Abstract
We identify four issues in the decision framework for species conservation management under climate change proposed by Shoo et al. (2013) Clim Chan 119:239–246 and suggest ways to address them. First, binary-decision flow charts require Yes/No answers, which are not appropriate in most conservation decisions. A quantitative framework is preferable and action-guidance should be obtained even when the realistic answer to some questions remains “we simply do not know”. Second, the proposed flow chart imposes an a priori order of precedence and does not explicitly allow simultaneous actions. A workable framework should enable optimal allocation between multiple kinds of conservation efforts and permit complementary actions. Third, the probability of success, co-benefit to non-target species, and cost are unlikely to have a simple, consistent relationship across taxa. These variables need to be assessed case-by-case for each conservation measure and species. Finally, the decision framework disregards the legal, social, and ethical aspects pertaining to decision-making.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Probabilistic assessments are frequently used in other contexts in which decisions are made in an environment of uncertainty (e.g., IPCC’s assessments).
Generally speaking, quantification necessitates being explicit about one’s thinking: the structure of a conceptualization, values of different parameters, and connections between parameters, their strength and causal relationships. –Our intention is not to suggest quantification as a panacea. In the present context, its hidden dangers include, for example, the false impression of objectivity, bias in finding a common scale for outcomes different in kind (the problem of comparing apples and oranges), discounting aspects of a decision that are difficult to articulate numerically (such as tacit knowledge), and lost efficiency or even inability to reach decisions owing to heavy calculations and information demands. It is worth noticing, however, that many of the possible problems hinge on the guidance given for conservation managers to reach quantitative/probabilistic estimates in a consistent manner, and not so much on the quantitative nature of those estimates per se.
Theoretically, if there is absolutely no information about which outcome (or statement) is more likely than the others, the probability distribution should in the simple case be uniform, i.e., each outcome is assigned equal probability on the basis of the total number of possible cases (cf. scale parameters). In practice, however, uniform probability distributions are but exceptions as there is almost always information that makes some outcomes more likely than others.
In case certain funds are available for a specific conservation measure and cannot be used for anything else, departing from the cost-effectiveness ratio framework is reasonable. The ring-fenced projects should be implemented (provided that they do not take too much other resources away from other conservation actions) and the framework applied to the other possible projects.
A balanced comparison of ex situ and in situ conservation naturally takes into account the total costs, e.g., in the case of preserving seeds in a seed bank the cost of a later reintroduction to the wild (or botanical garden) needs to be included.
To ensure transparency and facilitate non-biased assessment, the elicitation of value judgments needs to be undertaken separately from identifying and describing the outcomes of a conservation action on the basis of scientific predictions which is purely a scientific matter.
References
Ahteensuu M, Lehvävirta S (2014) Assisted migration, risks and scientific uncertainty, and ethics: a comment on Albrecht et al.’s review paper. J Agric Environ Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10806-014-9493-z
Ahteensuu M, Sandin P (2012) The precautionary principle. In: Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Roeser S, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics and social implications of risk. Springer, pp 961–978
Camacho AE (2010) Assisted migration: redefining nature and natural resource law under climate change. Yale J Regul 27(2):171–255
Chen I-C, Hill JK, Ohlemüller R, Roy DB, Thomas CD (2011) Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science:1024–1026
Hannah L (2012) Saving a million species: extinction risk from climate change. IslandPress, Washington
Hoegh-Guldberg O, Hughes L, McIntyre S, Lindenmayer DB, Parmesan C, Possingham HP, Thomas CD (2008) Assisted colonization and rapid climate change. Science 321:345–346
IUCN/SSC (2013) Guidelines for reintroductions and other conservation translocations. Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN species survival commission viiii + 57pp
Maschinski J, Wright SJ, Lewis C (2012) The critical role of the public: plant conservation through volunteer and community outreach projects. In: Maschinski J, Haskins E (eds) Plant reintroduction in a changing climate: promises and perils. IslandPress, Washington, pp 53–69
McDonald-Madden E, Runge MC, Possingham HP, Martin TG (2011) Optimal timing for managed relocation of species faced with climate change. Nat Clim Chang 1:261–265
Rout TM, McDonald-Madden E, Martin TG, Mitchell NJ, Possingham HP, Armstrong DP (2013) How to decide whether to move species threatened by climate change. PLoS One 8(10):e75814. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0075814
Schwartz MW, Martin TG (2013) Translocation of imperiled species under changing climates. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1286:15–28
Shoo LP, Hoffmann AA, Garnett S, Pressey RL, Williams YM, Taylor M, Falconi L, Yates CJ, Scott JK, Alagador D, Williams SE (2013) Making decisions to conserve species under climate change. Clim Change 119:239–246
Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE et al (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145–148
Warren R, VanDerWal J, Price J et al (2013) Quantifying the benefit of early climate change mitigation in avoiding biodiversity loss. Nat Clim Chang. doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE1887
Acknowledgments
This work is part of the Academy of Finland research project number 258144 “Constraints and Opportunities of Assisted Dispersal of Plants in Climate Change Adaptation–Biological, Legal and Ethical Analyses (CO-ADAPT)”. Helpful comments by Rebecca Whitlock on an earlier version of this response were much appreciated. Elina Vaara was funded by a Kone Foundation research grant.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(PDF 247 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ahteensuu, M., Aikio, S., Cardoso, P. et al. Quantitative tools and simultaneous actions needed for species conservation under climate change–reply to Shoo et al. (2013). Climatic Change 129, 1–7 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1311-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1311-0