Training Conservation Practitioners to be Better Decision Makers

Abstract

Abstract:Traditional conservation curricula and training typically emphasizes only one part of systematic decision making (i.e., the science), at the expense of preparing conservation practitioners with critical skills in values-setting, working with decision makers and stakeholders, and effective problem framing. In this article we describe how the application of decision science is relevant to conservation problems and suggest how current and future conservation practitioners can be trained to be better decision makers. Though decision-analytic approaches vary considerably, they all involve: (1) properly formulating the decision problem; (2) specifying feasible alternative actions; and (3) selecting criteria for evaluating potential outcomes. Two approaches are available for providing training in decision science, with each serving different needs. Formal education is useful for providing simple, well-defined problems that allow demonstrations of the structure, axioms and general characteristics of a decision-analytic approach. In contrast, practical training can offer complex, realistic decision problems requiring more careful structuring and analysis than those used for formal training purposes. Ultimately, the kinds and degree of training necessary depend on the role conservation practitioners play in a decision-making process. Those attempting to facilitate decision-making processes will need advanced training in both technical aspects of decision science and in facilitation techniques, as well as opportunities to apprentice under decision analysts/consultants. Our primary goal should be an attempt to ingrain a discipline for applying clarity of thought to all decisions. OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2015, 7 8355

Decision Support Frameworks and Tools for Conservation

“…Likewise, government agencies are increasingly using these decision frameworks (Runge et al 2011a;Pressey et al 2013). For example, many U.S. Federal and State Fish and Wildlife agencies are using the OS in their planning work (AFWA 2012; USFWS 2014), the National Conservation Training Center offers training in SDM to hundreds of practitioners each year (Johnson et al 2015), and centers for EBP are emerging globally (Pullin & Knight 2013).…”

Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science?

“…This provides insights into how the system functions and how management actions produce outcomes. Certain forms of carefully designed adaptive management exercises can even be viewed as quasi-experiments (Williams and Brown, 2014;Johnson et al, 2015).…”

“…While these types of lower-inference studies may not overcome all the aforementioned issues we describe, they do have the advantage of being far cheaper and faster to conduct under a wide range of different ecological conditions, which can address problems associated with the transferability of knowledge between contexts. Ideally, conservation actions should be monitored within an adaptive management system that can be used to permit the study of system responses to specific management interventions (Fleming et al, 2014;Johnson et al, 2015). This provides insights into how the system functions and how management actions produce outcomes.…”

Decision-support for marine spatial prioritisation

“…Discussions about prioritising conservation actions overwhelmingly begin with issues of data paucity. This is not surprising if we consider that ecologists and/or data scientists are typically the people tasked with driving conservation efforts (Johnson et al 2015). In chapter 2 I focus on challenging the common perception that more data will lead to better decisions.…”

“…Pursuing more VoI analysis in the context of spatial prioritisation remains an important research priority, but transitioning those from data-collectors and data synthesisers into decision-makers (Gregory et al 2012;Johnson et al 2015) is less about data and more about training in problem formulation.…”