Prioritization of Species Status Assessments for Decision Support

被引:1
作者
Goode, Ashley B. C. [1 ,2 ]
Rivenbark, Erin [3 ]
Gilbert, Jessica A. [3 ]
Mcgowan, Conor P. [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Dept Wildlife Ecol & Conservat, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
[2] Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservat Commiss, Fish & Wildlife Res Inst, St Petersburg, FL 33701 USA
[3] US Fish & Wildlife Serv, Atlanta, GA 30345 USA
[4] Univ Florida, US Geol Survey, Florida Cooperat Fish & Wildlife Res Unit, Dept Wildlife Ecol & Conservat, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
关键词
optimization; Excel solver; work plan prioritization; OBJECTIVES; CONSERVATION; UNCERTAINTY; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.1287/deca.2023.0026
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
Species status assessments are used to inform U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) decision making for Endangered Species Act (ESA) classification decisions, recovery planning, and more. The large number of species that require assessment and uncertainty in the data available impede the process of assigning and completing the assessments, which makes creating a multiyear work plan extremely difficult. An optimized triaging system that maximizes the use of the best available information while managing the complex ESA workload and meeting deadlines is necessary. We used a structured decision-making framework to approach the problem with the goal of creating a prioritization tool that would be effective at scheduling assessments, given the best information available and priorities of the USFWS. We collected data on the species awaiting assessment and developed a value function that incorporates existing deadlines, taxonomic uncertainty, controversy of the species, and population and habitat data availability and quality. We used a constrained linear optimization algorithm to maximize the value function and ensure that workload capacity was not exceeded. A comparison of model scenarios indicates that imposed deadlines impact the model more than capacity constraints. Additionally, differential weighting of the metrics significantly affected the outcome of the model. In the future, elicitation of metric weights should be done routinely before the model is run for use in official planning to ensure alignment with current USFWS priorities. Output from this optimization can be used to inform a five-year work plan, allocate resources, and discuss workforce decisions.
引用
收藏
页码:311 / 325
页数:16
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]   A review of protocols for selecting species at risk in the context of US Forest Service viability assessments [J].
Andelman, SJ ;
Groves, C ;
Regan, HM .
ACTA OECOLOGICA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, 2004, 26 (02) :75-83
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2016, FED REGISTER, V187, P66461
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1973, Dymally-Alatorre Bi-lingual Services Act
[4]   Generating objectives: Can decision makers articulate what they want? [J].
Bond, Samuel D. ;
Carlson, Kurt A. ;
Keeney, Ralph L. .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2008, 54 (01) :56-70
[5]  
Converse SJ, 2020, WILDL MANAGE CONSERV, P51
[6]  
Forest Guardians, 2007, PET LIST ALL CRIT IM
[7]  
Gregory R., 2012, Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices, DOI DOI 10.1002/9781444398557
[8]   Making smarter environmental management decisions [J].
Gregory, RS ;
Keeney, RL .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION, 2002, 38 (06) :1601-1612
[9]  
Hammond J.S., 2015, SMART CHOICES PRACTI
[10]  
Keeney R., 1992, Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making