Advertisement

Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 115–139 | Cite as

Combining Population Viability Analysis with Decision Analysis

  • Martin DrechslerEmail author
  • Mark A. Burgman
Article

Abstract

Management of endangered species requires methods to assess the effects of strategies, providing a basis for deciding on a best course of action. An important component of assessment is population viability analysis (PVA). The latter may be formally implemented through decision analysis (DA). These methods are most useful for conservation when used in conjunction. In this paper we outline the objectives and the potential of both frameworks and their overlaps. Both are particularly helpful when dealing with uncertainty. A major problem for conservation decision-making is the interpretation of observations and scientific measurements. This paper considers probabilistic and non-probabilistic approaches to assessment and decision-making and recommends appropriate contexts for alternative approaches.

Bayesian analysis Decision analysis Hypothesis testing Population viability analysis Preference Uncertainty 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akçakaya H.R. and Atwood J.L. 1997. A habitat-based metapopulation model of the California Gnatcatcher. Conservation Biology 11: 422-434.Google Scholar
  2. Akçakaya H.R., Burgman M.A. and Ginzburg L. 1999. Applied Population Ecology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  3. Akçakaya H.R., Ferson S., Burgman M.A., Keith D.A., Mace G.M. and Todd C.R. 2000. Making consistent IUCN classifications under uncertainty. Conservation Biology 14: 1001-1013.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson J.L. 1998. Embracing uncertainty: the interface of Bayesian statistics and cognitive psychology. Conservation Ecology [online] 2(1): 2. URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol2/iss1/art2Google Scholar
  5. Bakan D. 1960. The test of significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin 66: 423-437.Google Scholar
  6. Bana e Costa C.A. 1990. (ed), Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid. Springer, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  7. Boyce M.S. 1992. Population viability analysis. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 481-506.Google Scholar
  8. Breininger D.R., Burgman M.A., Akçakaya H.R. and O'Connell M.A. 2002. Use of metapopulations in conservation planning. In: Gutzwiller K. (ed), Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation. Springer, New York, pp. 405-427.Google Scholar
  9. Burgman M.A. 2000. Population viability analysis for bird conservation: theory, practice, models and psychology. Emu 100: 347-353.Google Scholar
  10. Burgman M.A. and Lamont B.B. 1992. A stochastic model for the viability of Banksia cuneata populations: environmental, demographic and genetic effects. Journal of Applied Ecology 29: 719-727.Google Scholar
  11. Burgman M.A., Breininger D.R., Duncan B.W. and Ferson S. 2001. Setting reliability bounds on habitat suitability indices. Ecological Applications 11: 70-78.Google Scholar
  12. Caswell H. 1978. A general formula for the sensitivity of population growth rate to changes in the life history parameters. Theoretical Population Biology 14: 215-230.Google Scholar
  13. Caughley G. 1994. Directions in conservation biology. Journal of Animal Ecology 63: 215-244.Google Scholar
  14. Clemen R.T. 1996. Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis. Duxbury, Pacific Grove, California.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen J. 1994. The Earth is round (p < 0.05). American Psychologist 12: 997-1003.Google Scholar
  17. Drechsler M. 1998. Sensitivity analysis of complex models. Biological Conservation 86: 401-412.Google Scholar
  18. Drechsler M. 2000. A model-based decision aid for species protection under uncertainty. Biological Conservation 94: 23-30.Google Scholar
  19. Drechsler M. 2004. Model-based conservation decision aiding in the presence of goal conflicts and uncertainty. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 141-164 (this issue).Google Scholar
  20. Drechsler M. and Wätzold F. 2001. The importance of economic costs in the development of guidelines for spatial conservation management. Biological Conservation 97: 51-59.Google Scholar
  21. Drechsler M., Burgman M.A. and Menkhorst P.W. 1998. Uncertainty in population dynamics and its consequences for the management of the Orange-bellied Parrot Neophema chrysogaster. Biological Conservation 84: 269-281.Google Scholar
  22. Eckhoudt L. and Gollier C. 1995. Risk — Evaluation, Management and Sharing. Harvester and Wheatsheaf, New York/London.Google Scholar
  23. Elith J. 2000. Quantitative methods for modelling species habitat. In: Ferson S. and Burgman M.A. (eds), Quantitative Methods for Conservation Biology. Springer, New York, pp. 39-58.Google Scholar
  24. Fairweather P.G. 1991. Statistical power and design requirements for environmental monitoring. Australian Journal of Marine Freshwater Research 42: 555-567.Google Scholar
  25. Falk R. and Greenbaum C.W. 1995. Significance tests die hard. Theory and Psychology 5: 396-400.Google Scholar
  26. Ferguson I.S. 1996. Sustainable Forest Management. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  27. Fischhoff B., Slovic P. and Lichtenstein S. 1982. Lay foibles and expert fables in judgements about risk. American Statistician 36: 240-255.Google Scholar
  28. Fleming D.M., DeAngelis D.L., Gross L.J., Ulanowicz R.E., Wolff W.F., Loftus W.F. et al. 1994. ATLSS: Across-Trophic-Level System Simulation for the Freshwater Wetlands of the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp. National Biological Service Technical Report. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  29. Fox D.R. 2001. Environmental power analysis — a new perspective. Environmetrics 12: 437-449.Google Scholar
  30. Gelman A., Carlin J.B., Stern H.S. and Rubin D.B. 1995. Bayesian Data Analysis. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  31. Gill J. 1999. The insignificance of null hypothesis significance testing. Political Research Quarterly 52: 647-674.Google Scholar
  32. Green R.H. 1995. Aspects of power analysis in environmental monitoring. In: Fletcher D.J. and Manly B.J.F. (eds), Statistics in Ecology and Environmental Monitoring. Otago Conference Series No. 2. University of Otago Press, Dunedin, New Zealand, pp. 173-182.Google Scholar
  33. Hanley N. and Spash C.L. 1993. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment (Chapter 1). Edward Elgar, Brookfield, Vermont.Google Scholar
  34. Hilborn R. and Ludwig D. 1993. The Limits of Applied Ecological Research. Ecological Applications 3: 550-552.Google Scholar
  35. Hilborn R. and Walters C.J. 1992. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment: Choice, Dynamics, and Uncertainty. Chapman & Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  36. Howson C. and Urbach P. 1993. Scientific Reasoning. The Bayesian Approach. 2nd edn. Open Court, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  37. IUCN 1994. IUCN Red List Categories. Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  38. Johnson D.H. 1999. The insignificance of statistical significance testing. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 763-772.Google Scholar
  39. Klepper O. 1997. Multivariate aspects of model uncertainty analysis: tools for sensitivity analysis and calibration. Ecological Modelling 101(1): 1-13.Google Scholar
  40. Ludwig D., Hilborn R. and Walters C. 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: lessons from history. Science 260: 17-36.Google Scholar
  41. Macdonald R.R. 1997. On Statistical Testing in Psychology. British Journal of Psychology 88: 333-349.Google Scholar
  42. Maguire L.A. 1986. Using decision analysis to manage endangered species populations. Journal of Environmental Management 22: 345-360.Google Scholar
  43. Mapstone B.D. 1995. Scaleable decision rules for environmental impact studies: effect size, Type I and Type II errors. Ecological Applications 5: 401-410.Google Scholar
  44. Margules C.R. and Nicholls A.O. 1993. Where should nature reserves be located? In: Moritz C. and Kikkawa J. (eds), Conservation Biology in Australia and Oceania. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, Australia.Google Scholar
  45. May R.M. 1976. Theoretical Ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  46. Meehl P.E. 1978. Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology 46: 806-834.Google Scholar
  47. Morgan M.G. and Henrion M. 1990. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  48. Murtaugh P.A. 1996. The statistical evaluation of ecological indicators. Ecological Applications 6: 132-139.Google Scholar
  49. O'Hara R.B., Arjas E., Toivonen H. and Hanski I. 2002. Bayesian analysis of metapopulation data. Ecology 83: 2408-2415.Google Scholar
  50. Peterman R.M. 1990. Statistical power analysis can improve fisheries research and management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 2-15.Google Scholar
  51. Portney P.R. and Weyant J.P. (eds), 1999. Discounting and Intergenerational Equity. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  52. Possingham H. 1996. Decision theory and biodiversity management: how to manage a metapopulation. In: Floyd R.B., Sheppard A.W. and De Barro P.J. (eds), Frontiers of Population Ecology. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 391-398.Google Scholar
  53. Possingham H. and Shea C. 1999. The Business of Biodiversity. Australian Zoologist 31(1): 3-5.Google Scholar
  54. Pressey R.L., Humphries C.J., Margules C.R., Vane-Wright R.I. and Williams P.H. 1993. Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. TREE 8: 124-128.Google Scholar
  55. Punt A. and Hilborn R. 1997. Fisheries stock assessment and decision analysis: the Bayesian approach. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 7: 35-63.Google Scholar
  56. Ralls K. and Starfield A.M. 1995. Choosing a management strategy: two structured decisionmaking methods for evaluating the predictions of stochastic simulation models. Conservation Biology 9: 175-181.Google Scholar
  57. Regan H.M., Colyvan M. and Burgman M.A. 2000. A proposal for fuzzy International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) categories and criteria. Biological Conservation 92: 101-108.Google Scholar
  58. Richards S.A., Possingham H.P. and Tizard J. 1999. Optimal fire management for maintaining community diversity. Ecological Applications 9: 880-892.Google Scholar
  59. Rosenberg A.A., Fogarty M.J., Sissenwine M.P., Beddington J.R. and Shepherd J.G. 1993. Achieving sustainable use of renewable resources. Science 262: 828-829.Google Scholar
  60. Shrader-Frechette K. 1996. Methodological rules for four classes of scientific uncertainty. In: Lemons J. (ed), Scientific Uncertainty and Environmental Problem Solving. Blackwell, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 12-39.Google Scholar
  61. Smith A.D.M., Sainsbury K.J. and Stevens R.A. 1999. Implementing effective fisheriesmanagement systems-management strategy evaluation and the Australian partnership approach. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56: 967-979.Google Scholar
  62. Sokal R.R. and Rohlf F.J. 1995. Biometry. Freeman, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  63. Stewart T.J. 1992. A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making-theory and practice. OMEGA International Journal of Management Science 20: 569-586.Google Scholar
  64. Tahvonen O. 1995. Dynamics of pollution control when damage is sensitive to the rate of pollution accumulation. Environmental and Resource Economics 5: 9-27.Google Scholar
  65. Thompson P.M., Wilson B., Grellier K. and Hamond P.S. 2000. Combining power analysis and population viability analysis to compare traditional and precautionary approaches to conservation of coastal cetaceans. Conservation Biology 14: 1253-1263.Google Scholar
  66. Tversky A. and Kahneman D. 1974. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 211: 453-458.Google Scholar
  67. Underwood A.J. 1995. Things environmental scientists (and statisticians) need to know to receive (and give) better statistical advice. In: Fletcher D.J. and Manly B.J.F. (eds), Statistics in Ecology and Environmental Monitoring. Otago Conference Series No. 2. University of Otago Press, Dunedin, New Zealand, pp. 33-61.Google Scholar
  68. Wade P.R. 2000. Bayesian methods in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 14: 1308-1316.Google Scholar
  69. Wu J. and Bogess W.G. 1999. The optimal allocation of conservation funds. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38: 302-321.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecological ModelingCentre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle GmbHLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.School of BotanyUniversity of MelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations