Considering science needs to deliver actionable science

Conservation practitioners, natural resource managers, and environmental stewards often seek out scientific contributions to inform decision-making. This body of science only becomes actionable when motivated by decision makers considering alternative courses of action. Many in the science community equate addressing stakeholder science needs with delivering actionable science. However, not all efforts to address science needs deliver actionable science, suggesting that the synonymous use of these two constructs (delivering actionable science and addressing science needs) is not trivial. This can be the case when such needs are conveyed by people who neglect decision makers responsible for articulating a priority management concern and for specifying how the anticipated scientific information will aid the decision-making process. We argue that the actors responsible for articulating these science needs and the process used to identify them are decisive factors in the ability to deliver actionable science, stressing the importance of examining the provenance and the determination of science needs. Guided by a desire to enhance communication and cross-literacy between scientists and decision makers, we identified categories of actors who may inappropriately declare science needs (e.g., applied scientists with and without regulatory affiliation, external influencers, reluctant decision makers, agents in place of decision makers, and boundary organization representatives). We also emphasize the importance of, and general approach to, undertaking needs assessments or gap analyses as a means to identify priority science needs. We conclude that basic stipulations to legitimize actionable science, such as the declaration of decisions of interest that motivate science needs and using a robust process to identify priority information gaps, are not always satisfied and require verification. To alleviate these shortcomings, we formulated practical suggestions for consideration by applied scientists, decision makers, research funding entities, and boundary organizations to help foster conditions that lead to science output being truly actionable.     

The need for spatially explicit quantification of benefits in invasive‐species management

Worldwide, invasive species are a leading driver of environmental change across terrestrial, marine, and freshwater environments and cost billions of dollars annually in ecological damages and economic losses. Resources limit invasive‐species control, and planning processes are needed to identify cost‐effective solutions. Thus, studies are increasingly considering spatially variable natural and socioeconomic assets (e.g., species persistence, recreational fishing) when planning the allocation of actions for invasive‐species management. There is a need to improve understanding of how such assets are considered in invasive‐species management. We reviewed over 1600 studies focused on management of invasive species, including flora and fauna. Eighty‐four of these studies were included in our final analysis because they focused on the prioritization of actions for invasive species management. Forty‐five percent (n = 38) of these studies were based on spatial optimization methods, and 35% (n = 13) accounted for spatially variable assets. Across all 84 optimization studies considered, 27% (n = 23) explicitly accounted for spatially variable assets. Based on our findings, we further explored the potential costs and benefits to invasive species management when spatially variable assets are explicitly considered or not. To include spatially variable assets in decision‐making processes that guide invasive‐species management there is a need to quantify environmental responses to invasive species and to enhance understanding of potential impacts of invasive species on different natural or socioeconomic assets. We suggest these gaps could be filled by systematic reviews, quantifying invasive species impacts on native species at different periods, and broadening sources and enhancing sharing of knowledge.     

Selection and integration of environmental impacts in the Danish transport infrastructure assessment process

Transport projects have numerous consequences for the environment, society and economy, and thus an EU Directive has stated a number of impacts that need to be assessed prior to any major intervention. This paper is set in a Danish context where the EU requirements have been adopted in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulation along with national requirements. In recent years, however, the EIAs have been criticised for an inconsistent inclusion of impacts and unclear assessment process. A selection of EIAs is for this reason reviewed and compared to the EU Directive and corresponding works in Sweden and the UK to identify potential opportunities for improvements. From the literature study, an overview table with all potential relevant impacts for transport projects is set up to assist the EIA process. For the sake of simplicity and transparency, the impacts selected from this table should, however, be further reduced in number to ensure that only the most important impacts are included in the process. To further increase simplicity and transparency in the EIA process, a novel framework for assessing different types of impacts is proposed. In this framework, a comprehensive decision support tool involving stakeholders is in focus. The framework is supplemented with a procedure for generating objectives and presenting results in an appropriate way to the many stakeholders involved. The impacts overview table and the assessment techniques are applied to a case study to illustrate the process, and finally, conclusions and perspectives for future work within the field are set out.     

Effective conservation planning of Iberian amphibians based on a regionalization of climate-driven range shifts

Amphibians are severely affected by climate change, particularly in regions where droughts prevail and water availability is scarce. The extirpation of amphibians triggers cascading effects that disrupt the trophic structure of food webs and ecosystems. Dedicated assessments of the spatial adaptive potential of amphibian species under climate change are, therefore, essential to provide guidelines for their effective conservation. I used predictions about the location of suitable climates for 27 amphibian species in the Iberian Peninsula from a baseline period to 2080 to typify shifting species’ ranges. The time at which these range types are expected to be functionally important for the adaptation of a species was used to identify full or partial refugia; areas most likely to be the home of populations moving into new climatically suitable grounds; areas most likely to receive populations after climate adaptive dispersal; and climatically unsuitable areas near suitable areas. I implemented an area prioritization protocol for each species to obtain a cohesive set of areas that would provide maximum adaptability and where management interventions should be prioritized. A connectivity assessment pinpointed where facilitative strategies would be most effective. Each of the 27 species had distinct spatial requirements but, common to all species, a bottleneck effect was predicted by 2050 because source areas for subsequent dispersal were small in extent. Three species emerged as difficult to maintain up to 2080. The Iberian northwest was predicted to capture adaptive range for most species. My study offers analytical guidelines for managers and decision makers to undertake systematic assessments on where and when to intervene to maximize the persistence of amphibian species and the functionality of the ecosystems that depend on them.     

A framework for allocating conservation resources among multiple threats and actions

Land managers decide how to allocate resources among multiple threats that can be addressed through multiple possible actions. Additionally, these actions vary in feasibility, effectiveness, and cost. We sought to provide a way to optimize resource allocation to address multiple threats when multiple management options are available, including mutually exclusive options. Formulating the decision as a combinatorial optimization problem, our framework takes as inputs the expected impact and cost of each threat for each action (including do nothing) and for each overall budget identifies the optimal action to take for each threat. We compared the optimal solution to an easy to calculate greedy algorithm approximation and a variety of plausible ranking schemes. We applied the framework to management of multiple introduced plant species in Australian alpine areas. We developed a model of invasion to predict the expected impact in 50 years for each species-action combination that accounted for each species’ current invasion state (absent, localized, widespread); arrival probability; spread rate; impact, if present, of each species; and management effectiveness of each species-action combination. We found that the recommended action for a threat changed with budget; there was no single optimal management action for each species; and considering more than one candidate action can substantially increase the management plan's overall efficiency. The approximate solution (solution ranked by marginal cost-effectiveness) performed well when the budget matched the cost of the prioritized actions, indicating that this approach would be effective if the budget was set as part of the prioritization process. The ranking schemes varied in performance, and achieving a close to optimal solution was not guaranteed. Global sensitivity analysis revealed a threat's expected impact and, to a lesser extent, management effectiveness were the most influential parameters, emphasizing the need to focus research and monitoring efforts on their quantification.     

When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research

Understanding human perspectives is critical in a range of conservation contexts, for example, in overcoming conflicts or developing projects that are acceptable to relevant stakeholders. The Q methodology is a unique semiquantitative technique used to explore human perspectives. It has been applied for decades in other disciplines and recently gained traction in conservation. This paper helps researchers assess when Q is useful for a given conservation question and what its use involves. To do so, we explained the steps necessary to conduct a Q study, from the research design to the interpretation of results. We provided recommendations to minimize biases in conducting a Q study, which can affect mostly when designing the study and collecting the data. We conducted a structured literature review of 52 studies to examine in what empirical conservation contexts Q has been used. Most studies were subnational or national cases, but some also address multinational or global questions. We found that Q has been applied to 4 broad types of conservation goals: addressing conflict, devising management alternatives, understanding policy acceptability, and critically reflecting on the values that implicitly influence research and practice. Through these applications, researchers found hidden views, understood opinions in depth and discovered points of consensus that facilitated unlocking difficult disagreements. The Q methodology has a clear procedure but is also flexible, allowing researchers explore long‐term views, or views about items other than statements, such as landscape images. We also found some inconsistencies in applying and, mainly, in reporting Q studies, whereby it was not possible to fully understand how the research was conducted or why some atypical research decisions had been taken in some studies. Accordingly, we suggest a reporting checklist.     

Multi-criteria decision-making considering risk and uncertainty in physical asset management

In this work we present a method for risk-informed decision-making in the physical asset management context whereby risk evaluation and cost-benefit analysis are considered in a common framework. The methodology uses quantitative risk measures to prioritize projects based on a combination of risk tolerance criteria, cost-benefit analysis and uncertainty reduction metrics. There is a need in the risk and asset management literature for a unified framework through which quantitative risk can be evaluated against tolerability criteria and trade-off decisions can be made between risk treatment options. The methodology uses quantitative risk measures for loss of life, loss of production and loss of property. A risk matrix is used to classify risk as intolerable, As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) or broadly tolerable. Risks in the intolerable and ALARP region require risk treatment, and risk treatment options are generated. Risk reduction benefit of the treatment options is quantified, and cost-benefit analysis is performed using discounted cashflow analysis. The Analytic Hierarchy Process is used to derive weights for prioritization criteria based on decision-maker preferences. The weights, along with prioritization criteria for risk reduction, tolerance criteria and project cost, are used to prioritize projects using the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution. The usefulness of the methodology for improved decision-making is illustrated using a numerical example.     

Emergent conservation outcomes of shared risk perception in human-wildlife systems

Human perception of risks related to economic damages caused by nearby wildlife can be transmitted through social networks. Understanding how sharing risk information within a human community alters the spatial dynamics of human-wildlife interactions has important implications for the design and implementation of effective conservation actions. We developed an agent-based model that simulates farmer livelihood decisions and activities in an agricultural landscape shared with a population of a generic wildlife species (wildlife-human interactions in shared landscapes [WHISL]). In the model, based on risk perception and economic information, farmers decide how much labor to allocate to farming and whether and where to exclude wildlife from their farms (e.g., through fencing, trenches, or vegetation thinning). In scenarios where the risk perception of farmers was strongly influenced by other farmers, exclusion of wildlife was widespread, resulting in decreased quality of wildlife habitat and frequency of wildlife damages across the landscape. When economic losses from encounters with wildlife were high, perception of risk increased and led to highly synchronous behaviors by farmers in space and time. Interactions between wildlife and farmers sometimes led to a spillover effect of wildlife damage displaced from socially and spatially connected communities to less connected neighboring farms. The WHISL model is a useful conservation-planning tool because it provides a test bed for theories and predictions about human-wildlife dynamics across a range of different agricultural landscapes.     

Priority areas for conservation of and research focused on terrestrial vertebrates

Effective conservation policies require comprehensive knowledge of biodiversity. However, knowledge shortfalls still remain, hindering possibilities to improve decision making and built such policies. During the last 2 decades, conservationists have made great efforts to allocate resources as efficiently as possible but have rarely considered the idea that if research investments are also strategically allocated, it would likely fill knowledge gaps while simultaneously improving conservation actions. Therefore, prioritizing areas where both conservation and research actions could be conducted becomes a critical endeavor that can further maximize return on investment. We used Zonation, a conservation planning tool and geographical distributions of amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles to suggest and compare priority areas for conservation and research of terrestrial vertebrates worldwide. We also evaluated the degree of human disturbance in both types of priority areas by describing the value of the human footprint index within such areas. The spatial concordance between priority conservation and research areas was low: 0.36% of the world's land area. In these areas, we found it would be possible to protect almost half of the currently threatened species and to gather information on nearly 42% of data-deficient (DD) species. We also found that 6199 protected areas worldwide are located in such places, although only 35% of them have strict conservation purposes. Areas of consensus between conservation and research areas represent an opportunity for simultaneously conserving and acquiring knowledge of threatened and DD species of vertebrates. Although the picture is not the most encouraging, joint conservation and research efforts are possible and should be fostered to save vertebrate species from our own ignorance and extinction.     

基于演练决策文本分析的决策者分类及应急决策差异研究

为研究特大地震初期的高层决策行为，通过演练模拟决策者在可得灾情信息下进行决策部署的情形，采集参演决策者独立确认的最终决策文本为样本，对比分析样本对草案修改的方式和程度，将决策者分为独立型、合作型和依赖型。结构化处理提取样本的决策任务，分析与灾情信息及决策建议的相关性。结果表明:在高层决策者中合作型人数比例最高，群组内决策差异较小，质量相对稳定；独立型决策者偏好主观判断，对灾情的关注以及草案漏洞的审查等指标明显低于其他类型；依赖型决策者在使用合理化建议的前提下易做出高质量决策，但在决策支持失误而非漏洞的条件下，能否保证决策质量有待进一步验证。