A typology of time‐scale mismatches and behavioral interventions to diagnose and solve conservation problems

Ecological systems often operate on time scales significantly longer or shorter than the time scales typical of human decision making, which causes substantial difficulty for conservation and management in socioecological systems. For example, invasive species may move faster than humans can diagnose problems and initiate solutions, and climate systems may exhibit long‐term inertia and short‐term fluctuations that obscure learning about the efficacy of management efforts in many ecological systems. We adopted a management‐decision framework that distinguishes decision makers within public institutions from individual actors within the social system, calls attention to the ways socioecological systems respond to decision makers’ actions, and notes institutional learning that accrues from observing these responses. We used this framework, along with insights from bedeviling conservation problems, to create a typology that identifies problematic time‐scale mismatches occurring between individual decision makers in public institutions and between individual actors in the social or ecological system. We also considered solutions that involve modifying human perception and behavior at the individual level as a means of resolving these problematic mismatches. The potential solutions are derived from the behavioral economics and psychology literature on temporal challenges in decision making, such as the human tendency to discount future outcomes at irrationally high rates. These solutions range from framing environmental decisions to enhance the salience of long‐term consequences, to using structured decision processes that make time scales of actions and consequences more explicit, to structural solutions aimed at altering the consequences of short‐sighted behavior to make it less appealing. Additional application of these tools and long‐term evaluation measures that assess not just behavioral changes but also associated changes in ecological systems are needed.     

Integration of ecological–biological thresholds in conservation decision making

In the Anthropocene, coupled human and natural systems dominate and only a few natural systems remain relatively unaffected by human influence. On the one hand, conservation criteria based on areas of minimal human impact are not relevant to much of the biosphere. On the other hand, conservation criteria based on economic factors are problematic with respect to their ability to arrive at operational indicators of well‐being that can be applied in practice over multiple generations. Coupled human and natural systems are subject to economic development which, under current management structures, tends to affect natural systems and cross planetary boundaries. Hence, designing and applying conservation criteria applicable in real‐world systems where human and natural systems need to interact and sustainably coexist is essential. By recognizing the criticality of satisfying basic needs as well as the great uncertainty over the needs and preferences of future generations, we sought to incorporate conservation criteria based on minimal human impact into economic evaluation. These criteria require the conservation of environmental conditions such that the opportunity for intergenerational welfare optimization is maintained. Toward this end, we propose the integration of ecological–biological thresholds into decision making and use as an example the planetary‐boundaries approach. Both conservation scientists and economists must be involved in defining operational ecological–biological thresholds that can be incorporated into economic thinking and reflect the objectives of conservation, sustainability, and intergenerational welfare optimization.     

A framework to guide the conservation of species hybrids based on ethical and ecological considerations

Species hybrids have long been undervalued in conservation and are often perceived as a threat to pure species. Recently, the conservation value of hybrids, especially those of natural origin, has gained recognition; however, hybrid conservation remains controversial. We reviewed hybrid management policies, including laws, regulations, and management protocols, from a variety of organizations, primarily in Canada and the United States. We found that many policies are based on limited ethical and ecological considerations and provide little opportunity for hybrid conservation. In most policies, hybrids are either unrepresented or considered a threat to conservation goals. This is problematic because our review of the hybrid conservation literature identified many ethical and ecological considerations relevant to determining the conservation value of a hybrid, all of which are management‐context specific. We also noted a lack of discussion of the ethical considerations regarding hybrid conservation. Based on these findings, we created a policy framework outlining situations in which hybrids could be eligible for conservation in Canada and the United States. The framework comprises a decision tree that helps users determine whether a hybrid should be eligible for conservation based on multiple ecological and ethical considerations. The framework may be applied to any hybrid and is flexible in that it accommodates context‐specific management by allowing different options if a hybrid is a threat to or could benefit conservation goals. The framework can inform policy makers and conservationists in decision‐making processes regarding hybrid conservation by providing a systematic set of decision criteria and guidance on additional criteria to be considered in cases of uncertainty, and it fills a policy gap that limits current hybrid management.     

Improving supplementary feeding in species conservation

Supplementary feeding is often a knee‐jerk reaction to population declines, and its application is not critically evaluated, leading to polarized views among managers on its usefulness. Here, we advocate a more strategic approach to supplementary feeding so that the choice to use it is clearly justified over, or in combination with, other management actions and the predicted consequences are then critically assessed following implementation. We propose combining methods from a set of specialist disciplines that will allow critical evaluation of the need, benefit, and risks of food supplementation. Through the use of nutritional ecology, population ecology, and structured decision making, conservation managers can make better choices about what and how to feed by estimating consequences on population recovery across a range of possible actions. This structured approach also informs targeted monitoring and more clearly allows supplementary feeding to be integrated in recovery plans and reduces the risk of inefficient decisions. In New Zealand, managers of the endangered Hihi (Notiomystis cincta) often rely on supplementary feeding to support reintroduced populations. On Kapiti island the reintroduced Hihi population has responded well to food supplementation, but the logistics of providing an increasing demand recently outstretched management capacity. To decide whether and how the feeding regime should be revised, managers used a structured decision making approach informed by population responses to alternative feeding regimes. The decision was made to reduce the spatial distribution of feeders and invest saved time in increasing volume of food delivered into a smaller core area. The approach used allowed a transparent and defendable management decision in regard to supplementary feeding, reflecting the multiple objectives of managers and their priorities.     

Incorporating Uncertainty of Management Costs in Sensitivity Analyses of Matrix Population Models

The importance of accounting for economic costs when making environmental‐management decisions subject to resource constraints has been increasingly recognized in recent years. In contrast, uncertainty associated with such costs has often been ignored. We developed a method, on the basis of economic theory, that accounts for the uncertainty in population‐management decisions. We considered the case where, rather than taking fixed values, model parameters are random variables that represent the situation when parameters are not precisely known. Hence, the outcome is not precisely known either. Instead of maximizing the expected outcome, we maximized the probability of obtaining an outcome above a threshold of acceptability. We derived explicit analytical expressions for the optimal allocation and its associated probability, as a function of the threshold of acceptability, where the model parameters were distributed according to normal and uniform distributions. To illustrate our approach we revisited a previous study that incorporated cost‐efficiency analyses in management decisions that were based on perturbation analyses of matrix population models. Incorporating derivations from this study into our framework, we extended the model to address potential uncertainties. We then applied these results to 2 case studies: management of a Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) population and conservation of an olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) population. For low aspirations, that is, when the threshold of acceptability is relatively low, the optimal strategy was obtained by diversifying the allocation of funds. Conversely, for high aspirations, the budget was directed toward management actions with the highest potential effect on the population. The exact optimal allocation was sensitive to the choice of uncertainty model. Our results highlight the importance of accounting for uncertainty when making decisions and suggest that more effort should be placed on understanding the distributional characteristics of such uncertainty. Our approach provides a tool to improve decision making.     

Progress in the ecology and conservation of giant pandas

Giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) conservation is a possible success story in the making. If extinction of this iconic endangered species can be avoided, the species will become a showcase program for the Chinese government and its collaborators. We reviewed the major advancements in ecological science for the giant panda, examining how these advancements have contributed to panda conservation. Pandas’ morphological and behavioral adaptations to a diet of bamboo, which bear strong influence on movement ecology, have been well studied, providing knowledge to guide management actions ranging from reserve design to climate change mitigation. Foraging ecology has also provided essential information used in the creation of landscape models of panda habitat. Because habitat loss and fragmentation are major drivers of the panda population decline, efforts have been made to help identify core habitat areas, establish where habitat corridors are needed, and prioritize areas for protection and restoration. Thus, habitat models have provided guidance for the Chinese governments’ creation of 67 protected areas. Behavioral research has revealed a complex and efficient communication system and documented the need for protection of habitat that serves as a communication platform for bringing the sexes together for mating. Further research shows that den sites in old‐growth forests may be a limiting resource, indicating potential value in providing alternative den sites for rearing offspring. Advancements in molecular ecology have been revolutionary and have been applied to population census, determining population structure and genetic diversity, evaluating connectivity following habitat fragmentation, and understanding dispersal patterns. These advancements form a foundation for increasing the application of adaptive management approaches to move panda conservation forward more rapidly. Although the Chinese government has made great progress in setting aside protected areas, future emphasis will be improved management of pandas and their habitat.     

Expert judgment and uncertainty regarding the protection of imperiled species

Decisions concerning the appropriate listing status of species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be controversial even among conservationists. These decisions may determine whether a species persists in the near term and have long‐lasting social and political ramifications. Given the ESA's mandate that such decisions be based on the best available science, it is important to examine what factors contribute to experts’ judgments concerning the listing of species. We examined how a variety of factors (such as risk perception, value orientations, and norms) influenced experts’ judgments concerning the appropriate listing status of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Experts were invited to complete an online survey examining their perceptions of the threats grizzly bears face and their listing recommendation. Although experts’ assessments of the threats to this species were strongly correlated with their recommendations for listing status, this relationship did not exist when other cognitive factors were included in the model. Specifically, values related to human use of wildlife and norms (i.e., a respondent's expectation of peers’ assessments) were most influential in listing status recommendations. These results suggest that experts’ decisions about listing, like all human decisions, are subject to the use of heuristics (i.e., decision shortcuts). An understanding of how heuristics and related biases affect decisions under uncertainty can help inform decision making about threatened and endangered species and may be useful in designing effective processes for protection of imperiled species.     

Establishing IUCN Red List Criteria for Threatened Ecosystems

Abstract: The potential for conservation of individual species has been greatly advanced by the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) development of objective, repeatable, and transparent criteria for assessing extinction risk that explicitly separate risk assessment from priority setting. At the IV World Conservation Congress in 2008, the process began to develop and implement comparable global standards for ecosystems. A working group established by the IUCN has begun formulating a system of quantitative categories and criteria, analogous to those used for species, for assigning levels of threat to ecosystems at local, regional, and global levels. A final system will require definitions of ecosystems; quantification of ecosystem status; identification of the stages of degradation and loss of ecosystems; proxy measures of risk (criteria); classification thresholds for these criteria; and standardized methods for performing assessments. The system will need to reflect the degree and rate of change in an ecosystem's extent, composition, structure, and function, and have its conceptual roots in ecological theory and empirical research. On the basis of these requirements and the hypothesis that ecosystem risk is a function of the risk of its component species, we propose a set of four criteria: recent declines in distribution or ecological function, historical total loss in distribution or ecological function, small distribution combined with decline, or very small distribution. Most work has focused on terrestrial ecosystems, but comparable thresholds and criteria for freshwater and marine ecosystems are also needed. These are the first steps in an international consultation process that will lead to a unified proposal to be presented at the next World Conservation Congress in 2012.     

Clarifying values,risk perceptions,and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management

Decision makers and researchers recognize the need to effectively confront the social dimensions and conflicts inherent to invasive species research and management. Yet, despite numerous contentious situations that have arisen, no systematic evaluation of the literature has examined the commonalities in the patterns and types of these emergent social issues. Using social and ecological keywords, we reviewed trends in the social dimensions of invasive species research and management and the sources and potential solutions to problems and conflicts that arise around invasive species. We integrated components of cognitive hierarchy theory and risk perceptions theory to provide a conceptual framework to identify, distinguish, and provide understanding of the driving factors underlying disputes associated with invasive species. In the ISI Web of Science database, we found 15,915 peer‐reviewed publications on biological invasions, 124 of which included social dimensions of this phenomenon. Of these 124, 28 studies described specific contentious situations. Social approaches to biological invasions have emerged largely in the last decade and have focused on both environmental social sciences and resource management. Despite being distributed in a range of journals, these 124 articles were concentrated mostly in ecology and conservation‐oriented outlets. We found that conflicts surrounding invasive species arose based largely on differences in value systems and to a lesser extent stakeholder and decision maker's risk perceptions. To confront or avoid such situations, we suggest integrating the plurality of environmental values into invasive species research and management via structured decision making techniques, which enhance effective risk communication that promotes trust and confidence between stakeholders and decision makers. Clarificar los Valores, Percepciones de Riesgo y Actitudes para Resolver o Evitar Conflictos Sociales en el Manejo de Especies Invasoras     

Environmental cost of using poor decision metrics to prioritize environmental projects

Conservation decision makers commonly use project‐scoring metrics that are inconsistent with theory on optimal ranking of projects. As a result, there may often be a loss of environmental benefits. We estimated the magnitudes of these losses for various metrics that deviate from theory in ways that are common in practice. These metrics included cases where relevant variables were omitted from the benefits metric, project costs were omitted, and benefits were calculated using a faulty functional form. We estimated distributions of parameters from 129 environmental projects from Australia, New Zealand, and Italy for which detailed analyses had been completed previously. The cost of using poor prioritization metrics (in terms of lost environmental values) was often high—up to 80% in the scenarios we examined. The cost in percentage terms was greater when the budget was smaller. The most costly errors were omitting information about environmental values (up to 31% loss of environmental values), omitting project costs (up to 35% loss), omitting the effectiveness of management actions (up to 9% loss), and using a weighted‐additive decision metric for variables that should be multiplied (up to 23% loss). The latter 3 are errors that occur commonly in real‐world decision metrics, in combination often reducing potential benefits from conservation investments by 30–50%. Uncertainty about parameter values also reduced the benefits from investments in conservation projects but often not by as much as faulty prioritization metrics.     

Limits of monetization in protecting ecosystem services

The monetary valuation of ecosystem services is gaining traction in policy and business communities. Several tools and decision‐making processes have been proposed, including criteria to assess the appropriateness of using monetary valuation for biodiversity conservation outcomes. These criteria include measures such as scale, uniqueness, and threat. We used case studies of monetization projects for which the outcomes were measured to explore the limitations and application of these criteria. There was limited evidence of the effectiveness of such schemes. The majority of the schemes were established in areas where the criteria specifically excluded their use in isolation. Thus, although some aspects of monetization may be beneficial for biodiversity conservation, these schemes were not being used appropriately and require some quantitative minimum (or maximum) measurements to be applied through additional policy or governance measures to ensure biodiversity conservation outcomes.     

Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge–Action Boundary

There are many barriers to using science to inform conservation policy and practice. Conservation scientists wishing to produce management‐relevant science must balance this goal with the imperative of demonstrating novelty and rigor in their science. Decision makers seeking to make evidence‐based decisions must balance a desire for knowledge with the need to act despite uncertainty. Generating science that will effectively inform management decisions requires that the production of information (the components of knowledge) be salient (relevant and timely), credible (authoritative, believable, and trusted), and legitimate (developed via a process that considers the values and perspectives of all relevant actors) in the eyes of both researchers and decision makers. We perceive 3 key challenges for those hoping to generate conservation science that achieves all 3 of these information characteristics. First, scientific and management audiences can have contrasting perceptions about the salience of research. Second, the pursuit of scientific credibility can come at the cost of salience and legitimacy in the eyes of decision makers, and, third, different actors can have conflicting views about what constitutes legitimate information. We highlight 4 institutional frameworks that can facilitate science that will inform management: boundary organizations (environmental organizations that span the boundary between science and management), research scientists embedded in resource management agencies, formal links between decision makers and scientists at research‐focused institutions, and training programs for conservation professionals. Although these are not the only approaches to generating boundary‐spanning science, nor are they mutually exclusive, they provide mechanisms for promoting communication, translation, and mediation across the knowledge–action boundary. We believe that despite the challenges, conservation science should strive to be a boundary science, which both advances scientific understanding and contributes to decision making. Logrando que la Ciencia de la Conservación Trasponga la Frontera Conocimiento‐Acción     

Optimal fire histories for biodiversity conservation

Fire is used as a management tool for biodiversity conservation worldwide. A common objective is to avoid population extinctions due to inappropriate fire regimes. However, in many ecosystems, it is unclear what mix of fire histories will achieve this goal. We determined the optimal fire history of a given area for biological conservation with a method that links tools from 3 fields of research: species distribution modeling, composite indices of biodiversity, and decision science. We based our case study on extensive field surveys of birds, reptiles, and mammals in fire‐prone semi‐arid Australia. First, we developed statistical models of species’ responses to fire history. Second, we determined the optimal allocation of successional states in a given area, based on the geometric mean of species relative abundance. Finally, we showed how conservation targets based on this index can be incorporated into a decision‐making framework for fire management. Pyrodiversity per se did not necessarily promote vertebrate biodiversity. Maximizing pyrodiversity by having an even allocation of successional states did not maximize the geometric mean abundance of bird species. Older vegetation was disproportionately important for the conservation of birds, reptiles, and small mammals. Because our method defines fire management objectives based on the habitat requirements of multiple species in the community, it could be used widely to maximize biodiversity in fire‐prone ecosystems. Historiales de Incendios Óptimos para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad     

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.     

Confronting Uncertainty and Missing Values in Environmental Value Transfer as Applied to Species Conservation

Abstract: The nonuse (or passive) value of nature is important but time‐consuming and costly to quantify with direct surveys. In the absence of estimates of these values, there will likely be less investment in conservation actions that generate substantial nonuse benefits, such as conservation of native species. To help overcome decisions about the allocation of conservation dollars that reflect the lack of estimates of nonuse values, these values can be estimated indirectly by environmental value transfer (EVT). EVT uses existing data or information from a study site such that the estimated monetary value of an environmental good is transferred to another location or policy site. A major challenge in the use of EVT is the uncertainty about the sign and size of the error (i.e., the percentage by which transferred value exceeds the actual value) that results from transferring direct estimates of nonuse values from a study to a policy site, the site where the value is transferred. An EVT is most useful if the decision‐making framework does not require highly accurate information and when the conservation decision is constrained by time and financial resources. To account for uncertainty in the decision‐making process, a decision heuristic that guides the decision process and illustrates the possible decision branches, can be followed. To account for the uncertainty associated with the transfer of values from one site to another, we developed a risk and simulation approach that uses Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the net benefits of conservation investments and takes into account different possible distributions of transfer error. This method does not reduce transfer error, but it provides a way to account for the effect of transfer error in conservation decision making. Our risk and simulation approach and decision‐based framework on when to use EVT offer better‐informed decision making in conservation.     

Accounting for Complementarity to Maximize Monitoring Power for Species Management

To choose among conservation actions that may benefit many species, managers need to monitor the consequences of those actions. Decisions about which species to monitor from a suite of different species being managed are hindered by natural variability in populations and uncertainty in several factors: the ability of the monitoring to detect a change, the likelihood of the management action being successful for a species, and how representative species are of one another. However, the literature provides little guidance about how to account for these uncertainties when deciding which species to monitor to determine whether the management actions are delivering outcomes. We devised an approach that applies decision science and selects the best complementary suite of species to monitor to meet specific conservation objectives. We created an index for indicator selection that accounts for the likelihood of successfully detecting a real trend due to a management action and whether that signal provides information about other species. We illustrated the benefit of our approach by analyzing a monitoring program for invasive predator management aimed at recovering 14 native Australian mammals of conservation concern. Our method selected the species that provided more monitoring power at lower cost relative to the current strategy and traditional approaches that consider only a subset of the important considerations. Our benefit function accounted for natural variability in species growth rates, uncertainty in the responses of species to the prescribed action, and how well species represent others. Monitoring programs that ignore uncertainty, likelihood of detecting change, and complementarity between species will be more costly and less efficient and may waste funding that could otherwise be used for management. Contabilización de la Complementariedad para Maximizar el Poder de Monitoreo para el Manejo de Especies     

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     

A GIS-Based Comparison of the Mexican National and IUCN Methods for Determining Extinction Risk

Abstract:  The national systems used in the evaluation of extinction risk are often touted as more readily applied and somehow more regionally appropriate than the system of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). We compared risk assessments of the Mexican national system (method for evaluation of risk of extinction of wild species [MER]) with the IUCN system for the 16 Polianthes taxa (Agavaceae), a genus of plants with marked variation in distribution sizes. We used a novel combination of herbarium data, geographic information systems (GIS), and species distribution models to provide rapid, repeatable estimates of extinction risk. Our GIS method showed that the MER and the IUCN system use similar data. Our comparison illustrates how the IUCN method can be applied even when all desirable data are not available, and that the MER offers no special regional advantage with respect to the IUCN regional system. Instead, our results coincided, with both systems identifying 14 taxa of conservation concern and the remaining two taxa of low risk, largely because both systems use similar information. An obstacle for the application of the MER is that there are no standards for quantifying the criteria of habitat condition and intrinsic biological vulnerability. If these impossible-to-quantify criteria are left out, what are left are geographical distribution and the impact of human activity, essentially the considerations we were able to assess for the IUCN method. Our method has the advantage of making the IUCN criteria easy to apply, and because each step can be standardized between studies, it ensures greater comparability of extinction risk estimates among taxa.     

Experiencing Biodiversity as a Bridge over the Science–Society Communication Gap

Drawing on the idea that biodiversity is simply the diversity of living things, and that everyone knows what diversity and living things mean, most conservation professionals eschew the need to explain the many complex ways in which biodiversity is understood in science. On many biodiversity‐related issues, this lack of clarity leads to a communication gap between science and the general public, including decision makers who must design and implement biodiversity policies. Closing this communication gap is pivotal to the ability of science to inform sound environmental decision making. To address this communication gap, we propose a surrogate of biodiversity for communication purposes that captures the scientific definition of biodiversity yet can be understood by nonscientists; that is, biodiversity as a learning experience. The prerequisites of this or any other biodiversity communication surrogate are that it should have transdisciplinary relevance; not be measurable; be accessible to a wide audience; be usable to translate biodiversity issues; and understandably encompass biodiversity concepts. Biodiversity as a learning experience satisfies these prerequisites and is philosophically robust. More importantly, it can effectively contribute to closing the communication gap between biodiversity science and society at large. Experimentando la Biodiversidad como un Puente sobre el Vacío entre la Comunicación Ciencia‐Sociedad     

Investment and the Policy Process in Conservation Monitoring

Despite decades of discussion and implementation, conservation monitoring remains a challenge. Many current solutions in the literature focus on improving the science or making more structured decisions. These insights are important but incomplete in accounting for the politics and economics of the conservation decisions informed by monitoring. Our novel depiction of the monitoring enterprise unifies insights from multiple disciplines (conservation, operations research, economics, and policy) and highlights many underappreciated factors that affect the expected benefits of monitoring. For example, there must be a strong link between the specific needs of decision makers and information gathering. Furthermore, the involvement of stakeholders other than scientists and research managers means that new information may not be interpreted and acted upon as expected. While answering calls for sharply delineated objectives will clearly add focus to monitoring efforts, for practical reasons, high‐level goals may purposefully be left vague, to facilitate other necessary steps in the policy process. We use the expanded depiction of the monitoring process to highlight problems of cooperation and conflict. We critique calls to invest in monitoring for the greater good by arguing that incentives are typically lacking. Although the benefits of learning accrued within a project (e.g., improving management) provide incentives for investing in some monitoring, it is unrealistic, in general, to expect managers to add potentially costly measures to generate shared benefits. In the traditional linear model of the role of science in policy decisions, monitoring reduces uncertainty and decision makers are rational, unbiased consumers of the science. However, conservation actions increasingly involve social conflict. Drawing insights from political science, we argue that in high‐conflict situations, it is necessary to address the conflict prior to monitoring. Las Inversiones y el Proceso de Políticas en el Monitoreo de la Conservación Sanchirico et al.