ORCID Profile
0000-0002-8081-536X
Current Organisation
U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
In Research Link Australia (RLA), "Research Topics" refer to ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes. These topics are either sourced from ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes listed in researchers' related grants or generated by a large language model (LLM) based on their publications.
Environmental Monitoring | Ecological Impacts of Climate Change | Environmental Science and Management | Environmental Management | Conservation and Biodiversity
Remnant Vegetation and Protected Conservation Areas at Regional or Larger Scales | Ecosystem Assessment and Management at Regional or Larger Scales | Flora, Fauna and Biodiversity at Regional or Larger Scales |
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 30-07-2010
DOI: 10.1111/J.1461-0248.2010.01514.X
Abstract: There is a growing view that to make efficient use of resources, ecological monitoring should be hypothesis-driven and targeted to address specific management questions. 'Targeted' monitoring has been contrasted with other approaches in which a range of quantities are monitored in case they exhibit an alarming trend or provide ad hoc ecological insights. The second form of monitoring, described as surveillance, has been criticized because it does not usually aim to discern between competing hypotheses, and its benefits are harder to identify a priori. The alternative view is that the existence of surveillance data may enable rapid corroboration of emerging hypotheses or help to detect important 'unknown unknowns' that, if undetected, could lead to catastrophic outcomes or missed opportunities. We derive a model to evaluate and compare the efficiency of investments in surveillance and targeted monitoring. We find that a decision to invest in surveillance monitoring may be defensible if: (1) the surveillance design is more likely to discover or corroborate previously unknown phenomena than a targeted design and (2) the expected benefits (or avoided costs) arising from discovery are substantially higher than those arising from a well-planned targeted design. Our examination highlights the importance of being explicit about the objectives, costs and expected benefits of monitoring in a decision analytic framework.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 04-2011
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 28-01-2022
DOI: 10.1111/COBI.13868
Abstract: Bio ersity conservation decisions are difficult, especially when they involve differing values, complex multidimensional objectives, scarce resources, urgency, and considerable uncertainty. Decision science embodies a theory about how to make difficult decisions and an extensive array of frameworks and tools that make that theory practical. We sought to improve conceptual clarity and practical application of decision science to help decision makers apply decision science to conservation problems. We addressed barriers to the uptake of decision science, including a lack of training and awareness of decision science confusion over common terminology and which tools and frameworks to apply and the mistaken impression that applying decision science must be time consuming, expensive, and complex. To aid in navigating the extensive and disparate decision science literature, we clarify meaning of common terms: decision science , decision theory , decision analysis , structured decision‐making , and decision‐support tools . Applying decision science does not have to be complex or time consuming rather, it begins with knowing how to think through the components of a decision utilizing decision analysis (i.e., define the problem, elicit objectives, develop alternatives, estimate consequences, and perform trade‐offs). This is best achieved by applying a rapid‐prototyping approach. At each step, decision‐support tools can provide additional insight and clarity, whereas decision‐support frameworks (e.g., priority threat management and systematic conservation planning) can aid navigation of multiple steps of a decision analysis for particular contexts. We summarize key decision‐support frameworks and tools and describe to which step of a decision analysis, and to which contexts, each is most useful to apply. Our introduction to decision science will aid in contextualizing current approaches and new developments, and help decision makers begin to apply decision science to conservation problems.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 28-04-2021
DOI: 10.1111/COBI.13748
Abstract: Land managers decide how to allocate resources among multiple threats that can be addressed through multiple possible actions. Additionally, these actions vary in feasibility, effectiveness, and cost. We sought to provide a way to optimize resource allocation to address multiple threats when multiple management options are available, including mutually exclusive options. Formulating the decision as a combinatorial optimization problem, our framework takes as inputs the expected impact and cost of each threat for each action (including do nothing) and for each overall budget identifies the optimal action to take for each threat. We compared the optimal solution to an easy to calculate greedy algorithm approximation and a variety of plausible ranking schemes. We applied the framework to management of multiple introduced plant species in Australian alpine areas. We developed a model of invasion to predict the expected impact in 50 years for each species‐action combination that accounted for each species’ current invasion state (absent, localized, widespread) arrival probability spread rate impact, if present, of each species and management effectiveness of each species‐action combination. We found that the recommended action for a threat changed with budget there was no single optimal management action for each species and considering more than one candidate action can substantially increase the management plan's overall efficiency. The approximate solution (solution ranked by marginal cost‐effectiveness) performed well when the budget matched the cost of the prioritized actions, indicating that this approach would be effective if the budget was set as part of the prioritization process. The ranking schemes varied in performance, and achieving a close to optimal solution was not guaranteed. Global sensitivity analysis revealed a threat's expected impact and, to a lesser extent, management effectiveness were the most influential parameters, emphasizing the need to focus research and monitoring efforts on their quantification.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 02-2010
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 26-10-2023
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 19-11-2018
DOI: 10.1002/CSP2.1
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 29-01-2014
DOI: 10.1111/COBI.12238
Abstract: Policy documents advocate that managers should keep their options open while planning to protect coastal ecosystems from climate-change impacts. However, the actual costs and benefits of maintaining flexibility remain largely unexplored, and alternative approaches for decision making under uncertainty may lead to better joint outcomes for conservation and other societal goals. For ex le, keeping options open for coastal ecosystems incurs opportunity costs for developers. We devised a decision framework that integrates these costs and benefits with probabilistic forecasts for the extent of sea-level rise to find a balance between coastal ecosystem protection and moderate coastal development. Here, we suggest that instead of keeping their options open managers should incorporate uncertain sea-level rise predictions into a decision-making framework that evaluates the benefits and costs of conservation and development. In our ex le, based on plausible scenarios for sea-level rise and assuming a risk-neutral decision maker, we found that substantial development could be accommodated with negligible loss of environmental assets. Characterization of the Pareto efficiency of conservation and development outcomes provides valuable insight into the intensity of trade-offs between development and conservation. However, additional work is required to improve understanding of the consequences of alternative spatial plans and the value judgments and risk preferences of decision makers and stakeholders.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 08-08-2011
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 30-05-2016
DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE3041
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 07-2010
DOI: 10.1890/09-0647.1
Abstract: Adaptive management has a long history in the natural resource management literature, but despite this, few practitioners have developed adaptive strategies to conserve threatened species. Active adaptive management provides a framework for valuing learning by measuring the degree to which it improves long-run management outcomes. The challenge of an active adaptive approach is to find the correct balance between gaining knowledge to improve management in the future and achieving the best short-term outcome based on current knowledge. We develop and analyze a framework for active adaptive management of a threatened species. Our case study concerns a novel facial tumor disease affecting the Australian threatened species Sarcophilus harrisii: the Tasmanian devil. We use stochastic dynamic programming with Bayesian updating to identify the management strategy that maximizes the Tasmanian devil population growth rate, taking into account improvements to management through learning to better understand disease latency and the relative effectiveness of three competing management options. Exactly which management action we choose each year is driven by the credibility of competing hypotheses about disease latency and by the population growth rate predicted by each hypothesis under the competing management actions. We discover that the optimal combination of management actions depends on the number of sites available and the time remaining to implement management. Our approach to active adaptive management provides a framework to identify the optimal amount of effort to invest in learning to achieve long-run conservation objectives.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 10-12-2015
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 24-07-2011
DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1170
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 03-07-2023
DOI: 10.1101/2023.06.28.23291998
Abstract: Our ability to forecast epidemics more than a few weeks into the future is constrained by the complexity of disease systems, our limited ability to measure the current state of an epidemic, and uncertainties in how human action will affect transmission. Realistic longer-term projections (spanning more than a few weeks) may, however, be possible under defined scenarios that specify the future state of critical epidemic drivers, with the additional benefit that such scenarios can be used to anticipate the comparative effect of control measures. Since December 2020, the U.S. COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub (SMH) has convened multiple modeling teams to make 6-month ahead projections of the number of SARS-CoV-2 cases, hospitalizations and deaths. The SMH released nearly 1.8 million national and state-level projections between February 2021 and November 2022. SMH performance varied widely as a function of both scenario validity and model calibration. Scenario assumptions were periodically invalidated by the arrival of unanticipated SARS-CoV-2 variants, but SMH still provided projections on average 22 weeks before changes in assumptions (such as virus transmissibility) invalidated scenarios and their corresponding projections. During these periods, before emergence of a novel variant, a linear opinion pool ensemble of contributed models was consistently more reliable than any single model, and projection interval coverage was near target levels for the most plausible scenarios (e.g., 79% coverage for 95% projection interval). SMH projections were used operationally to guide planning and policy at different stages of the pandemic, illustrating the value of the hub approach for long-term scenario projections.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2007
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2006
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 2019
DOI: 10.1111/CSP2.1
Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Date: 25-04-2023
Abstract: Policymakers must make management decisions despite incomplete knowledge and conflicting model projections. Little guidance exists for the rapid, representative, and unbiased collection of policy-relevant scientific input from independent modeling teams. Integrating approaches from decision analysis, expert judgment, and model aggregation, we convened multiple modeling teams to evaluate COVID-19 reopening strategies for a mid-sized United States county early in the pandemic. Projections from seventeen distinct models were inconsistent in magnitude but highly consistent in ranking interventions. The 6-mo-ahead aggregate projections were well in line with observed outbreaks in mid-sized US counties. The aggregate results showed that up to half the population could be infected with full workplace reopening, while workplace restrictions reduced median cumulative infections by 82%. Rankings of interventions were consistent across public health objectives, but there was a strong trade-off between public health outcomes and duration of workplace closures, and no win-win intermediate reopening strategies were identified. Between-model variation was high the aggregate results thus provide valuable risk quantification for decision making. This approach can be applied to the evaluation of management interventions in any setting where models are used to inform decision making. This case study demonstrated the utility of our approach and was one of several multimodel efforts that laid the groundwork for the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub, which has provided multiple rounds of real-time scenario projections for situational awareness and decision making to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since December 2020.
Location: United States of America
Start Date: 07-2011
End Date: 05-2018
Amount: $11,900,000.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded Activity