Using expert knowledge to support Endangered Species Act decision-making for data-deficient species

Many questions relevant to conservation decision-making are characterized by extreme uncertainty due to lack of empirical data and complexity of the underlying ecologic processes, leading to a rapid increase in the use of structured protocols to elicit expert knowledge. Published ecologic applications often employ a modified Delphi method, where experts provide judgments anonymously and mathematical aggregation techniques are used to combine judgments. The Sheffield elicitation framework (SHELF) differs in its behavioral approach to synthesizing individual judgments into a fully specified probability distribution for an unknown quantity. We used the SHELF protocol remotely to assess extinction risk of three subterranean aquatic species that are being considered for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. We provided experts an empirical threat assessment for each known locality over a video conference and recorded judgments on the probability of population persistence over four generations with online submission forms and R-shiny apps available through the SHELF package. Despite large uncertainty for all populations, there were key differences between species’ risk of extirpation based on spatial variation in dominant threats, local land use and management practices, and species’ microhabitat. The resulting probability distributions provided decision makers with a full picture of uncertainty that was consistent with the probabilistic nature of risk assessments. Discussion among experts during SHELF's behavioral aggregation stage clearly documented dominant threats (e.g., development, timber harvest, animal agriculture, and cave visitation) and their interactions with local cave geology and species’ habitat. Our virtual implementation of the SHELF protocol demonstrated the flexibility of the approach for conservation applications operating on budgets and time lines that can limit in-person meetings of geographically dispersed experts.     

Use of standardized methods to improve extinction-risk classification

Standardized classification methods based on quantifiable risk metrics are critical for evaluating extinction threats because they increase objectivity, consistency, and transparency of listing decisions. Yet, in the United States, neither federal nor state agencies use standardized methods for listing species for legal protection, which could put listing decisions at odds with the magnitude of the risk. We used a recently developed set of quantitative risk metrics for California herpetofauna as a case study to highlight discrepancies in listing decisions made without standardized methods. We also combined such quantitative metrics with classification tree analysis to attempt to increase the transparency of previous listing decisions by identifying the criteria that had inherently been given the most weight. Federally listed herpetofauna in California scored significantly higher on the risk-metric spectrum than those not federally listed, whereas state-listed species did not score any higher than species that were not state listed. Based on classification trees, state endemism was the most important predictor of listing status at the state level and distribution trend (decline in a species’ range size) and population trend (decline in a species’ abundance at localized sites) were the most important predictors at the federal level. Our results emphasize the need for governing bodies to adopt standardized methods for assessing conservation risk that are based on quantitative criteria. Such methods allow decision makers to identify criteria inherently given the most weight in determining listing status, thus increasing the transparency of previous listing decisions, and produce an unbiased comparison of conservation threat across all species to promote consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness of the listing process.     

The Need to Rationalize and Prioritize Threatening Processes Used to Determine Threat Status in the IUCN Red List

Abstract: Thorough evaluation has made the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List the most widely used and accepted authority on the conservation status of biodiversity. Although the system used to determine risk of extinction is rigorously and objectively applied, the list of threatening processes affecting a species is far more subjectively determined and has not had adequate review. I reviewed the threats listed in the IUCN Red List for randomly selected groups within the three most threatened orders of mammals: Artiodactyla, Carnivora, and Primates. These groups are taxonomically related and often ecologically similar, so I expected they would suffer relatively similar threats. Hominoid primates and all other terrestrial fauna faced similar threats, except for bovine artiodactyls and large, predatory carnivores, which faced significantly different threats. Although the status of bovines and hominoids and the number of threats affecting them were correlated, this was not the case for large carnivores. Most notable, however, was the great variation in the threats affecting individual members of each group. For example, the endangered European bison (Bison bonasus) has no threatening processes listed for it, and the lion (Panthera leo) is the only large predator listed as threatened with extinction by civil war. Some threatening processes appear spurious for the conservation of the species, whereas other seemingly important factors are not recorded as threats. The subjective nature of listing threatening processes, via expert opinion, results in substantial biases that may be allayed by independent peer review, use of technical manuals, consensus among multiple assessors, incorporation of probability modeling via decision‐tree analysis, and adequate coordination among evaluators. The primary focus should be on species‐level threats rather than population‐level threats because the IUCN Red List is a global assessment and smaller‐scale threats are more appropriate for national status assessments. Until conservationists agree on the threats affecting species and their relative importance, conservation action and success will be hampered by scattering scarce resources too widely and often by implementing conflicting strategies.     

Factors associated with preemptive conservation under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

In recent decades, there has been an increasing emphasis on proactive efforts to conserve species being considered for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) before they are listed (i.e., preemptive conservation). These efforts, which depend on voluntary actions by public and private land managers across the species’ range, aim to conserve species while avoiding regulatory costs associated with ESA listing. We collected data for a set of social, economic, environmental, and institutional factors that we hypothesized would influence voluntary decisions to promote or inhibit preemptive conservation of species under consideration for ESA listing. We used logistic regression to estimate the association of these factors with preemptive conservation outcomes based on data for a set of species that entered the ESA listing process and were either officially listed (n = 314) or preemptively conserved (n = 73) from 1996 to 2018. Factors significantly associated with precluded listing due to preemptive conservation included high baseline conservation status, low proportion of private land across the species’ range, small total range size, exposure to specific types of threats, and species’ range extending over several states. These results highlight strategies that can help improve conservation outcomes, such as allocating resources for imperiled species earlier in the listing process, addressing specific threats, and expanding incentives and coordination mechanisms for conservation on private lands.     

Toward reassessing data‐deficient species

One in 6 species (13,465 species) on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List is classified as data deficient due to lack of information on their taxonomy, population status, or impact of threats. Despite the chance that many are at high risk of extinction, data‐deficient species are typically excluded from global and local conservation priorities, as well as funding schemes. The number of data‐deficient species will greatly increase as the IUCN Red List becomes more inclusive of poorly known and speciose groups. A strategic approach is urgently needed to enhance the conservation value of data‐deficient assessments. To develop this, we reviewed 2879 data‐deficient assessments in 6 animal groups and identified 8 main justifications for assigning data‐deficient status (type series, few records, old records, uncertain provenance, uncertain population status or distribution, uncertain threats, taxonomic uncertainty, and new species). Assigning a consistent set of justification tags (i.e., consistent assignment to assessment justifications) to species classified as data deficient is a simple way to achieve more strategic assessments. Such tags would clarify the causes of data deficiency; facilitate the prediction of extinction risk; facilitate comparisons of data deficiency among taxonomic groups; and help prioritize species for reassessment. With renewed efforts, it could be straightforward to prevent thousands of data‐deficient species slipping unnoticed toward extinction.     

Structuring Decisions for Managing Threatened and Endangered Species in a Changing Climate

The management of endangered species under climate change is a challenging and often controversial task that incorporates input from a variety of different environmental, economic, social, and political interests. Yet many listing and recovery decisions for endangered species unfold on an ad hoc basis without reference to decision‐aiding approaches that can improve the quality of management choices. Unlike many treatments of this issue, which consider endangered species management a science‐based problem, we suggest that a clear decision‐making process is equally necessary. In the face of new threats due to climate change, managers’ choices about endangered species require closely linked analyses and deliberations that identify key objectives and develop measurable attributes, generate and compare management alternatives, estimate expected consequences and key sources of uncertainty, and clarify trade‐offs across different dimensions of value. Several recent cases of endangered species conservation decisions illustrate our proposed decision‐focused approach, including Gulf of Maine Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) recovery framework development, Cultus Lake sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) management, and Upper Columbia River white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) recovery planning. Estructuración de Decisiones para Manejar Especies Amenazadas y en Peligro en un Clima Cambiante     

Improving species status assessments under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and implications for multispecies conservation challenges worldwide

Despite its successes, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) has proven challenging to implement due to funding limitations, workload backlog, and other problems. As threats to species survival intensify and as more species come under threat, the need for the ESA and similar conservation laws and policies in other countries to function efficiently has grown. Attempts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to streamline ESA decisions include multispecies recovery plans and habitat conservation plans. We address species status assessment (SSA), a USFWS process to inform ESA decisions from listing to recovery, within the context of multispecies and ecosystem planning. Although existing SSAs have a single-species focus, ecosystem-based research can efficiently inform multiple SSAs within a region and provide a foundation for transition to multispecies SSAs in the future. We considered at-risk grassland species and ecosystems within the southeastern United States, where a disproportionate number of rare and endemic species are associated with grasslands. To initiate our ecosystem-based approach, we used a combined literature-based and structured World Café workshop format to identify science needs for SSAs. Discussions concentrated on 5 categories of threats to grassland species and ecosystems, consistent with recommendations to make shared threats a focus of planning under the ESA: (1) habitat loss, fragmentation, and disruption of functional connectivity; (2) climate change; (3) altered disturbance regimes; (4) invasive species; and (5) localized impacts. For each threat, workshop participants identified science and information needs, including database availability, research priorities, and modeling and mapping needs. Grouping species by habitat and shared threats can make the SSA process and other planning processes for conservation of at-risk species worldwide more efficient and useful. We found a combination of literature review and structured discussion effective for identifying the scientific information and analysis needed to support the development of multiple SSAs. Article impact statement: Species status assessments can be improved by an ecosystem-based approach that groups imperiled species by shared habitats and threats.     

Incorporating Climate and Ocean Change into Extinction Risk Assessments for 82 Coral Species

Many marine invertebrate species facing potential extinction have uncertain taxonomies and poorly known demographic and ecological traits. Uncertainties are compounded when potential extinction drivers are climate and ocean changes whose effects on even widespread and abundant species are only partially understood. The U.S. Endangered Species Act mandates conservation management decisions founded on the extinction risk to species based on the best available science at the time of consideration—requiring prompt action rather than awaiting better information. We developed an expert‐opinion threat‐based approach that entails a structured voting system to assess extinction risk from climate and ocean changes and other threats to 82 coral species for which population status and threat response information was limited. Such methods are urgently needed because constrained budgets and manpower will continue to hinder the availability of desired data for many potentially vulnerable marine species. Significant species‐specific information gaps and uncertainties precluded quantitative assessments of habitat loss or population declines and necessitated increased reliance on demographic characteristics and threat vulnerabilities at genus or family levels. Adapting some methods (e.g., a structured voting system) used during other assessments and developing some new approaches (e.g., integrated assessment of threats and demographic characteristics), we rated the importance of threats contributing to coral extinction risk and assessed those threats against population status and trend information to evaluate each species’ extinction risk over the 21st century. This qualitative assessment resulted in a ranking with an uncertainty range for each species according to their estimated likelihood of extinction. We offer guidance on approaches for future biological extinction risk assessments, especially in cases of data‐limited species likely to be affected by global‐scale threats. Incorporación del Cambio Climático y Oceánico en Estudios de Riesgo de Extinción para 82 Especies de Coral     

Species Listing under Canada's Species at Risk Act

Abstract: In a preliminary analysis of listing decisions under Canada's Species at Risk Act (SARA), Mooers et al. (2007) demonstrated an apparent bias against marine and northern species. As a follow‐up, we expanded the set of potential explanatory variables, including information on jurisdictional and administrative elements of the listing process, and considered an additional 16 species recommended for listing by SARA's scientific advisory committee as of 15 August 2006. Logistic model selection based on Akaike differences suggested that species were less likely to be listed if they were harvested or had commercial or subsistence harvesting as an explicitly identified threat; had Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) as a responsible authority (RA); were located in Canada's north generally, and especially in Nunavut; or were found mostly or entirely within Canada. Subsequent model validation with an independent set of 50 species for which a listing decision was handed down in December 2007 showed an overall misclassification rate of <0.10, indicating reasonable predictive power. In light of these results, we recommend that RAs under SARA adopt a two‐track listing approach to address problems of delays arising from extended consultations and the inconsistent use by the RAs of socioeconomic analysis; consider revising SARA so that socioeconomic analysis occurs during decisions about protecting species and their habitats rather than at the listing stage; and maintain an integrated database with information on species’ biology, threats, and agency actions to enable future evaluation of SARA's impact.     

Hybridization,agency discretion,and implementation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that the “best available scientific and commercial data” be used to protect imperiled species from extinction and preserve biodiversity. However, it does not provide specific guidance on how to apply this mandate. Scientific data can be uncertain and controversial, particularly regarding species delineation and hybridization issues. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had an evolving hybrid policy to guide protection decisions for individuals of hybrid origin. Currently, this policy is in limbo because it resulted in several controversial conservation decisions in the past. Biologists from FWS must interpret and apply the best available science to their recommendations and likely use considerable discretion in making recommendations for what species to list, how to define those species, and how to recover them. We used semistructured interviews to collect data on FWS biologists’ use of discretion to make recommendations for listed species with hybridization issues. These biologists had a large amount of discretion to determine the best available science and how to interpret it but generally deferred to the scientific consensus on the taxonomic status of an organism. Respondents viewed hybridization primarily as a problem in the context of the ESA, although biologists who had experience with hybridization issues were more likely to describe it in more nuanced terms. Many interviewees expressed a desire to continue the current case‐by‐case approach for handling hybridization issues, but some wanted more guidance on procedures (i.e., a “flexible” hybrid policy). Field‐level information can provide critical insight into which policies are working (or not working) and why. The FWS biologists’ we interviewed had a high level of discretion, which greatly influenced ESA implementation, particularly in the context of hybridization.     

A Retrospective Evaluation of the Global Decline of Carnivores and Ungulates

Assessing temporal changes in species extinction risk is necessary for measuring conservation success or failure and for directing conservation resources toward species or regions that would benefit most. Yet, there is no long‐term picture of genuine change that allows one to associate species extinction risk trends with drivers of change or conservation actions. Through a review of 40 years of IUCN‐related literature sources on species conservation status (e.g., action plans, red‐data books), we assigned retrospective red‐list categories to the world's carnivores and ungulates (2 groups with relatively long generation times) to examine how their extinction risk has changed since the 1970s. We then aggregated species’ categories to calculate a global trend in their extinction risk over time. A decline in the conservation status of carnivores and ungulates was underway 40 years ago and has since accelerated. One quarter of all species (n = 498) moved one or more categories closer to extinction globally, while almost half of the species moved closer to extinction in Southeast Asia. The conservation status of some species improved (toward less threatened categories), but for each species that improved in status 8 deteriorated. The status of large‐bodied species, particularly those above 100 kg (including many iconic taxa), deteriorated significantly more than small‐bodied species (below 10 kg). The trends we found are likely related to geopolitical events (such as the collapse of Soviet Union), international regulations (such as CITES), shifting cultural values, and natural resource exploitation (e.g., in Southeast Asia). Retrospective assessments of global species extinction risk reduce the risk of a shifting baseline syndrome, which can affect decisions on the desirable conservation status of species. Such assessments can help conservationists identify which conservation policies and strategies are or are not helping safeguard biodiversity and thus can improve future strategies. Una Evaluación Retrospectiva de la Declinación Global de Carnívoros y Ungulados     

Quantitative tools for implementing the new definition of significant portion of the range in the U.S. Endangered Species Act

In 2014, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service announced a new policy interpretation for the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). According to the act, a species must be listed as threatened or endangered if it is determined to be threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range (SPR). The 2014 policy seeks to provide consistency by establishing that a portion of the range should be considered significant if the associated individuals’ “removal would cause the entire species to become endangered or threatened.” We reviewed 20 quantitative techniques used to assess whether a portion of a species’ range is significant according to the new guidance. Our assessments are based on the 3R criteria—redundancy (i.e., buffering from catastrophe), resiliency (i.e., ability to withstand stochasticity), and representation (i.e., ability to evolve)—that the FWS uses to determine if a species merits listing. We identified data needs for each quantitative technique and considered which methods could be implemented given the data limitations typical of rare species. We also identified proxies for the 3Rs that may be used with limited data. To assess potential data availability, we evaluated 7 example species by accessing data in their species status assessments, which document all the information used during a listing decision. In all species, an SPR could be evaluated with at least one metric for each of the 3Rs robustly or with substantial assumptions. Resiliency assessments appeared most constrained by limited data, and many species lacked information on connectivity between subpopulations, genetic variation, and spatial variability in vital rates. These data gaps will likely make SPR assessments for species with complex life histories or that cross national boundaries difficult. Although we reviewed techniques for the ESA, other countries require identification of significant areas and could benefit from this research.     

Testing Decision Rules for Categorizing Species’ Extinction Risk to Help Develop Quantitative Listing Criteria for the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Lack of guidance for interpreting the definitions of endangered and threatened in the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) has resulted in case‐by‐case decision making leaving the process vulnerable to being considered arbitrary or capricious. Adopting quantitative decision rules would remedy this but requires the agency to specify the relative urgency concerning extinction events over time, cutoff risk values corresponding to different levels of protection, and the importance given to different types of listing errors. We tested the performance of 3 sets of decision rules that use alternative functions for weighting the relative urgency of future extinction events: a threshold rule set, which uses a decision rule of x% probability of extinction over y years; a concave rule set, where the relative importance of future extinction events declines exponentially over time; and a shoulder rule set that uses a sigmoid shape function, where relative importance declines slowly at first and then more rapidly. We obtained decision cutoffs by interviewing several biologists and then emulated the listing process with simulations that covered a range of extinction risks typical of ESA listing decisions. We evaluated performance of the decision rules under different data quantities and qualities on the basis of the relative importance of misclassification errors. Although there was little difference between the performance of alternative decision rules for correct listings, the distribution of misclassifications differed depending on the function used. Misclassifications for the threshold and concave listing criteria resulted in more overprotection errors, particularly as uncertainty increased, whereas errors for the shoulder listing criteria were more symmetrical. We developed and tested the framework for quantitative decision rules for listing species under the U.S. ESA. If policy values can be agreed on, use of this framework would improve the implementation of the ESA by increasing transparency and consistency. Evaluando Reglas de Decisión para Categorizar el Riesgo de Extinción de Especies con el Fin de Desarrollar de Criterios Cuantitativos de Alistamiento en el Acta de Especies en Peligro de los EE. UU.     

Assigning trend-based conservation status despite high uncertainty

Estimates of temporal trends in species’ occupancy are essential for conservation policy and planning, but limitations to the data and models often result in very high trend uncertainty. A critical source of uncertainty that degrades scientific credibility is that caused by disagreement among studies or models. Modelers are aware of this uncertainty but usually only partially estimate it and communicate it to decision makers. At the same time, there is growing awareness that full disclosure of uncertainty is critical for effective translation of science into policies and plans. But what are the most effective approaches to estimating uncertainty and communicating uncertainty to decision makers? We explored how alternative approaches to estimating and communicating uncertainty of species trends could affect decisions concerning conservation status of freshwater fishes. We used ensemble models to propagate trend uncertainty within and among models and communicated this uncertainty with categorical distributions of trend direction and magnitude. All approaches were designed to fit an established decision-making system used to assign species conservation status by the New Zealand government. Our results showed how approaches that failed to fully disclose uncertainty, while simplifying the information presented, could hamper species conservation or lead to ineffective decisions. We recommend an approach that was recently used effectively to communicate trend uncertainty to a panel responsible for setting the conservation status of New Zealand's freshwater fishes.     

The contribution of policy,law, management,research, and advocacy failings to the recent extinctions of three Australian vertebrate species

Extinctions typically have ecological drivers, such as habitat loss. However, extinction events are also influenced by policy and management settings that may be antithetical to biodiversity conservation, inadequate to prevent extinction, insufficiently resourced, or poorly implemented. Three endemic Australian vertebrate species—the Christmas Island pipistrelle (Pipistrellus murrayi), Bramble Cay melomys (Melomys rubicola), and Christmas Island forest skink (Emoia nativitatis)—became extinct from 2009 to 2014. All 3 extinctions were predictable and probably preventable. We sought to identify the policy, management, research, and other shortcomings that contributed to their extinctions or failed to prevent them. These included a lack within national environmental legislation and policy of explicit commitment to the prevention of avoidable extinctions, lack of explicit accountability, inadequate resources for conservation (particularly for species not considered charismatic or not of high taxonomic distinctiveness), inadequate biosecurity, a slow and inadequate process for listing species as threatened, recovery planning that failed to consider the need for emergency response, inability of researchers to identify major threatening factors, lack of public engagement and involvement in conservation decisions, and limited advocacy. From these 3 cases, we recommend: environmental policy explicitly seeks to prevent extinction of any species and provides a clear chain of accountability and an explicit requirement for public inquiry following any extinction; implementation of a timely and comprehensive process for listing species as threatened and for recovery planning; reservation alone not be assumed sufficient to maintain species; enhancement of biosecurity measures; allocation of sufficient resources to undertake actions necessary to prevent extinction; monitoring be considered a pivotal component of the conservation response; research provides timely identification of factors responsible for decline and of the risk of extinction; effective dissemination of research results; advocacy by an informed public for the recovery of threatened species; and public involvement in governance of the recovery process. These recommendations should be applicable broadly to reduce the likelihood and incidence of extinctions.     

Assessing conservation status with extensive but low-resolution data: Application of frequentist and Bayesian models to endangered Athabasca River rainbow trout

Use of extensive but low-resolution abundance data is common in the assessment of species at-risk status based on quantitative decline criteria under International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and national endangered species legislation. Such data can be problematic for 3 reasons. First, statistical power to reject the null hypothesis of no change is often low because of small sample size and high sampling uncertainty leading to a high frequency of type II errors. Second, range-wide assessments composed of multiple site-specific observations do not effectively weight site-specific trends into global trends. Third, uncertainty in site-specific temporal trends and relative abundance are not propagated at the appropriate spatial scale. A common result is the propensity to underestimate the magnitude of declines and therefore fail to identify the appropriate at-risk status for a species. We used 3 statistical approaches, from simple to more complex, to estimate temporal decline rates for a designatable unit (DU) of rainbow trout in the Athabasca River watershed in western Canada. This DU is considered a native species for purposes of listing because of its genetic composition characterized as >0.95 indigenous origin in the face of continuing introgressive hybridization with introduced populations in the watershed. Analysis of abundance trends from 57 time series with a fixed-effects model identified 33 sites with negative trends, but only 2 were statistically significant. By contrast, a hierarchical linear mixed model weighted by site-specific abundance provided a DU-wide decline estimate of 16.4% per year and a 3-generation decline of 93.2%. A hierarchical Bayesian mixed model yielded a similar 3-generation decline trend of 91.3% and the posterior distribution showed that the estimate had a >99% probability of exceeding thresholds for an endangered listing. We conclude that the Bayesian approach was the most useful because it provided a probabilistic statement of threshold exceedance in support of an at-risk status recommendation.     

Predicting Recovery Criteria for Threatened and Endangered Plant Species on the Basis of Past Abundances and Biological Traits

Recovery plans for species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act are required to specify measurable criteria that can be used to determine when the species can be delisted. For the 642 listed endangered and threatened plant species that have recovery plans, we applied recursive partitioning methods to test whether the number of individuals or populations required for delisting can be predicted on the basis of distributional and biological traits, previous abundance at multiple time steps, or a combination of traits and previous abundances. We also tested listing status (threatened or endangered) and the year the recovery plan was written as predictors of recovery criteria. We analyzed separately recovery criteria that were stated as number of populations and as number of individuals (population‐based and individual‐based criteria, respectively). Previous abundances alone were relatively good predictors of population‐based recovery criteria. Fewer populations, but a greater proportion of historically known populations, were required to delist species that had few populations at listing compared with species that had more populations at listing. Previous abundances were also good predictors of individual‐based delisting criteria when models included both abundances and traits. The physiographic division in which the species occur was also a good predictor of individual‐based criteria. Our results suggest managers are relying on previous abundances and patterns of decline as guidelines for setting recovery criteria. This may be justifiable in that previous abundances inform managers of the effects of both intrinsic traits and extrinsic threats that interact and determine extinction risk. Predicción de Criterios de Recuperación para Especies de Plantas en Peligro y Amenazadas con Base en Abundancias Pasadas y Atributos Biológicos     

Balancing Emotion and Cognition: a Case for Decision Aiding in Conservation Efforts

Abstract: Despite advances in the quality of participatory decision making for conservation, many current efforts still suffer from an inability to bridge the gap between science and policy. Judgment and decision‐making research suggests this gap may result from a person's reliance on affect‐based shortcuts in complex decision contexts. I examined the results from 3 experiments that demonstrate how affect (i.e., the instantaneous reaction one has to a stimulus) influences individual judgments in these contexts and identified techniques from the decision‐aiding literature that help encourage a balance between affect‐based emotion and cognition in complex decision processes. In the first study, subjects displayed a lack of focus on their stated conservation objectives and made decisions that reflected their initial affective impressions. Value‐focused approaches may help individuals incorporate all the decision‐relevant objectives by making the technical and value‐based objectives more salient. In the second study, subjects displayed a lack of focus on statistical risk and again made affect‐based decisions. Trade‐off techniques may help individuals incorporate relevant technical data, even when it conflicts with their initial affective impressions or other value‐based objectives. In the third study, subjects displayed a lack of trust in decision‐making authorities when the decision involved a negatively affect‐rich outcome (i.e., a loss). Identifying shared salient values and increasing procedural fairness may help build social trust in both decision‐making authorities and the decision process.     

Six Common Mistakes in Conservation Priority Setting

A vast number of prioritization schemes have been developed to help conservation navigate tough decisions about the allocation of finite resources. However, the application of quantitative approaches to setting priorities in conservation frequently includes mistakes that can undermine their authors’ intention to be more rigorous and scientific in the way priorities are established and resources allocated. Drawing on well‐established principles of decision science, we highlight 6 mistakes commonly associated with setting priorities for conservation: not acknowledging conservation plans are prioritizations; trying to solve an ill‐defined problem; not prioritizing actions; arbitrariness; hidden value judgments; and not acknowledging risk of failure. We explain these mistakes and offer a path to help conservation planners avoid making the same mistakes in future prioritizations. Seis Errores Comunes en la Definición de Prioridades de Conservación     

Decision Making in a Human Population Living Sustainably

Abstract: The Tiwi people of northern Australia have managed natural resources continuously for 6000–8000 years. Tiwi management objectives and outcomes may reflect how they gather information about the environment. We qualitatively analyzed Tiwi documents and management techniques to examine the relation between the social and physical environment of decision makers and their decision‐making strategies. We hypothesized that principles of bounded rationality, namely, the use of efficient rules to navigate complex decision problems, explain how Tiwi managers use simple decision strategies (i.e., heuristics) to make robust decisions. Tiwi natural resource managers reduced complexity in decision making through a process that gathers incomplete and uncertain information to quickly guide decisions toward effective outcomes. They used management feedback to validate decisions through an information loop that resulted in long‐term sustainability of environmental use. We examined the Tiwi decision‐making processes relative to management of barramundi (Lates calcarifer) fisheries and contrasted their management with the state government's management of barramundi. Decisions that enhanced the status of individual people and their attainment of aspiration levels resulted in reliable resource availability for Tiwi consumers. Different decision processes adopted by the state for management of barramundi may not secure similarly sustainable outcomes.