No abstract

Endangered species protection is a significant risk management concern throughout North America. An extensive conceptual literature emphasizes the role to be played by precautionary approaches. Risk managers, typically working in concert with concerned stakeholders, frequently cite the concept as key to their efforts to prevent extinctions. Little has been done, however, to evaluate the multidimensional impacts of precautionary frameworks or to assist in the examination of competing precautionary risk management options as part of an applied risk management decision framework. In this article we describe how decision-aiding techniques can assist in the creation and analysis of alternative precautionary strategies, using the example of a multistakeholder committee charged with protection of endangered Cultus Lake salmon on the Canadian west coast. Although managers were required to adopt a precautionary approach, little attention had been given to how quantitative analyses could be used to help define the concept or to how a precautionary approach might be implemented in the face of difficult economic, social, and biological tradeoffs. We briefly review key steps in a structured decision-making (SDM) process and discuss how this approach was implemented to help bound the management problem, define objectives and performance measures, develop management alternatives, and evaluate their consequences. We highlight the role of strategy tables, employed to help participants identify, alternative management options. We close by noting areas of agreement and disagreement among participants and discuss the implications of decision-focused processes for other precautionary resource management efforts.

Progress on recovery plans to conserve endangered species is often blocked due to the lack of an effective framework that technical experts and other knowledgeable stakeholders can use to examine areas of agreement or disagreement about the anticipated effects of management actions. Multi-party, multi-interest resource management deliberations, although increasingly common, are difficult in the context of recovery planning due to the range of potentially affected environmental, economic, and social concerns. These deliberations are further complicated by frequent disagreements among technical experts about how to identify and address various sources of biological uncertainty. We describe the development of a decision-aiding framework as part of an inter-agency plan to assist recovery of endangered Gulf of Maine Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), using a structured decision making approach that encouraged constructive deliberations based on rigorous analysis. Results are summarized in terms of developing an explicit set of management objectives, clarifying and prioritizing hypotheses concerning barriers to recovery, comparing alternative management initiatives in light of biological uncertainty, and incorporating resource constraints to generate preferred sets of actions. Overall, the use of a structured approach to making recovery decisions improved inter-agency cooperation and facilitated dialogue, understanding, and agreement among participating experts. It also helped to create a defensible basis for further internal discussions as well as for communicating with external stakeholders, including resource users and political decision makers.

Many environmental and risk management decisions are made jointly by technical experts and members of the public. Frequently, their task is to select from among management alternatives whose outcomes are subject to varying degrees of uncertainty. Although it is recognized that how this uncertainty is interpreted can significantly affect decision-making processes and choices, little research has examined similarities and differences between expert and public understandings of uncertainty. We present results from a web-based survey that directly compares expert and lay interpretations and understandings of different expressions of uncertainty in the context of evaluating the consequences of proposed environmental management actions. Participants responded to two hypothetical but realistic scenarios involving trade-offs between environmental and other objectives and were asked a series of questions about their comprehension of the uncertainty information, their preferred choice among the alternatives, and the associated difficulty and amount of effort. Results demonstrate that experts and laypersons tend to use presentations of numerical ranges and evaluative labels differently; interestingly, the observed differences between the two groups were not explained by differences in numeracy or concerns for the predicted environmental losses. These findings question many of the usual presumptions about how uncertainty should be presented as part of deliberative risk- and environmental-management processes.

In managing invasions and colonizations of non‐native species, eradication or control efforts must proceed quickly. There are 2 challenges in taking such quick action. First, managers frequently have to choose among complex and often competing environmental, social, and economic objectives. Second, the effects are highly uncertain. We applied participatory structured decision making (SDM) to develop a response plan for the recent invasion of non‐native myrtle rust (Uredo rangelii) in Australia. Structured decision making breaks a complex decision process into 5 steps: identify problems (i.e., decisions to be made), formulate objectives, develop management alternatives, estimate consequences of implementing those alternatives, and select preferred alternatives by evaluating trade‐offs among alternatives. To determine the preferred mid‐ to long‐term alternatives to managing the rust, we conducted 2 participatory workshops and 18 interviews with individuals to elicit stakeholders’ key concerns and convert them into 5 objectives (minimize management cost, minimize economic cost to industry, minimize effects on natural ecosystems and landscape amenities, and minimize environmental effects associated with use of fungicide) and to identify the 5 management alternatives (full eradication, partial eradication, slow spread, live with it [i.e., major effort invested in mitigation of effects], and do nothing). We also developed decision trees to graphically represent the essence of the decision by displaying the relations between uncertainties and decision points. In the short term or before local expansion of myrtle rust, the do‐nothing alternative was not preferred, but an eradication alternative was only recommended if the probability of eradication exceeded about 40%. After the expansion of myrtle rust, the slow‐the‐spread alternative was preferred regardless of which of the short‐term management alternatives was selected at an earlier stage. The participatory SDM approach effectively resulted in informed and transparent response plans that incorporated multiple objectives in decision‐making processes under high uncertainty.