Forecasting for intended consequences

Abstract

Restoration and conservation innovations face numerous challenges that often limit widespread adoption, including uncertainty of outcomes, risk averse or status quo biased management, and unknown trade‐offs. These barriers often result in cautious conservation that does not consider the true cost of impeding innovation, and overemphasizes the risks of unintended consequences versus the opportunities presented by proactive and innovative conservation, the intended consequences. Simulation models are powerful tools for forecasting and evaluating the potential outcomes of restoration or conservation innovations prior to on‐the‐ground deployment. These forecasts provide information about the potential trade‐offs among the risks and benefits of candidate management actions, elucidating the likelihood that an innovation will achieve its intended consequences and at what cost. They can also highlight when and where business‐as‐usual management may incur larger costs than alternative management approaches over the long‐term. Forecasts inform the decision‐making process prior to the implementation of emergent, proactive practices at broad scales, lending support for management decisions and reducing the barriers to innovation. Here we review the science, motivations, and challenges of forecasting for restoration and conservation innovations.

U.S. conservation translocations: Over a century of intended consequences

“…With adequate ecological knowledge, computational modeling methods, such as population viability analyses and species distribution models, can provide predictive datasets for translocation planning. Forecasting is valuable because it can inform proactive conservation actions for reinforcements or assisted colonization and climate change management (Ferrarini et al, 2016;Hardy, Hull, & Zuckerberg, 2018;Molloy, Burbidge, Comer, & Davis, 2020;Mozelewski and Scheller, 2021). Other tools, including remote monitoring technologies and genetic insights, can provide data to strengthen predictive models.…”

Conservation science and the ethos of restraint

“…First, we must devise procedures for filling knowledge gaps. These gaps include (a) a systematic assessment of consequences of interventions (see Novak, Phelan, & Weber, 2021), (b) evaluative data on forecasting and tools for assessing benefits, risks, and costs (see Mozelewski & Scheller, 2021), (c) development of small-scale interventions, mesocosm studies, and means of control, and (d) better understanding of the indirect and social effects of technologies and conservation actions. These forms of knowledge should influence risk assessments and their use.…”

Why intended consequences?

“…Brister, Holbrook, and Palmer (2021) diagnose the causes and consequences of an "ethos of restraint." Responsible research and engagement protocols (Barnhill-Dilling & Delborne, 2021), intersections between governance, constituencies, and risk (Burgiel et al, 2021), and careful forecasting models (Mozelewski & Scheller, 2021) are areas essential to successfully planning for intended consequences. Post-workshop, 46 participants drafted a statement to guide scientists, practitioners and other stakeholders as they safely harness the power of innovation for conservation (Phelan et al, 2021).…”