectiveness of offsets in compensating for development impacts long term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Species distribution models (SDMs) are increasingly proposed to support conservation decision making. However, evidence of SDMs supporting solutions for on-ground conservation problems is still scarce in the scientific literature. Here, we show that successful examples exist but are still largely hidden in the grey literature, and thus less accessible for analysis and learning. Furthermore, the decision framework within which SDMs are used is rarely made explicit. Using case studies from biological invasions, identification of critical habitats, reserve selection and translocation of endangered species, we propose that SDMs may be tailored to suit a range of decision-making contexts when used within a structured and transparent decision-making process. To construct appropriate SDMs to more effectively guide conservation actions, modellers need to better understand the decision process, and decision makers need to provide feedback to modellers regarding the actual use of SDMs to support conservation decisions. This could be facilitated by individuals or institutions playing the role of 'translators' between modellers and decision makers. We encourage species distribution modellers to get involved in real decision-making processes that will benefit from their technical input; this strategy has the potential to better bridge theory and practice, and contribute to improve both scientific knowledge and conservation outcomes.

Population modeling is now widely used in threatened species management and for predicting the impacts and benefits of competing management options. However, some argue that the results of models must be used with caution, particularly when data are limited. This is important, as even the simplest models would generally require more data (and knowledge) than are available in order to have complete confidence in model predictions. In particular, population models often suffer from a lack of data on demographic rates, spatial distribution, dispersal, management responses, habitat correlations and the magnitude of temporal variations. A number of authors identify behavioral and physiological responses of animals to anthropogenic noise. Assessing population level impacts of noise on cetacean populations is essential to understanding how noise impacts on the future viability of marine mammal populations. This assessment will be particularly challenging due to the difficulties associated with identifying a clear link between behavioral responses of animals and physiological impacts, observing and measuring changes in cetacean population parameters and the long lag-times over which population changes manifest in long-lived species. The urgency of the conservation situation for many of these socially important species demands immediate action, despite pervasive uncertainty. Adaptive management provides a coherent framework for action and continuous improvement under uncertainty. I review the elements of adaptive management and discuss the role of population modeling in that context. I discuss Bayesian approaches to enhancing inferential power and reducing uncertainty in model parameter estimation. I then review approaches to characterizing irreducible uncertainty with Monte Carlo methods and sensitivity analysis and conclude with a brief discussion of formal decision tools available to assist with decision making under severe uncertainty. I propose that urgently needed action should not be postponed due to uncertainty and that adaptive management provides a coherent framework for instituting immediate action with a plan for learning.

This paper could not have been written without the financial and organizational support from Dieter Paulmann and Jo Hastie respectively. Thanks are also due to two anonymous reviewers, whose comments on an earlier version of the manuscript greatly improved the paper. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone and do not represent those of Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA and/or any other institution or agency. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrew Wright, Leviathan Sciences, U.S.A. (marinebrit@gmail.com). Sound travels much further than light in the marine environment. As a result, marine mammals, especially cetaceans, rely heavily on sound for many important life functions, including breeding and foraging. This reliance on sound means it is quite likely that exposure to noise will have some detrimental effects on these life functions. However, there has been little application to marine mammals of the knowledge available in other species of stress responses to noise and other stressors. In this paper we begin to integrate what is known about marine mammals with the current knowledge gained in terrestrial mammals about stress physiology, specifically considering physiological and psychological context and thus also cumulative and synergistic impacts. We determined that it is reasonable to extrapolate information regarding stress responses in other species to marine mammals, because these responses are highly conserved among all species in which they have been examined to date. As a result, we determined that noise acts as a stressor to marine mammals. Furthermore, given that marine mammals will likely respond in a manner consistent with other species studied, repeated and prolonged exposures to stressors (including or induced by noise) will be problematic for marine mammals of all ages. A range of issues may arise from the extended stress response including, but not limited to, suppression of reproduction (physiologically and behaviorally), accelerated aging and sickness-like symptoms. We also determined that interpretation of a reduction in behavioral responses to noise as acclimation will be a mistake in many situations, as alternative reasons for the observed results are much more likely. We recommend that research be conducted on both stress responses and life-history consequences of noise exposure in marine mammals, while emphasizing that very careful study designs will be required. We also recommend that managers incorporate the findings presented here in decisions regarding activities that expose marine mammals to noise. In particular, the effects of cumulative and synergistic responses to stressors can be very important and should not be dismissed lightly.

This paper could not have been written without the financial and organizational support from Dieter Paulmann and Jo Hastie respectively. Thanks are also due to 2 anonymous reviewers, whose comments on an earlier version of the manuscript greatly improved the paper. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone and do not represent those of Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA and/or any other institution or agency. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrew Wright, Leviathan Sciences, U.S.A. (marinebrit@gmail.com). Consequences of extreme noise exposure are obvious and usually taken into some consideration in the management of many human activities that affect either human or animal populations. However, the more subtle effects such as masking, annoyance and changes in behavior are often overlooked, especially in animals, because these subtleties can be very difficult to detect. To better understand the possible consequences of exposure to noise, this review draws from the available information on human and animal physiology and psychology, and addresses the importance of context (including physiological and psychological state resulting from any previous stressor exposure) in assessing the true meaning of behavioral responses. The current consensus is that the physiological responses to stressors of various natures are fairly stereotyped across the range of species studied. It is thus expected that exposure to noise can also lead to a physiological stress response in other species either directly or indirectly through annoyance, a secondary stressor. In fact many consequences of exposure to noise can result in a cascade of secondary stressors such as increasing the ambiguity in received signals or causing animals to leave a resourceful area, all with potential negative if not disastrous consequences. The context in which stressors are presented was found to be important not only in affecting behavioral responses, but also in affecting the physiological and psychological responses. Young animals may be particularly sensitive to stressors for a number of reasons including the sensitivity of their still-developing brains. Additionally, short exposure to stressors may result in long-term consequences. Furthermore, physiological acclimation to noise exposure cannot be determined from apparent behavioral reactions alone due to contextual influence, and negative impacts may persist or increase as a consequence of such behavioral changes. Despite the lack of information available to managers, uncertainty analysis and modeling tools can be coupled with adaptive management strategies to support decision making and continuous improvements to managing the impacts of noise on free-ranging animals.

Effective biodiversity conservation requires robust and transparent prioritization of management actions. However, this is often hampered by a lack of spatially‐explicit data on habitat variables and empirical data on the effect of management actions. Although approaches exist that integrate structured expert elicitation (SEE) with species distribution models (SDMs) to encode species responses across habitat gradients, difficulties remain in predicting management outcomes under different settings, at a region‐wide scale when key habitat covariates are not spatially explicit. Therefore, we developed an approach to integrate SDMs with SEE to capture expert understanding of likely outcomes of management actions for individual frog species, and use this to spatially predict the effect of management actions. We demonstrate our approach across approximately 4000 wetlands in greater Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. As a measure of management effectiveness, we used the change in predicted probability of occurrence of seven frog species at wetlands 10 years after conservation actions are implemented (or not implemented). Management effect was elicited from experts under six scenarios. Individual expert estimates were aggregated using generalized linear models that were then used to spatially predict expected management effects, and a measure of uncertainty in the prediction, at all wetlands. Predicted management effect was strongly influenced by species initial probability of occurrence, with enhancing aquatic and surrounding vegetation an effective action for most species. We discuss practical challenges and recommend solutions in the integration of SDMs and SEE for the spatial prediction of management effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]