Decision Pointdecision-point.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/DPoint... · 2014-12-15 · Decision...

Decision Point #27 - 1

Decision PointSmart science for wise decisionsIssue 27 / April 2009

Connecting conservation policy makers, researchers and practitioners

Other stories HUGHBRIS of the decision theorists 2Making ecological processes iconic 4Protecting proteas - how much info is needed? 8The ‘decider’ decides 12

The world’s most popular conservation planning software just got more relevant!Check out Marxan with Zones (p10)

Planning at Peniup Restoration at the property scale - p6

Decision PointDecision Point is a monthly magazine presenting news, views and ideas on environmental decision making, biodiversity, conservation planning and monitoring. It is produced by AEDA – the Applied Environmental Decision Analysis CERF Hub. For more info on AEDA, visit our website at www.aeda.edu.au or see the back cover.

The Fenner Conference at the Dome The art & science of good decisions - p3

Continental-scale planning How do you incorporate processes? - p5


Why isn’t it used?Argument 1 It is ‘too rational’ and does not take account of the socio-political environment which of course clouds all decision making.

Argument 2 It has potential in a perfect market, but these don’t exist.

Argument 3 Decision theory diminishes the influence of decision-makers, and in general they don’t like that.

HUGHBRIS of the decision theorists If decision theory is so good why don’t more people use it?By Hugh Possingham (Director, AEDA)

After countless planning meetings and endless decision-making on conference minutiae (‘Do we have kangaroo on the menu? Do we give out

conference bags? How wide should the conference banner be?’ etc), the Fenner Conference has come and gone; and it passed by like a bolt of lightning. Preliminary feedback is that the ‘art & science of good environmental decision making’ was well received and has generated good constructive follow-up engagement – which is what we hoped for.

So, given the Fenner talk fest, what’s the state of robust, transparent decision making in Australia? It seemed to me at the Fenner Conference that there’s a growing enthusiasm for using tools and methods rooted in decision theory thinking: unambiguous quantifiable conservation objectives, lists of plausible actions, quantifiable relationships between actions and things we want achieve (including risk and uncertainty) and well defined social and economic constraints. And yet these same tools and methods are not getting widespread application in many areas of government.

In my last editorial, and in the presentation I delivered at the Fenner Conference, I attempted to dispel several of the arguments against the use of decision theory in natural resource management (see Decision Point #26). One reader, prominent conservationist Max Bourke, responded to my argument by challenging me to consider the issue from the reverse perspective.

He wrote:

“the question is not so much “why I dislike decision theory” as “why isn’t it used”, and I do not believe you have addressed those issues”.

Max provides two arguments why he thinks decision theory is not more widely used:

1. “It seems to me that the real problem with good decision theory is that it is ‘too rational’ and does not take account of the socio-political environment which, of course, clouds all decision making.”

Max is correct – there are many factors that should influence decisions and the decision theory approach doesn’t seem to deal with all of these factors. In particular, any factor that is not easily quantified can be very hard to include in a very mathematical decision theory approach.

However there are decision theory tools, like decision trees, that do deal with more qualitative information (see our decision tree in Hoegh-Guldberg et al, 2008). Simple questions like: ‘Is this conservation action socially acceptable at present?’ are yes-no subjective questions that can be stated and answered explicitly. For example, in our PMSEIC report on setting priorities for biodiversity (see http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/science_innovation/publications_resources/profiles/setting_biodiversity_priorities.htm) we did not pursue the option of introducing a deadly virus to wipe out cats because we felt that the public would be hostile to that option.

In many cases there are less explicit factors that can be partially quantified. For example, when dealing with investment in a conservation action, one factor that we want to consider is the potential for community engagement and/or education. This is very hard to quantify, although with further social science it’s not impossible to estimate. In such cases I think those issues need to be listed and weighed against the results from a more formal analysis.

“People, not software

programs, make final decisions about allocations of funds, and

people take the final responsibility.”

The Dpoint editorial

As a final example, I note that certain decisions, like selecting new people for jobs, are not amenable to numeric decision theory. Attempts to create scoring systems that tell you who to employ are an example of decision theory gone mad.

And Max’s second point:

2. “Decision theory seems to me to have potential or at least optimal potential in a perfect market, but these don’t exist.”

I also agree with this point. All optimisation approaches make some assumptions, some explicit, some implicit, that will tell you where and when they deliver their best answer. One assumption of some decision making tools is that there is a perfect market and everyone behaves rationally. In principle, irrational behaviour and imperfect markets can be modelled and included in the decision-making process, however people rarely do that in practice. As with argument one – with lots more information, everything can be modelled and quantified, but the likelihood of ever getting that information is low.

To counter argument two I would say that I am not too fussed about delivering perfect optimality. Our job is to formulate a problem that is close to reality, but is not reality. Finding the best, or very good, answers to a problem that is close to reality will help to inform decision makers about what to do. They just need to be aware of all the things left out of the problem and take the decision theory advice with a handful of salt – not a pinch, not a truckload.

Now, in addition to Max’s two arguments, I’d like to add a third point, and this one will make decision makers a bit uncomfortable:

3. I believe that decision theory diminishes the influence of decision-makers, and in general they don’t like that.

Imagine, for example, we had a perfectly rational piece of software, let’s call it HUGHBRIS, that tells the government of the day how they should allocate all federally-available


HUGHBRIS of the decision theorists (Continued from page 2)

environmental funds across Australia. This software might take into account many factors like: biodiversity benefit and ecosystem services, and even include social issues like leverage. It would also account for risk and uncertainty.

Now, HUGHBRIS is widely published, meets the highest academic standards, and is globally regarded as the gold standard of environmental decision-making. Why would we need a Minister, advisors (technical and political) and senior public servants? We would just need programmers, scientists and economists to feed in the data and run the support software - HUGHBRIS would do everything.

Elected and unelected decision-makers alike seek power so they can represent the will of the people, and, to a certain extent, their own will. Any decision-support tools is a threat to that power.

In my view, this third argument for why people don’t use decision theory approaches is possibly the most important, though, of course, no decision maker will ever admit to it being true.

The solution to this paradox is to make it clear, again, that decision theory provides decision support NOT decision-making. People, not software programs, make final decisions about allocations of funds, and people take the final responsibility.

A wise person uses all the tools available to them to make those decisions and a good person tries to make the logic of their decision-making clear and transparent, revealing all sources of influence. However, in the end, it’s people who make decisions, not tools, not even HUGHBRIS.

References

Hoegh-Guldberg O, Hughes L, McIntyre S, Lindenmayer DB, Parmesan C, Possingham HP and Thomas CD (2008), Assisted colonization and rapid climate change, Science, 321: pp345-346.

The 2009 Fenner Conference on the Environment

The art & science of good environmental decision-making

When: 10-12 March 2009

Where: The Shine Dome (Australian Academy of Science), Canberra

Who: AEDA & Landscape Logic with support from the Australian Academy of Science.

What: The 2009 Fenner Conference on the Environment focussed on the basics of good environmental decision making with an emphasis on science and policy, prioritisation, adaptive management and cost-effective monitoring. It brought together environmental scientists from around Australia and the world to meet with senior environmental managers from regional, state and Commonwealth agencies to discuss ways we can improve decision making on environmental investments and priorities. Here are a few pics of the event.

More info (or for a copy of the conference book): [email protected]

A few scenes in the Shine Dome of the capacity crowd that took part in this year’s Fenner Conference on the Environment. See the back cover for more images.


By Barry Trail

For some time conservation biologists have identified the importance of a range of ecological processes in maintaining populations of species and natural

communities. One of the earlier examples is the list of key types of terrestrial ecological processes, important at a continental scale in Australia, described in a paper by Soule et al 2004.

However, at the moment ecological processes are only being discussed in very narrow circles of conservation scientists and a small minority of conservation advocates. I think this communication gap is a significant problem, greatly slowing the urgent need to identify, maintain, protect and restore ecological processes.

Here I detail two problems I believe are occurring with the communication of ecological processes. First, the lack of clear terminology; and, second, the lack of consistent use of the concept in conservation debates.

Naming thingsThe lack of public and political understanding of ecological processes is in contrast to the knowledge and understanding of specific and tangible natural values or natural assets. These are generally appreciated by the public and such values often have broad public support for their protection. For example: old growth forests, and threatened species, and specific places, such as Cape York Peninsula and the Kimberley.

This is, of course, mostly bleedingly obvious. People can connect emotionally and rationally with things that they can view in pictures (and possibly visit). You have to name something, and have a broad public understanding of what it is, to get support for action to protect it.

Even terms that started as technical jargon have entered more common usage and understanding, for example: old growth forests, ecosystems, threatened species habitat. This has come after work by conservationists to name and iconise these things.

However, there is no consistent usage of a term or terms to describe ecological processes. In papers, articles and at various public fora over the last two years, I have read or heard 27 different terms (ecological processes, processes, evolutionary processes, natural processes, ecological linkages, biodiversity processes, permeable landscapes, connectivity, etc etc etc) all used by various conservation biologists and conservation advocates at different times in different ways to describe some or all large scale ecological processes (as defined in Soule et al 2004).

This is a major problem for conservation. Until there is repeated usage of an agreed term to describe ecological processes then we will not achieve public understanding of them – it will just be a babble of meaningless jargon. And, until there is a broader understanding we will be ineffectual in protecting them.

Making ecological processes iconic Paying more attention to the natural machinery that connects us all

“First, we need focused, well resourced approaches where

ecological processes are fundamental parts of specific conservation programs. And second, we need conservationists to include ecological processes in all conservation decisions, development

proposals and projects.”

What’s the definition of an ecological process?The general description I’ve found best for ecological processes is: The interactions and connections between living and non living systems, including movements of energy, nutrients and species. Or in more poetic lay terms: The natural machinery that connects living and non living things and keeps nature healthy.

Why use ‘ecological processes’ and not another term? Like all the other terms used to date for this concept, ‘ecological processes’ is jargon. However, of all the terms used it has the fewest problems in being widely understood. And the definition? See the box above.

Getting the message out Even if the terminology is settled there remains the need to get ecological processes embedded in the broader public lexicon and into specific conservation debates. Two things are needed.

First, we need focused, well resourced approaches where ecological processes are fundamental parts of specific conservation programs. This has been done explicitly to date by a few programs such as The Wilderness Society’s Wild Country program, and Victoria Naturally.

And second, we need conservationists to include ecological processes in all conservation decisions, development proposals and projects. Simply calling for their inclusion in decision making processes forces a degree of inclusion in conservation debates, and increases the protection of them.

Fifty years ago rainforests in Australia were ‘scrubs’ of limited appeal to Australians. They are now icons. Thirty years ago ‘old-growth’ forests were not in the public debate. Now there is broad public and political support for their protection. This arose because people consciously used these descriptors in public debates. We need to do the same with ecological processes.

More info: [email protected]

Reference

Soule, M, Mackey, B, Recher, H, Williams, J, Woinarski, J, Driscoll, D, Dennison W, and Jones M (2004) The role of connectivity in Australian conservation, Pacific Conservation Biology 10:266-279.

Dr Barry Traill is the Director of the Wild Australia Program of the Pew Environment Group.

The caves of the Napier Ranges in WA. This is an example of an evolutionary refuge, places where species persist in a fraction of their original ranges. Mound springs, caves, gorges, and mountain ranges host a high concentration of evolutionary refugia and play an invaluable role in ecological processes.


Figure 1: Priority areas differ when ecological and evolutionary processes are considered. The scenarios compared in the map above represent planning for : 1) biodiversity representation (ie, species and habitats) and 2) biodiversity representation and all 4 ecological and evolutionary processes.

By Carissa Klein (University of Queensland, AEDA)

Over the past 25 years, conservation planners have focused on designing systems of conservation areas that ensure that comprehensive and representative sets of species and habitats are protected efficiently. More recently, there has been an emphasis on designing these areas to be ‘adequate’ for the persistence of biodiversity.

When it comes to designing conservation areas, there are four ways that planners have dealt with adequacy:

1) Conservation Targets: Setting conservation goals in the form of a target percentage of original extent or a target population size for each species, with these targets based on the requirements of species for persistence

2) Spatial Design Criteria: Defining size, spacing, and replication criteria for the array of conservation areas.

3) Corridors: Implementing corridors between conservation areas to promote dispersal and migration.

4) Ecological and Evolutionary Processes: Capturing ecological and evolutionary processes that maintain and generate biodiversity.

Of these four, the first three have been explored a lot more than the fourth. Factoring in ecological processes is a tough proposition. In the field of systematic conservation planning, explicitly considering ecological and evolutionary processes to address adequacy is a task that is frequently suggested, but rarely undertaken. Although conservation planners have identified sensible approaches to incorporating ecological and evolutionary processes into conservation plans, little progress has been made toward implementing these ideas. And studies that target both biodiversity patterns (ie, species

Putting ‘processes’ into planning for ‘adequacy’ It’s more than just comprehensive or representative

and habitats) and processes in a systematic conservation planning exercise are rare.

Biodiversity in Australia is maintained and generated by numerous processes at various spatial and temporal scales. Processes occurring at small scales (eg, pollination) are often captured in a conservation plan without specific planning considerations, whereas very large-scale processes (eg, plate tectonics) are beyond the influence of conservation planning. In between, the mesoscale, conservation planning can influence the persistence of processes such as connectivity between conservation areas to facilitate animal migrations.

Under contract to the ‘Maintaining Biodiversity Hotspots Programme’ (run by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts), we developed an approach to identify spatial priorities across Australia that incorporated ecological processes with a more traditional framework of efficiently representing a comprehensive sample of biodiversity.

We accommodated ecological and evolutionary processes in four ways: (1) using sub-catchments as planning units to facilitate the protection of the integrity and function of ecosystem processes occurring on a sub-catchment scale; (2) targeting one type of ecological refugia, drought refugia, which are critical for the persistence of many species during widespread drought; (3) targeting one type of

evolutionary refugia which are important for maintaining and generating unique biota during long-term climatic changes; and (4) referentially grouping priority areas along vegetated waterways to account for the importance of connected waterways and associated riparian areas in maintaining processes.

FindingsPriorities for conservation differ in some areas when ecological and evolutionary processes are (or are not) considered. We illustrated that

ecological processes can be incorporated and large gains in waterway connectivity can be made for

minimal additional expenditure.

By integrating some ecological and evolutionary processes into our conservation plan, we predict that

the priorities identified are more likely to maintain and generate biodiversity. However, validating the performance of our surrogates at various scales

would be challenging. However, through their explicit consideration, we can be more confident about the potential long-term benefits to biodiversity of our conservation investments.

More info: Carissa Klein <[email protected]>

Reference

Klein C, Wilson KA, Watts M, Stein J, Berry S, Carwardine J, Stafford Smith DM, Mackey B, and Possingham HPP (2009). Incorporating ecological and evolutionary processes into continental-scale conservation planning. Ecological Applications 19:206-217.

ChallengesThe dynamic nature of ecological and evolutionary processes makes them difficult to quantify for conservation planning. For example, many animals, particularly birds, are known to exhibit temporally and spatially variable movement patterns that are difficult to predict. Data for use in conservation planning for such dynamic processes is often unavailable, especially at a continental scale. Even for processes that are better understood, it can be difficult to obtain consistent and credible spatially explicit data across an entire planning region (eg, fire frequency in Australia).


By Justin Jonson

What would you do if you were given the challenge of planning the restoration of 1000 hectares of agricultural land in a biodiversity hotspot renowned

for its heterogeneous ecosystems? This is the challenge being faced at Peniup, a property recently acquired by Greening Australia and Bush Heritage as part of the Gondwana Link project. While restoration is increasingly recognised as essential for biodiversity conservation, it costs a lot in money and time – typically taking many years to deliver the desired outcomes. Good planning, grounded in good theory, and delivered through rigorous establishment techniques, are keys to success. Information gained from project outcomes can then be used to inform future restoration activities.

Ecological restoration is an information-rich arena. Knowledge from several different fields of study need to be drawn together to ensure an effective recovery process is established. The state-transition from an agricultural paddock to a re-establishing native plant community is a highly sensitive pathway. Attention to detail throughout the whole process is required to overcome several thresholds of transition.

The approach used in developing a restoration plan for Peniup involved building on a foundation of local knowledge, geospatial data sets, and the results of previous on-ground efforts. This information was then framed within ecological theory, prompting new approaches in establishment to bridge the gap between theory and practice.

Always begins with an objectiveAnd what does all this mean for Peniup? The decision making process at Peniup began with the defined objective of re-establishing a self-replicating biologically-diverse plant system, ecologically informed in its design, and consistent with the heterogeneous mosaic of plant associations found in the dryland transition zone of Western Australia.

But then there was the added constraint that the project’s funding was provided through a carbon contract. This required a carbon storage focus throughout the planning, design and decision making process. Interestingly, this constraint helped to develop a composition focus

Planning at Peniup Restoration at the property scale - lessons learned in Gondwana Link

for our species mixes, with the upper-most stratum of plants(eucalypt mallees and trees) reserved for carbon-rich species.

In addition, special consideration was paid to the initial composition of plant assemblages and their forecasted pathway of succession (given different ratios of species planted, and the duration of each individual species’ life cycle). As reestablished plant communities were composed of both short and long lived species, temporal variability of natural attrition was considered.

Overarching all of this, the Peniup project aimed to improve on ‘best practice’ techniques to inform the design and establishment of revegetation. To this end, analytical assessments were undertaken of the biophysical variables across the property to inform the selection of new establishment techniques. Ongoing referral to the project objectives and goals helped focus the decision making process throughout.

Sowing the good seedAn example of this was the transition from a generalised ‘mixed soup’ seed mix, composed of species from various soil types and landscape positions, to a set of defined ‘vegetation associations’, composed of species mixes specific to soil types and landscape positions. This decision was informed by ecological models of community assembly (Temperton & Hobbs, 2004), and marks a shift from the deterministic model (and management approach), to a model of alternative stable states of assembly. Where information was not available, yet easily gathered within short times frames, on-ground works and further analyses were undertaken to inform decision making. The development of a detailed soil survey to map subsurface patch distributions, coupled with plant species specific information on soil type preferences, is a good example of that process.

We have tried to reduce the risk of failure by planting at the right time, establishing good weed management, and getting seed placement at the right depth. While we cannot know for sure what the seasonal conditions will be for a given year, using the best available establishment techniques can help reduce chances of failure.

“The decision making process at Peniup began with the

defined objective of re-establishing a self-replicating biologically-diverse plant system, ecologically informed

in its design, and consistent with the heterogeneous mosaic of plant associations found in the dryland

transition zone of Western Australia ”

A newly developed five-row direct-seeding machine minimises soil displacement, and reduces row spacing at Peniup.

Tree belts being established along contour lines at Peniup.


The selection of areas for restoration was primarily influenced by their contribution to consolidation of existing remnant bushland, and their contribution to the protection of creeks and drainage lines.

A learning processWhat have we learned from our experiences at Peniup? Initial results from a 250ha planting in 2008 confirmed that ‘lighter’ soils demonstrated significant capacity for re-establishment through direct seeding, as opposed to the ‘heavier’ more challenging soils. This information feeds directly into future project plans, highlighting the need for alternative establishment techniques on challenging soils, and more strategic prioritization of establishment approaches and time lines for a property.

Works in 2008 also included the development of a new direct seeding machine, which incorporated a delivery system able to reduce soil displacement. This enables follow-up seeding treatments to occur at the same location if initial establishment is unsuccessful. Row spacing delivery of the new seeder was also improved, reducing row spacing from 3m to 1.2m.

While a set operational budget determines how much one can spend on establishment, detailed costing records provide valuable information for future decision making. A significant cost in our 2008 works was the biodiverse seed mix used for direct seeding, making up to 30% of our total operational budget.

Follow up monitoring and evaluation has started (27 plots to date) to quantify the number of plants successfully germinated in the field. These findings, combined with detailed information on seeding rates and cost of seed, will help us evaluate the cost-effectiveness of re-establishing

Prioritising restoration actions in CaliforniaThrough a productive collaboration with Dr Jutta Burger and Dr Megan Lulow at the Irvine Ranch Conservancy in southern California, AEDA scientists, Dr Kerrie Wilson and Marissa McBride have developed a unified theory for restoration prioritisation.

As discussed in the main story, the Peniup restoration outlines the many challenges faced when planning restoration. There can be multiple objectives, time delays, multiple restoration techniques that cost different amounts and deliver different outcomes, feedbacks between investments, stochastic events, and the possibility that the restoration may not succeed. Despite this complexity, decisions must be made about how to restore, where and when the restoration should occur.

Applying their theory and associated decision support tool to the Irvine Ranch, Wilson and colleagues have identified the combination of restoration sites and activities, and the schedule for their implementation that will provide the greatest and most resilient improvement in habitat coverage for a fixed budget and operational limitations.

The Californian research has been supported by AEDA, The Resources Legacy Fund and Donald Bren of The Irvine Company.

More info: Kerrie Wilson <[email protected]>

Restoration map of the ‘vegetation associations’ for North Peniup determined from detailed soil mapping.

biodiverse plant communities in restoration projects. This information feeds directly into management decisions for future projects.

While we have improved our project planning and establishment techniques at Peniup, much remains to be learned in this multifaceted field and highly variable environment. We hope the results of this property scale work will help inform the broader UQ-Gondwana Link project (Gondwana Link Research Idenitifying Priorities Project or GRIPP). We are also investigating opportunities for applying restoration prioritisation frameworks and decision support tools for future projects in Gondwana Link.

More info: Justin Jonson [email protected]

Justin Jonson works for Greening Australia Western Australia as the Restoration Manager in the Gondwana Link project. His focus primarily includes the planning and implementation of on-ground ecological restoration. Justin is also involved in carbon research, analysing local tree species to determine their capacity to sequester carbon.

Reference

Temperton VM & Hobbs RJ (2004). The search for ecological assembly rules and its relevance to restoration ecology. Pages 34–70 in Temperton VM, Hobbs RJ, Nuttle T, Halle S, editors. Assembly rules and restoration ecology—bridging the gap between theory and practice. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Calothamnus quadrifidus established from direct seeding.


The Protea AtlasThe Protea Atlas that provided much of the data for the studies described here began back in the early 1990s by the Botanical Society of South Africa. The project was established in an effort to involve the general public in documenting, understanding and conserving South Africa’s flora. Proteas where chosen as the focal family as they are charismatic (South Africa’s National Flower is the King Protea, Protea cynaroides); species-richness patterns of proteas mirrors that of other plants in the non-arid regions of the subcontinent (they therefore serve as a surrogate of plant biodiversity); taxonomy of proteas is relatively complete; protea ecology reflects the role of nutrients, fire and human impacts in sustaining biodiversity on the subcontinent; and some 120 of the 370 protea species are listed in the IUCN’s Red List.

Data are collected by interested amateurs (atlassers). Data include both geographical and ecological information. Over 250,000 records have been compiled. Some 47 species have been atlassed at more than 1,000 localities, eight new species have been discovered, one third of all species have had their distribution ranges significantly extended (some by hundreds of kilometres), and two of four ‘extinct’ species has been rediscovered.

More info: http://protea.worldonline.co.za/default.htm

0.97

0.98

0.99

1

0 1000000 2000000 3000000

Initial Survey Investment

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0 1000000 2000000 3000000

Initial Survey Investment

By Hedley Grantham (University of Queensland, AEDA)

When establishing new protected areas you often require data describing things like biodiversity, costs, human-uses, threats, implementation

opportunities and constraints. However, for most conservation agencies around the world there are usually only sparse data. It is therefore generally accepted that gathering data is a good investment.

But surveying takes time and money. It takes time because there’s always limited access to the experts you need to collect the data, and then it takes more time to reach the survey sites themselves. It requires money for wages and consumables such as fuel. Surprisingly, given the importance placed on surveying, there have been few studies that have investigated the costs and benefits of collecting biodiversity data.

In a series of two papers we explored the influence of different biodiversity survey investments of money and time using a landscape simulation approach. Our studies used the Protea Atlas, a fairly comprehensive database that has been collated over a decade using enthusiastic volunteers. We assumed that this data wasn’t available at the beginning of each simulation but used it to test different investments.

For financial investments we took a range of investments, estimated how much data this would buy, then used this data to guide the implementation of new protected areas over 10 years. New protected areas were implemented using the current rate of protection and each year habitat was cleared. For simulations exploring investments when time was considered, we compared various survey periods before the implementation of 10 years of protection. Again habitat clearance occurred each year including during the survey period. This explored the trade-off between having more data or faster conservation (in terms of more protected area).

We discovered that for a relatively small monetary investment in protea survey data, we could design an effective protected area network on where to conserve proteas (Figure 1). Surprisingly, after an investment of only US$100,000 there was little increase in the effectiveness of the conservation decisions, despite the full data set costing at least 25 times that amount.

When we compared different survey period durations, surveying for more than two years rarely increased the

Survey this How much time and money should be invested in gathering biodiversity data?

Figure 1: Diminishing returns between initial survey investment and the conservation of proteas at the end of 10-year simulations.

We measured both representation of proteas in protected areas (proportion of a species distribution protected) (a) and retention of proteas in the landscape (proportion of a species distribution remaining in the landscape) (b). For scenarios with no investment in survey data, we used a habitat map to guide selection of notional protected areas. From Granthan et al, 2008. (Currency is US dollars.)

Rep

rese

ntat

ion

in P

.A.s

(a)

Rep

rese

ntat

ion

in la

ndsc

ape (b)

This image and images on next page by Justine Grantham.


“Any given action in time and space is not only traded-off with all

other actions but also against the value of delaying an action to learn about

where, when and how actions should occur”

Figure 2: The effectiveness of different survey periods for protecting proteas at the end of 20-year simulations. Existing protected areas in the study region were initially included as protected before the simulations were commenced. We measured both (a) representation of proteas in protected areas and (b) retention of proteas in the landscape. For scenarios with no survey data (zero survey period), we used a habitat map to guide selection of notional protected areas. From Grantham et al, 2009.

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0 2 4 6 8 10

Survey Period

Repr

esen

tati

on in

PA

s

1000 plots a year

3000 plots a year

6000 plots a year

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

0 2 4 6 8 10

Survey Period

Rete

ntio

n in

Lan

dsca

pe

1000 plots a year

3000 plots a year

6000 plots a year

b)

(a)

(b)

effectiveness of conservation decisions (Figure 2). We also found that if the delay is too long, it can sometimes be more effective just using a readily available habitat map and not investing in any data at all.

Previous studies that have investigated data investment have assumed that landscapes are unchanging and data can be obtained instantly. Many have found that using less data generally resulted in larger areas being required to represent species in protected areas - which is inefficient. However, our results suggest that investing in additional data might not be the most cost-effective approach to conservation when implementation is gradual and accompanied by ongoing habitat clearance.

Both our studies only explored investment in biodiversity data and one type of management action. However, any given action in time and space is not only traded-off with all other actions but also against the value of delaying an action to learn about where, when and how actions should occur. Research is continuing on the trade-offs between the costs and benefits of different actions, different types of data and different allocations between learning and doing.

More info: [email protected]

References

Grantham HS, Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Pressey RL, Rebelo TG, & PossinghamHP (2008) Diminishing return on investment for biodiversity data in conservation planning Conservation Letters 1:190–198.

Grantham HS, Wilson KA, Moilanen A, Rebelo T & Possingham HP (2009) Delaying conservation actions for improved knowledge: how long should we wait? Ecology Letters 12: 293–301.

Hedley Grantham on tour exploring the mountain Fynbos by bike. This habitat is particularly high in proteas species.

The Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens. The protea with the yellow flowers in the foreground is silver-edge pincushion (Leucospermum patersonii). In the background is Cape Town.


Case study 1Planning multiple-uses in a marine park(Rottnest Island, Western Australia; based on work by Romola Stewart)

Rottnest Island is located 18 km off the coast of Perth, Western Australia. It’s a popular tourist and recreational destination but the waters surrounding the island also contain important biodiversity assets.

Marxan can be used to locate marine sanctuaries that meet biodiversity objectives whilst minimising impacts on a simplified measure of recreational uses. Marxan with Zones extends this capability by: -Placing restricted-use areas according to their benefit to biodiversity, -Accommodating complex recreational objectives for many recreational uses.

Using Marxan with Zones, the aim was to identify configurations of three zones: marine sanctuaries, restricted use areas, and recreational areas that: -Spatially separate sanctuaries and restricted-use areas from recreational activities threatening them, -Meet biodiversity conservation objectives, -Minimise the disruption to recreational users.

The information used included: -The location of biodiversity features we were interested in protecting, -The level of protection offered to biodiversity by sanctuaries, restricted-use areas and recreational areas, -The location of many current recreational uses (including fishing), -Explicit objectives and constraints for sanctuaries, restricted use areas and recreational areas.

Marxan with Zones allows us to explore the options for optimal biodiversity management outcomes in the context of recreational uses.

Marxan is a piece of decision support software used for conservation planning. It identifies areas that efficiently conserve an adequate amount of

a variety of conservation features for minimal cost. The software was born 15 years ago in Adelaide and further developed at the University of Queensland. It’s proved pretty popular - indeed, it’s used in over 100 countries making it the most widely used tool for planning marine and terrestrial reserve systems.

However, for all its strengths (which include its flexibility, ease of use and cost – it’s free!), Marxan also has weaknesses. The solutions it produces reflect a ‘black and white’ view of the world – either an area of land or sea is in or out of the reserve; there are no shades of grey. Furthermore, Marxan is used to guarantee biological constraints are met in reserves, but it could not be used to ensure a certain area is retained for a specific human use.

Of course, in the real world, conservation is more shades of grey than black and white, and effective planning needs to explicitly factor in economic and social values for multiple-use conservation areas. Which is why Marxan with Zones (or MZ) has been developed – and it’s now available for downloading. MZ has been developed by Matt Watts, a software specialist with AEDA, together with Marxan’s original authors, Ian Ball and Hugh Possingham.

“Marxan with Zones is novel in that it introduces zoning as a formal consideration of the conservation planning problem,” says Matt Watts. “This advancement represents a shift away from the basic reserve design problem towards a multiple zone scheme that supports the efficient allocation of resources across a range of different uses. At its simplest, the zoning approach can be used to identify two types of zones, with targets being set for each zone type.

“We’re using Marxan with Zones to address problems relating to biosphere reserves, multiple-use marine parks, off-reserve marine planning, and multiple-use terrestrial forestry planning (see case studies 1-3 for examples of its value). This refined version of Marxan is suitable for dealing with complex problems by considering multiple zones with different targets, planning unit costs and biodiversity benefits for each zone.

“This is a significant improvement on Marxan. The zoning plans coming out of MZ meet a variety of conservation and human-use objectives, while minimising their total cost of implementation.

“The novel functionality of MZ provides the flexibility to address a range of complex spatial planning problems so we’re hoping it will attract wide use in a range of conservation planning problems beyond those solvable by Marxan.”

Those wishing to apply MZ should first become familiar with Marxan, for which there is a large body of material available on our website and elsewhere.

Marxan with Zones can be downloaded from the Marxan website: http://www.uq.edu.au/marxan

More info: Matthew Watts <[email protected]>

The development of Marxan with Zones was assisted by funding from Ecotrust, whose interest in this software development arose from the need to support the design of marine protected areas along California’s coast as part of California’s Marine Life Protection Act. We also acknowledge funding received from the Natural Heritage Trust and AEDA.

Marxan with Zones The world’s most popular conservation planning software just got more relevant

“In the real world, conservation is more shades of grey than black and

white, and effective planning needs to explicitly factor in economic and

social values for multiple-use conservation areas.”

Figure 1. One configuration around Rottnest Island produced by Marxan with Zones that delivers optimal trade-offs between recreation and biodiversity protection.


Case study 2Multiple-use planning for NRM(Cockburn Sound, Western Australia; based on work by Romola Stewart)

Cockburn Sound is WA’s most intensively used bay serving as a port, heavy industrial area, a strategic naval base, and many recreational uses (including swimming, sailing, fishing, aquaculture and tourism).

Marxan with Zones allowed us to specify a multiple-use planning framework to integrate the different types of resource uses, ranging from high level protection (eg, conservation) to exclusive uses (eg, ports). The software constrained the problem around meeting objectives for existing commercial uses, and also allowed examination of the potential impact on biodiversity of proposed developments in the Sound.

A zonation scheme was devised with zone-specific targets for biodiversity features in the following: -Conservation zone, -Existing ports and infrastructure zone, -Development proposal zone, -Recreational fishing zone, -General use zone.

In this way, the proposed zones were better managed areas of multiple-use, there was minimal potential for conflict, and the plan explicitly managed the contribution to biodiversity objectives.

Zoning configurations were indentified that reflected achievable objectives for biodiversity in the context of existing and proposed uses with a near optimal trade-off between elements.

Furthermore, Marxan with Zones provided a platform to explore alternative configurations of development to optimally retain existing biodiversity features in the Sound, even where complete retention of those features could not be achieved because of the development pressures.

Figure 2: A multiple-use planning framework to support integrated NRM of Cockburn Sound.

Case study 3Multiple uses & protected area networks(Indonesian province of East Kalimantan; based on work by Kerrie Wilson)

Tropical rainforest habitat has many diverse uses ranging from protected areas to production forests, with each making a different contribution to biodiversity conservation. The degree of protection offered varies, with production forests sometimes offering more protection than protected forests.

The sensitivity of species to habitat modification and degradation determines how much protection is offered to them by different land uses; some uses provide habitat in all levels of forest strata and diverse food sources for fauna, other uses provide less habitat and less food for fauna. The diversity of flora and fauna reflects these differences. Figure 3 shows the range of land uses across East Kalimantan

Marxan with Zones transformed our capacity to prioritise conservation investments by: -Accounting for relative costs and benefits of a range of land uses, -Reflecting the sensitivity of many mammal species to these uses, -Incorporating species specific conservation objectives across this range of uses.

This allowed us to prioritise investments to achieve spatially explicit conservation objectives in a cost-effective manner. We can say not only where to act, but how to act for effective and efficient conservation.

Figure 3: the range of land uses across East Kalimantan

Marxan Marxan with ZonesZones Binary action: reserve or don’t

reserveMultiple zones or actions can be used

Objectives Biological objectives only Economic, social, cultural and biological

Constraints Economic OR social OR cultural constraints

Economic, social, cultural and biological


Applied Environmental Decision Analysis A Commonwealth Environment Research Facility

aedaSmart science for wise decisions

AEDA stands for Applied Environmental Decision Analysis, a research hub of the Commonwealth Environment Research Facility program. The CERF program is funded by the Australian Government’s Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts.

AEDA’s members are primarily based at the University of Queensland, the Australian National University, the University of Melbourne and RMIT.

Decision Point is the monthly magazine of AEDA. It is available free from our website <www.aeda.edu.au>. You can subscribe to an email alerting you to new issues as they are released at http://www.aeda.edu.au/news

Decision Point is written and produced by David Salt. If you have news or views relating to AEDA or of interest to AEDA members, please send it to David at [email protected]

Decision Point is printed on recycled stock.

THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Decision Point is the monthly magazine of AEDA. It is available free from our website <www.aeda.edu.au>. You can subscribe to an email alerting you to new issues as they are released at http://www.aeda.edu.au/news

Decision Point is written and produced by David Salt. If you have news or views relating to AEDA or of interest to AEDA members, please send it to David at [email protected]

Decision Point is printed on recycled stock.

‘The decider’ decides [to write a book]America’s [former] decider-in-chief, a man not infrequently accused of making irrational choices, is writing his own book on decision-making. In contrast to the traditional blow-by-blow presidential memoir, Geore Bush’s tome, provisionally entitled Decision Points, will describe how he took on 12 key political and personal decisions, including the invasion of Iraq, his response to Hurricane Katrina, running for president, and giving up alcohol. “I want people to understand the environment in which I was making decisions,” Bush said. “I want people to get a sense of how decisions were made and I want people to understand the options that were placed before me.”

An unpopular Bush incurred mockery in 2006 when he insisted that he was ‘the decider’, and had decided to ignore calls to fire then-defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation, but I’m the decider, and I decide what is best,” he said then. “And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defence.”

This is an excerpt from The Guardian, the full story can be found at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/19/george-bush-book-decision-points

the funny end bit

“But will this idea of rational, multi-criteria decision making really fly?” asks Simon Linke.

(more) Scenes in the DomeThe 2009 Fenner Conference on the Environment (see p3)

Morning tea under the arches

Hugh Possingham with two of AEDA’s Board members (Peter Cochrane and Charlie Zammit, standing).

You couldn’t have a Fenner Conference without Frank Fenner. David Salt (right) has a drink with the Professor.

The Conference Dinner at Old Parliament House

Decision Pointdecision-point.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/DPoint... · 2014-12-15 · Decision...

Documents

Transcript of Decision Pointdecision-point.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/DPoint... · 2014-12-15 · Decision...