Geology topics

Rebecca S. Epanchin-Niell

Publications and source records attributed to Rebecca S. Epanchin-Niell.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2022

Hurdles to developing quantitative decision support for Endangered Species Act resource allocation

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service oversees the recovery of many species protected by the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). Recent research suggests that a structured approach to allocating conservation resources could increase recovery outcomes for ESA listed species. Quantitative approaches to decision support can efficiently allocate limited financial resources and maximize desired outcomes. Yet, developing quantitative decision support under real-world constraints is challenging. Approaches that pair research teams and end-users are generally the most effective. However, co-development requires overcoming “hurdles” that can arise because of differences in the mental models of the co-development team. These include perceptions that: (1) scarce funds should be spent on action, not decision support; (2) quantitative approaches are only useful for simple decisions; (3) quantitative tools are inflexible and prescriptive black boxes; (4) available data are not good enough to support decisions; and (5) prioritization means admitting defeat. Here, we describe how we addressed these misperceptions during the development of a prototype resource allocation decision support tool for understanding trade-offs in U.S. endangered species recovery. We describe how acknowledging these hurdles and identifying solutions enabled us to progress with development. We believe that our experience can assist other applications of developing quantitative decision support for resource allocation.

Frontiers in Conservation Science↗

USGS2022

Optimizing management of invasions in an uncertain world using dynamic spatial models

Dispersal drives invasion dynamics of nonnative species and pathogens. Applying knowledge of dispersal to optimize the management of invasions can mean the difference between a failed and a successful control program and dramatically improve the return on investment of control efforts. A common approach to identifying optimal management solutions for invasions is to optimize dynamic spatial models that incorporate dispersal. Optimizing these spatial models can be very challenging because the interaction of time, space, and uncertainty rapidly amplifies the number of dimensions being considered. Addressing such problems requires advances in and the integration of techniques from multiple fields, including ecology, decision analysis, bioeconomics, natural resource management, and optimization. By synthesizing recent advances from these diverse fields, we provide a workflow for applying ecological theory to advance optimal management science and highlight priorities for optimizing the control of invasions. One of the striking gaps we identify is the extremely limited consideration of dispersal uncertainty in optimal management frameworks, even though dispersal estimates are highly uncertain and greatly influence invasion outcomes. In addition, optimization frameworks rarely consider multiple types of uncertainty (we describe five major types) and their interrelationships. Thus, feedbacks from management or other sources that could magnify uncertainty in dispersal are rarely considered. Incorporating uncertainty is crucial for improving transparency in decision risks and identifying optimal management strategies. We discuss gaps and solutions to the challenges of optimization using dynamic spatial models to increase the practical application of these important tools and improve the consistency and robustness of management recommendations for invasions.

Ecological Applications↗

USGS2018

Integrating adaptive management and ecosystem services concepts to improve natural resource management: Challenges and opportunities

Executive Summary—Overview Natural resource managers must make decisions that affect broad-scale ecosystem processes involving large spatial areas, complex biophysical interactions, numerous competing stakeholder interests, and highly uncertain outcomes. Natural and social science information and analyses are widely recognized as important for informing effective management. Chief among the systematic approaches for improving the integration of science into natural resource management are two emergent science concepts, adaptive management and ecosystem services. Adaptive management (also referred to as “adaptive decision making”) is a deliberate process of learning by doing that focuses on reducing uncertainties about management outcomes and system responses to improve management over time. Ecosystem services is a conceptual framework that refers to the attributes and outputs of ecosystems (and their components and functions) that have value for humans. This report explores how ecosystem services can be moved from concept into practice through connection to a decision framework—adaptive management—that accounts for inherent uncertainties. Simultaneously, the report examines the value of incorporating ecosystem services framing and concepts into adaptive management efforts. Adaptive management and ecosystem services analyses have not typically been used jointly in decision making. However, as frameworks, they have a natural—but to date underexplored—affinity. Both are policy and decision oriented in that they attempt to represent the consequences of resource management choices on outcomes of interest to stakeholders. Both adaptive management and ecosystem services analysis take an empirical approach to the analysis of ecological systems. This systems orientation is a byproduct of the fact that natural resource actions affect ecosystems—and corresponding societal outcomes—often across large geographic scales. Moreover, because both frameworks focus on resource systems, both must confront the analytical challenges of systems modeling—in terms of complexity, dynamics, and uncertainty. Given this affinity, the integration of ecosystem services analysis and adaptive management poses few conceptual hurdles. In this report, we synthesize discussions from two workshops that considered ways in which adaptive management approaches and ecosystem service concepts may be complementary, such that integrating them into a common framework may lead to improved natural resource management outcomes. Although the literature on adaptive management and ecosystem services is vast and growing, the report focuses specifically on the integration of these two concepts rather than aiming to provide new definitions or an indepth review or primer of the concepts individually. Key issues considered include the bidirectional links between adaptive decision making and ecosystem services, as well as the potential benefits and inevitable challenges arising in the development and use of an integrated framework. Specifically, the workshops addressed the following questions: How can application of ecosystem service analysis within an adaptive decision process improve the outcomes of management and advance understanding of ecosystem service identification, production, and valuation? How can these concepts be integrated in concept and practice? What are the constraints and challenges to integrating adaptive management and ecosystem services? And, should the integration of these concepts be moved forward to wider application—and if so, how?

Circular↗

USGS2018

Endangered species recovery: A resource allocation problem

Many nations have laws to identify and protect imperiled species and their ecosystems. In the United States, actions taken under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have prevented many extinctions, but few listed species have recovered to the point where they can have the ESA protections removed ( 1 , 2 ). One reason for this [among many ( 3 )] is a shortfall in funding, raising a conundrum for agencies responsible for species recovery: Should resources be allocated toward species facing imminent extinction or species whose long-term survival can most benefit from investment? Some argue that the latter strategy is ethically unsound because it may abandon species with little hope of long-term recovery [for example, ( 4 )], even when science suggests that the former strategy may miss opportunities to prevent species from ever experiencing the risk of imminent extinction ( 2 ). We suggest that framing recovery prioritization as a resource allocation problem provides a structure to facilitate constructive debate about such important questions. We discuss here the merits of an explicit resource allocation framework and introduce a prototype decision tool [( 5 ); see supplementary materials for details] that we developed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to facilitate transparent and efficient recovery allocation decisions.

Science↗

USGS2015

A typology of time-scale mismatches and behavioral interventions to diagnose and solve conservation problems

Ecological systems often operate on time scales significantly longer or shorter than the time scales typical of human decision making, which causes substantial difficulty for conservation and management in socioecological systems. For example, invasive species may move faster than humans can diagnose problems and initiate solutions, and climate systems may exhibit long-term inertia and short-term fluctuations that obscure learning about the efficacy of management efforts in many ecological systems. We adopted a management-decision framework that distinguishes decision makers within public institutions from individual actors within the social system, calls attention to the ways socioecological systems respond to decision makers’ actions, and notes institutional learning that accrues from observing these responses. We used this framework, along with insights from bedeviling conservation problems, to create a typology that identifies problematic time-scale mismatches occurring between individual decision makers in public institutions and between individual actors in the social or ecological system. We also considered solutions that involve modifying human perception and behavior at the individual level as a means of resolving these problematic mismatches. The potential solutions are derived from the behavioral economics and psychology literature on temporal challenges in decision making, such as the human tendency to discount future outcomes at irrationally high rates. These solutions range from framing environmental decisions to enhance the salience of long-term consequences, to using structured decision processes that make time scales of actions and consequences more explicit, to structural solutions aimed at altering the consequences of short-sighted behavior to make it less appealing. Additional application of these tools and long-term evaluation measures that assess not just behavioral changes but also associated changes in ecological systems are needed.

Conservation Biology↗