Using Structured Decision Making to Help Implement a Precautionary Approach to Endangered Species Management

Endangered species protection is a significant risk management concern throughout North America. An extensive conceptual literature emphasizes the role to be played by precautionary approaches. Risk managers, typically working in concert with concerned stakeholders, frequently cite the concept as key to their efforts to prevent extinctions. Little has been done, however, to evaluate the multidimensional impacts of precautionary frameworks or to assist in the examination of competing precautionary risk management options as part of an applied risk management decision framework. In this article we describe how decision-aiding techniques can assist in the creation and analysis of alternative precautionary strategies, using the example of a multistakeholder committee charged with protection of endangered Cultus Lake salmon on the Canadian west coast. Although managers were required to adopt a precautionary approach, little attention had been given to how quantitative analyses could be used to help define the concept or to how a precautionary approach might be implemented in the face of difficult economic, social, and biological tradeoffs. We briefly review key steps in a structured decision-making (SDM) process and discuss how this approach was implemented to help bound the management problem, define objectives and performance measures, develop management alternatives, and evaluate their consequences. We highlight the role of strategy tables, employed to help participants identify, alternative management options. We close by noting areas of agreement and disagreement among participants and discuss the implications of decision-focused processes for other precautionary resource management efforts.

[1]  L. Campbell SCIENCE AND SUSTAINABLE USE: VIEWS OF MARINE TURTLE CONSERVATION EXPERTS , 2002 .

[2]  Lynn A Maguire,et al.  What Can Decision Analysis Do for Invasive Species Management? , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[3]  Dale Goble The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Vol. 2 , 2006 .

[4]  Frank B. Cross,et al.  Paradoxical Perils of thePrecautionary Principle , 1996 .

[5]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Book Reviews : Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improv ing Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998, 136 pages, $26.00 , 1998 .

[6]  Pablo Montagnes,et al.  Extinction by Miscalculation , 2005 .

[7]  M. Burgman Expert frailties in conservation risk assessment and listing decisions , 2004 .

[8]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Some Pitfalls of an Overemphasis on Science in Environmental Risk Management Decisions , 2006 .

[9]  D. Vose Risk Analysis: A Quantitative Guide , 2000 .

[10]  M. V. van Asselt,et al.  The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox , 2006 .

[11]  F. Berkes Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management , 1999 .

[12]  R. Gregory,et al.  Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values , 1994 .

[13]  M. Burgman Risks and Decisions for Conservation and Environmental Management: Experts, stakeholders and elicitation , 2005 .

[14]  H. Fineberg,et al.  Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1996 .

[15]  Wayne G Landis,et al.  Ecological Risk Assessment Conceptual Model Formulation for Nonindigenous Species , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[16]  Wayne G. Landis,et al.  Design considerations and a suggested approach for regional and comparative ecological risk assessment , 1997 .

[17]  Chris C Wood,et al.  Bayesian Decision Analysis for Evaluating Management Options to Promote Recovery of a Depleted Salmon Population , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[18]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Selecting Attributes to Measure the Achievement of Objectives , 2005, Oper. Res..

[19]  Max Henrion,et al.  Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis , 1990 .

[20]  Glenn W. Suter,et al.  Ecological risk assessment , 2006 .

[21]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choices, Values, and Frames , 2000 .

[22]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives , 1993 .

[23]  R. Gregory,et al.  Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach , 2007 .

[24]  Mark Jerome Walters Do No Harm , 2006 .