Environment Systems and Decisions

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 302–309 | Cite as

Value of information and monitoring in conservation biology

  • Mark ColyvanEmail author


In this paper we consider uses of value of information studies in conservation biology. It is a common assumption that more and better quality data will lead to better conservation management decisions. Indeed, this assumption lies behind, and motivates, a great deal of current work in conservation biology. Of course, more data can lead to better decisions in some cases but decision-theoretic models of the value of information show that this need not always be the case: sometimes the cost of data collection is too high. While such value of information studies are well known in economics and decision theory circles, their applications in conservation biology are relatively new. These studies are a valuable tool for conservation management, and we outline some of the potential applications. We also offer some advice about, and problems with, implementing value of information studies in conservation settings.


Decision theory Value of information Game theory Conservation decisions Monitoring 



I am indebted to Jack Justus, Mick McCarthy, Maureen O’Malley, Kirsten Parris, Hugh Possingham, Helen Regan, and Luke Russell for valuable discussions on the topic of this paper and to two anonymous referees for this journal for several very constructive suggestions. I am also indebted to audiences at the University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway, the 2013 Munich-Sydney-Tilburg Models and Decisions conference at the Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich, Germany and the 2013 Society for Risk Analysis (Australia and New Zealand) conference at the Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Work on this paper was supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship Grant (Grant number: FT110100909).


  1. Colyvan M, Justus J, Regan HM (2011) The conservation game. Biol Conserv 144(4):1246–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gauthier-Clerc M, Gendner JP, Ribic CA, Fraser WR, Woehler EJ, Descamps S, Le Bohec Gilly C, Le Maho Y (2004) Long-term effects of flipper bands on penguins. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 271(Suppl 6):S423–S426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gould JP (1974) Risk, stochastic preference and the value of information. J Econ Theory 8(1):64–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hanley N, Folmer H (1999) Game theory and the environment. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  5. Keisler JM, Collier ZA, Chu E, Sinatra N, Linkov I (2014) Value of information analysis: the state of application. Environ Syst Decis 34(1):3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. May RM (2004) Ethics and amphibians. Nature 431(7007):403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McCarthy MA, Parris KM (2004) Clarifying the effects of toe clipping on frogs with bayesian statistics. J Appl Ecol 41(4):780–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. McCarthy MA, Parris KM (2008) Optimal marking of threatened species to balance benefits of information with impacts of marking. Conserv Biol 22(6):1506–1512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Møller AP, Fiedler W (2010) Long-term time series of ornithological data. In: Møller AP, Fiedler W, Berthold P (eds) The effects of climate change on birds. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 33–38Google Scholar
  10. Moore AL, McCarthy MA (2010) On valuing information in adaptive-management models. Conserv Biol 24(4):984–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nichols JD, Williams BK (2006) Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21(12):668–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Osborne MJ (2003) An introduction to game theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Poundstone W (1992) Prisoner’s dilemma. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Phillott AD, Skerratt LF, McDonald KR, Lemckert FL, Hines HB, Clarke JM, Alford RA, Speare R (2007) Toe-clipping as an acceptable method of identifying individual anurans in mark recapture studies. Herpetol Rev 38(3):305–308Google Scholar
  15. Raiffa H (1968) Decision analysis: introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA Republished by McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  16. Regan HM, Colyvan M, Burgman MA (2002) A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecol Appl 12(2):618–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Resnik MD (1987) Choices: an introduction to decision theory. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  18. Rhodes JR, Ng CF, de Villiers DL, Preece HJ, McAlpine CA, Possingham HP (2011) Using integrated population modelling to quantify the implications of multiple threatening processes for a rapidly declining population. Biol Conserv 144(3):1081–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Runge MC, Converse SJ, Lyons JE (2011) Which uncertainty? Using expert elicitation and expected value of information to design an adaptive program. Biol Conserv 144(4):1214–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Runting RK, Wilson KA, Rhodes JR (2013) Does more mean less? The value of information for conservation planning under sea level rise. Glob Change Biology 19(2):352–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations