1. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN WILDLIFE CONSERVATION John F. Organ 1,2, Daniel J. Decker 3, Shawn J. Riley 4, John E. McDonald, Jr. 1,2, and Shane P. Mahoney 5 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2 University of Massachusetts, Amherst 3 Cornell University 4 Michigan State University 5 Newfoundland and Labrador Dept. of Environment and Conservation

2. Adaptive Management ► Arose out of the wildlife profession’s search for better solutions to increasingly complex conservation challenges ► Primary Principle:  Decision makers should learn from their management interventions and apply that knowledge to development of more effective management interventions in the future  “Learning by doing”

3. Uncertainty ► Driving force behind adaptive management  Dynamic nature of animal populations  Dynamic nature of ecosystems  Dynamic nature of human social systems  Uncertainty over disease etiology (white-nose syndrome)

4. Whenever uncertainty exists, there is no guarantee that a “smart choice” will lead to a good outcome or consequence. 1. Epistemological: arising as a result of a lack of knowledge about facts. knowledge about facts. 2. Linguistic: failure to communicate clearly; ambiguity in how uncertainty is expressed e.g., what does it mean that an event is “likely” to happen; or “something probably won’t happen.” Or, use of vague terms such as “healthy wildlife population.” From: Burgman, M. A. 2005. Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management. Cambridge University, Cambridge, England, UK. Types of Uncertainty

5. Environmental Uncertainties Environmental variation: uncertainty about weather and climate  influences biological processes and induces stochasticity in habitat and population dynamics  Also introduces stochastic behavior in human dimensions (e.g., rain on an opening day of a hunting season. Adapted from: Nichols, Johnson, and Williams. 1995. Managing North American waterfowl in the face of uncertainty. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26:177-199.

6. Structural uncertainty: limited knowledge about underlying sociological and biological mechanisms, and about relationships between management actions and desired outcomes.  Managers generally have imperfect information or understanding about the system under management. Structural Uncertainties Adapted from: Nichols, Johnson, and Williams. 1995. Managing North American waterfowl in the face of uncertainty. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26:177-199.

7. Partial observability: reflects imprecision in the monitoring of a sociological and biological systems.  Uncertainty arises from inability to “perfectly” assess pertinent variables for management. That is, we can only view a limited number of variables and even those are usually measure without either accuracy or precision. Limited Data Uncertainties Adapted from: Nichols, Johnson, and Williams. 1995. Managing North American waterfowl in the face of uncertainty. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26:177-199.

8. Partial controllability : expresses recognition that management decisions only partially control the actual magnitude of the corresponding action [e.g. harvest regulations control actual harvest rates (and harvest effects) only within certain limits of precision.  Especially pertinent with “volunteer” participants – recreationalists – in management system.  Just because an agency issues x number of permits does not mean that x number of animals are harvested. Human behavior is critical affected by social and environmental context. Management Uncertainties Adapted from: Nichols, Johnson, and Williams. 1995. Managing North American waterfowl in the face of uncertainty. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26:177-199. Systematics 26:177-199

9. Adaptive Management Process ► Situation Analysis ► Objective Setting ► Model Development and Prediction ► Identification and Selection of Alternatives ► Monitoring ► Implementation ► Assess and Adjust ► Iteration

10. Situation Analysis Fundamental Objective(s) Enabling Objectives Objectives Model Development Competing Model Management Alternatives Implementation Assess & Adjust Monitor Stakeholder Engagement Iterate

11. Situation Analysis ► Define and/or scope the problem ► “Get your house in order” ► Phase 1: Assess the management challenge and social-ecological context ► Phase 2: Engage stakeholders

12. Situation Analysis ► Phase 1:  Newfoundland caribou example ► Dramatic decline in caribou attributed to black bear, Canada lynx, and coyote ► Others suggest land uses are problem ► Others think climate change is responsible

13. Phase 1 ► Phase 1:  Newfoundland caribou example ► Biologists scoped all existing knowledge ► Initiated new studies ► Developed conceptual model of system ► Identify potential stakeholders and needed expertise

14. Stakeholder Satisfaction Woodland Caribou Population Calf Predation Black Bear Coyote Canada Lynx Moose Habitat Changes Timber Extraction Energy Extraction Other Uses Outfitters Resident Hunters Tourist Hunters Cultural/Heritage Climate Change

15. Phase 2 ► Phase 2:  Stakeholder engagement ► Stakeholder is any person who affects or is affected by the wildlife issue  Determining appropriate scale of stakeholder engagement important  Stakeholder engagement can affirm the management need  Enlist local knowledge  Foster trust and ownership

16. Objective Setting ► Objectives should be:  Clearly defined  Achievable  Measurable within a specific time frame Should represent Desired Future Condition

17. Fundamental Objectives ► Fundamental Objectives  Cumulative outcomes of management that define the desired future condition  Ideally, defined by stakeholders  Should have at least one Enabling Objective linked to it ► Enabling Objectives  Focus on particular management intervention designed to contribute towards achieving the Fundamental Objective

18. Impacts ► Impacts  Significant beneficial and detrimental effects of human-wildlife engagement  These focus on the future conditions most desired

19. Model Development ► A Model in the context of Adaptive Management is:  “a plausible representation of a dynamic natural resource system.” ► Two levels of models can be used:  Overall management system model (why management is needed)  Specific model focused on known and hypothesized relationships between alternative management actions and the enabling objectives (how management will be achieved) ► Having both levels of models provide: ► Better structure to guide and communicate thinking ► Increased decision-making capacity ► Increased rates of learning

20. Identification and Selection of Alternatives ► Different approaches to accomplishing Enabling Objectives ► Predictions  If we conduct Alternative A, we expect Outcome X ► Involve Stakeholders  Informs social acceptability of methods  Can contribute creative ideas for a broader suite of options

21. Monitoring ► Critical to the Adaptive Management Process ► Learn from Management and use that knowledge to improve ► Each intervention is treated as an experiment  Results measured  Applied back to models  Improve models  Refine management interventions

22. Implementation ► Decision-Making Process  Incorporate scientifically-derived knowledge and experience-based insights  Can be informal or highly rigorous  Social acceptability a key criterion  Ultimately, the long-term sustainability of the wildlife resource must not be compromised  Wildlife managers must inform stakeholders as to acceptable limits of management

23. Problem Objectives Alternatives Consequences Tradeoffs & Organization Decide & Take Action Trigger Mandates: Laws, Policies Consider: Uncertainty & Linked Decisions Modeling Toolkit Data Values: Preference scales, objective weights & risk attitudes SDM Analysis Toolkit Structured Decision Making

24. Assess and Adjust ► Use Monitoring information to compare model predictions with actual responses ► Fosters learning by assessing effectiveness of management approach ► Knowledge gained used to adjust system model

25. Iteration ► Essentially a management cycle:  Monitor results  Evaluate effectiveness  Refine Models  Refine Alternatives  Intervene/Implement  Monitor………

26. Passive or Active Adaptive Management ► Distinguished by degree to which they emphasize the reduction of uncertainty ► Difference in emphasis on learning in the objectives ► Both pursue the same rigorous process

27. Active Adaptive Management ► Pursues the reduction of uncertainty (learning) through management  Objective is to learn; resource-related outcome is a useful by-product

28. Passive Adaptive Management ► Pursues a resource-related objective  Objective is to have a resource outcome; learning is a useful by-product

29. SUMMARY ► Adaptive Management is an effective method to:  Deal with uncertainty  Learn from management actions  Be more effective in achieving desired results from management