USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · 70273446

An analysis of the linked decisions in the confiscation of illegally traded turtles

Abstract

Over the last few decades, freshwater turtles have become more common in the illegal wildlife trade because of growing global demand. Illegally traded turtles may be intercepted by several different agencies with separate jurisdictions. When turtles are confiscated, uncertainties may make releasing them back to the wild difficult. We used tools from decision analysis to achieve the following three objectives: (1) map elements of the decision process and their relationships in the illegal turtle trade using conceptual models, (2) outline the linked decisions for turtle confiscation and repatriation using decision trees, and (3) evaluate the decision trees for two example scenarios, one with moderate uncertainty and one with high uncertainty. We used the wood turtle ( Glyptemys insculpta ) as a case study, which is a species of conservation concern in part due to illegal wildlife trafficking. We conducted 23 semi-structured interviews of decision makers in law enforcement, biologists, land managers, and zoo staff. Interviews revealed that decisions regarding the disposition of confiscated turtles are complicated by uncertainty in disease status and origin. Decision makers that handle confiscated turtles also recognize that their decisions are often made in sequence and dependent on the outcome of antecedent decisions. In evaluating our decision trees, we found that the optimal decisions for example scenarios were similar and insensitive to uncertainty. Future applications of the decision trees by decision makers would involve a decision analyst to parameterize and interpret the choices and consequences involved in working through these decision trees. Collectively, our work shows how the use of decision trees can help structure and evaluate risky decisions for repatriating confiscated wildlife.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 37.42140161216963° to 51.579179045299185° latitude; -97.61952248598104° to -66.83408644894973° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Desireé Smith, Graziella V. DiRenzo, Jillian Elizabeth Fleming, Margaret C. McEachran, Evan H. Campbell Grant. 2025-12-22. An analysis of the linked decisions in the confiscation of illegally traded turtles. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.70165

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Successes and opportunities for solutions-oriented conservation research: Lessons learned from avian science

Conservation science struggles with an ongoing divide between research and action. Given its history of broad public engagement and multi-scale management coordination, avian conservation typifies many of the challenges, successes, and opportunities across the broader field of conservation and is rich with examples that may guide solutions-oriented conservation science. In semi-structured focus groups composed of bird conservation scientists and practitioners from various backgrounds, we discussed the definition, characteristics, and examples of solutions-oriented conservation science. Our discussions highlighted several examples where successful application of avian conservation science led to change in programs, policy, regulations, and social systems, including several with co-benefits for local communities. These successes were characterized by communication, collaboration, and co-development with local communities, decision-makers, practitioners, and Indigenous communities. We identified remaining opportunities for improvement, including aligning incentives and priorities between research and practice, working across disciplines to mobilize solutions, dismantling barriers to inclusion, and emphasizing the importance of relationship-building in conservation science. We outline suggestions that researchers can use to incorporate these lessons from solutions-oriented avian conservation science into training and mentoring programs.

Conservation Science and Practice

Connecting and coordinating conservation action across landscapes through regional planning processes and syntheses

Modern threats to conservation are often global; however, relevant conservation decisions and actions typically occur within local jurisdictions. The socio-ecological complexity of these problems requires collaboration across large landscapes, diverse community interests, and geopolitical boundaries, yet a lack of interoperability of planning products among decision makers, jurisdictions, and objectives impedes collaboration. Here, we provide a working model for the collaborative, iterative development of a landscape conservation design (LCD) in the Midwest region of the United States, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint, and demonstrate its applicability to the coordination of voluntary conservation actions and investments across jurisdictional boundaries. We used spatial prioritization software to synthesize over 20 datasets to develop a basemap of priority lands and waters for conservation across a diverse set of societal and ecological values (e.g., water quality, biodiversity, recreation). The Midwest Conservation Blueprint is a living plan, updated annually based on improvements in underlying data, understanding of local conditions, and public input. Landscape-scale planning is not designed to replace local knowledge or supersede decision-making authorities. However, by synthesizing existing data that represent diverse socio-ecological values and planning at a broader scale, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint documents where there are shared priorities and opportunities for collaborative landscape conservation.

Midwest

Debunking the myth of the quintessential resource manager: Precision in actionable science

“Actionable science” is a widely held standard for identifying the merits of natural resources research. Yet, science is often framed as actionable to a vaguely identified quintessential “manager” without defining either the intended manager or use. Generic descriptions lack precision for identifying end users or their needs, limiting methodological rigor in research design and leading to contextual misalignments of outputs with the need they intended to serve. Further, imprecise terminology limits the ability to evaluate impact, replicate efforts, or foster adoption and implementation of findings. This perspective article presents the heuristic of “who, what, when, where, why, how” to help researchers be more precise when describing their actionable science. Through intentional reflection, researchers can move beyond generic framings of “managers” representing monolithic organizations. “Managers” become individuals, with unique responsibilities, functions, worldviews, and levels of authority, all influencing their use of and need for scientific information and data.

Conservation Science and Practice