IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ordeca/v20y2023i4p311-325.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prioritization of Species Status Assessments for Decision Support

Author

Listed:
  • Ashley B. C. Goode

    (Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701)

  • Erin Rivenbark

    (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia 30345)

  • Jessica A. Gilbert

    (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia 30345)

  • Conor P. McGowan

    (Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611; U.S. Geological Survey, Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611)

Abstract

Species status assessments are used to inform U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) decision making for Endangered Species Act (ESA) classification decisions, recovery planning, and more. The large number of species that require assessment and uncertainty in the data available impede the process of assigning and completing the assessments, which makes creating a multiyear work plan extremely difficult. An optimized triaging system that maximizes the use of the best available information while managing the complex ESA workload and meeting deadlines is necessary. We used a structured decision-making framework to approach the problem with the goal of creating a prioritization tool that would be effective at scheduling assessments, given the best information available and priorities of the USFWS. We collected data on the species awaiting assessment and developed a value function that incorporates existing deadlines, taxonomic uncertainty, controversy of the species, and population and habitat data availability and quality. We used a constrained linear optimization algorithm to maximize the value function and ensure that workload capacity was not exceeded. A comparison of model scenarios indicates that imposed deadlines impact the model more than capacity constraints. Additionally, differential weighting of the metrics significantly affected the outcome of the model. In the future, elicitation of metric weights should be done routinely before the model is run for use in official planning to ensure alignment with current USFWS priorities. Output from this optimization can be used to inform a five-year work plan, allocate resources, and discuss workforce decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashley B. C. Goode & Erin Rivenbark & Jessica A. Gilbert & Conor P. McGowan, 2023. "Prioritization of Species Status Assessments for Decision Support," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 311-325, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:311-325
    DOI: 10.1287/deca.2023.0026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/deca.2023.0026
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/deca.2023.0026?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Williams, Byron K., 2012. "Reducing uncertainty about objective functions in adaptive management," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 61-65.
    2. Ralph L. Keeney, 1988. "Structuring Objectives for Problems of Public Interest," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 396-405, June.
    3. Ralph L. Keeney & Robin S. Gregory, 2005. "Selecting Attributes to Measure the Achievement of Objectives," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(1), pages 1-11, February.
    4. Michael C. Runge & Clark S. Rushing & James E. Lyons & Madeleine A. Rubenstein, 2023. "A Simplified Method for Value of Information Using Constructed Scales," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 220-230, September.
    5. Keeney, Ralph L. & Renn, Ortwin & von Winterfeldt, Detlof, 1987. "Structuring West Germany's energy objectives," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 352-362, August.
    6. Samuel D. Bond & Kurt A. Carlson & Ralph L. Keeney, 2008. "Generating Objectives: Can Decision Makers Articulate What They Want?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 56-70, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kelly F. Robinson & Erin Baker & Elizabeth Ewing & Victoria Hemming & Melissa A. Kenney & Michael C. Runge, 2023. "Decision Analysis to Advance Environmental Sustainability," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 243-251, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marttunen, Mika & Haag, Fridolin & Belton, Valerie & Mustajoki, Jyri & Lienert, Judit, 2019. "Methods to inform the development of concise objectives hierarchies in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 604-620.
    2. Robin L. Dillon & Genevieve Lester & Richard S. John & Catherine H. Tinsley, 2012. "Differentiating Conflicts in Beliefs Versus Value Tradeoffs in the Domestic Intelligence Policy Debate," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 713-728, April.
    3. Tim H¨ofer & Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Reinhard Madlener, 2020. "Using Value-Focused Thinking and Multicriteria Decision Making to Evaluate Energy Transition Alternatives," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 330-355, December.
    4. William N. Caballero & Ethan Gharst & David Banks & Jeffery D. Weir, 2023. "Multipolar Security Cooperation Planning: A Multiobjective, Adversarial-Risk-Analysis Approach," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 16-39, March.
    5. Cairns, George & Goodwin, Paul & Wright, George, 2016. "A decision-analysis-based framework for analysing stakeholder behaviour in scenario planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 1050-1062.
    6. Höfer, Tim & von Nitzsch, Rüdiger & Madlener, Reinhard, 2019. "Using Value-Focused Thinking and Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making to Evaluate Energy Transition Alternatives," FCN Working Papers 4/2019, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    7. Milad Zamanifar & Timo Hartmann, 2021. "A prescriptive framework for recommending decision attributes of infrastructure disaster recovery problems," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 633-650, December.
    8. Richard M. Anderson & Robert Clemen, 2013. "Toward an Improved Methodology to Construct and Reconcile Decision Analytic Preference Judgments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 121-134, June.
    9. Jay Simon & Eva Regnier & Laura Whitney, 2014. "A Value-Focused Approach to Energy Transformation in the United States Department of Defense," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 117-132, June.
    10. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    11. Estévez, Rodrigo A. & Gelcich, Stefan, 2015. "Participative multi-criteria decision analysis in marine management and conservation: Research progress and the challenge of integrating value judgments and uncertainty," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-7.
    12. Haag, Fridolin & Zürcher, Sara & Lienert, Judit, 2019. "Enhancing the elicitation of diverse decision objectives for public planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(3), pages 912-928.
    13. Renn, Ortwin, 2003. "Social assessment of waste energy utilization scenarios," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(13), pages 1345-1357.
    14. T E van der Lei & B Enserink & W A H Thissen & G Bekebrede, 2011. "How to use a systems diagram to analyse and structure complex problems for policy issue papers," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(7), pages 1391-1402, July.
    15. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Auriel M. V. Fournier & R. Randy Wilson & Jeffrey S. Gleason & Evan M. Adams & Janell M. Brush & Robert J. Cooper & Stephen J. DeMaso & Melanie J. L. Driscoll & Peter C. Frederick & Patrick G. R. Jodi, 2023. "Structured Decision Making to Prioritize Regional Bird Monitoring Needs," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 207-217, May.
    17. Timothy L. McDaniels & Stephanie E. Chang & David Hawkins & Gerard Chew & Holly Longstaff, 2015. "Towards disaster-resilient cities: an approach for setting priorities in infrastructure mitigation efforts," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 252-263, June.
    18. Ulrike Reisach, 2016. "The creation of meaning and critical ethical reflection in operational research," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(1), pages 5-32, June.
    19. Robin Gregory & Ralph Keeney & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1992. "Adapting the environmental impact statement process to inform decision makers," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 58-75.
    20. Siebert, Johannes Ulrich & Kunz, Reinhard E. & Rolf, Philipp, 2021. "Effects of decision training on individuals’ decision-making proactivity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(1), pages 264-282.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:311-325. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.