Uncertainty in Comparative Risk Analysis for Threatened Australian Plant Species

Burgman, Mark A.; Keith, David A.; Walshe, Terry

doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00430.x

Cited by 33 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, they employ different logical systems to interpret data, treat missing data differently, and apply different weights to the variables. As a result, the level of correspondence among classifications resulting from different methods can be low, even when using the same data [18]. Given the widespread use of such lists to allocate scarce conservation resources, before application, users need to ask the question: what are the appropriate uses of threatened species lists?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Limits to the use of threatened species lists

Possingham

Andelman

Burgman

et al. 2002

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

433

326

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Threatened species lists are designed primarily to provide an easily understood qualitative estimate of risk of extinction. Although these estimates of risk can be accurate, the lists have inevitably become linked to several decision-making processes. There are four ways in which such lists are commonly used: to set priorities for resource allocation for species recovery; to inform reserve system design; to constrain development and exploitation; and to report on the state of the environment. The lists were not designed for any one of these purposes, and consequently perform some of them poorly. We discuss why, if and how they should be used to achieve these purposes.Governments and nongovernmental organizations produce threatened species lists for three main reasons: (1) to assess potentially adverse impacts on species; (2) to help inform conservation priorities, including reserve system design; or (3) as a component of State of the Environment Reports [1]. Moreover, in many countries there is a direct connection between threatened species lists and legislation (e.g. the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species [2] and the US Endangered Species Act), leading to political and social considerations in the listing protocol. The ideal characteristics of these lists, and the protocols for generating them, will depend on the specific objectives. Regardless of who generated the list, there are three classes of user group: the public, governments and conservation organizations. All protocols result in an assessment of threat, couched in words that reflect the probability of decline or loss of a taxon at different regional scales [3]. Some are designed to apply within a local region or state [4][5][6], whereas others have national [7][8][9], or international status [10,11], or are used at multiple political scales [12][13][14]. Some have also been developed for specific taxonomic groups [15][16][17]. These protocols share many attributes and use similar information, such as population size, extent, number of populations and trends in at least some of these variables.Because of the variety of objectives and users, the interpretation of lists is variable, and most are used for more than one purpose, regardless of their original intent. Here, we critically assess four ways in which threatened species lists are commonly used. We argue that they are used for purposes beyond their original intent; furthermore, they perform some of these uses poorly. The protocols used to generate lists differ in the extent to which they consider management variables, taxonomic status, recoverability and assessments of past or future trends. In addition, they employ different logical systems to interpret data, treat missing data differently, and apply different weights to the variables. As a result, the level of correspondence among classifications resulting from different methods can be low, even when using the same data [18]. Given the widespread use of such lists to allocate scarce conservation resources, before app...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Limits to the use of threatened species lists

Possingham

Andelman

Burgman

et al. 2002

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

433

326

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although discrepancies among different prioritization systems have been highlighted before (Burgman et al 1999;Knapp et al 2003) our study specifically compares pointscoring methods for species prioritization and allocation of resources under a multi-criteria and multi-scale perspective. Many international or multi-regional initiatives are interested in target species for ex situ conservation in biogeographical areas at any scale (for example in bioclimatic regions or mountain ranges), but comprehensive approaches are nowadays barely represented, assuming that political/administrative boundaries are adequate for conservation management.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of point-scoring procedures for species prioritization and allocation of seed collection resources in a mountain region

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Setting species priorities is commonly based on the assessment of multiple conservation criteria, and point-scoring methods are broadly used for obtaining ranked species lists. However, the implications of different procedures in the performance and application of resulting lists have been scarcely investigated. In this study, we test the effect of using distinct transformation and summarization of criteria for computing ranked lists for species prioritization and allocation of seed collection resources. The study is focused on the Cantabrian Range (Spain), where 127 vascular plants of conservation concern were scored according to four criteria (threat, protection, endemicity and rarity) related to different geographical scales. Four conservation priority indices (CPI) were computed using a combination of (a) ordinal-versus quantile-weighted transformation and (b) mean versus factorial summarization. Quantile transformation and factorial summarization provided a more quantitative CPI. Although the contribution of criteria to the final indices was different under quantile and ordinal transformations, the four CPI were strongly correlated. However, slight differences between indices reflected divergences in the selection of species priorities when low conservation funds are available, and 14 to 32% of the species composition in priority groups changed. Our results suggest that different point-scoring procedures might have high impact on the application of priority lists for selecting conservation targets, especially when different funding scenarios are compared. We also recommend to (1) avoid ordinal scoring methods, (2) use unequally weighted transformations and (3) apply point-scoring methods based on multi-scale criteria for integrating existing lists in biogeographical areas

show abstract

“…A management decision that assumes risk assessment results are certain, when in fact they are not, can result in unexpected or undesirable outcomes (Peterson et al 2003). In fact, the consideration of uncertainty may lead to a different decision in managing environmental risks (Burgman et al 1999;Regan et al 2005). Horan et al (2002), for instance, argue that decision models based on standard economic theory have limited value when neither the range of potential impacts nor the possibility of these impacts is known for IAS management.…”

Section: Dmce As a Platform To Communicate Profound Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 98%

Incorporating uncertainty and social values in managing invasive alien species: a deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The management of Invasive Alien Species (IAS) is stymied by complex social values and severe levels of uncertainty. However, these two challenges are often hidden in the conventional model of management by ''value-free'' analyses and probability-based estimates of risk. As a result, diverse social values and wide margins of error in risk assessment carry zero weights in the decision-making process, leaving IAS risk decisions to be made in the wake of political pressure and the crisis atmosphere of incursion. We propose to use a Deliberative MultiCriteria Evaluation (DMCE) to incorporate multiple social values and profound uncertainty into decisionmaking processes. The DMCE process combines the advantages of conventional multi-criteria decision analysis methods with the benefits of stakeholder participation to provide an analytical structure to assess complex multi-dimensional objectives. It, therefore, offers an opportunity for diverse views to enter the decision-making process, and for the negotiation of consensus positions. The DMCE process can also function as a platform for risk communication in which scientists, stakeholders, and decision-makers can interact and discuss the uncertainty associated with biological invasions. We examine two case studies that demonstrate how DMCE provides scientific rigor and transparency in the decision-making process of invasion risk management. The first case regards pre-border priority ranking for potential invasive species and the second relates to selecting the most desirable policy option for managing a postborder invader.

show abstract

Uncertainty in Comparative Risk Analysis for Threatened Australian Plant Species

Cited by 33 publications

References 14 publications

Limits to the use of threatened species lists

Limits to the use of threatened species lists

A comparison of point-scoring procedures for species prioritization and allocation of seed collection resources in a mountain region

Incorporating uncertainty and social values in managing invasive alien species: a deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About