Skip to main content

Thresholds for Conservation and Management: Structured Decision Making as a Conceptual Framework

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Application of Threshold Concepts in Natural Resource Decision Making

Abstract

A conceptual framework is provided for considering the threshold concept in natural resource management and conservation. We define three kinds of thresholds relevant to management and conservation. Ecological thresholds are values of system state variables at which small changes bring about substantial or specified changes in system dynamics. They are frequently incorporated into ecological models used to project system responses to management actions. Utility thresholds are components of management objectives and are values of state or performance variables at which small changes yield substantial changes in the value of the management outcome. Decision thresholds are values of system state variables at which small changes prompt changes in management actions in order to reach specified management objectives. Decision thresholds are derived from the other components of the decision process. We advocate a structured decision making (SDM) approach within which the following components are identified: objectives (possibly including utility thresholds), potential actions, models (possibly including ecological thresholds), monitoring program, and a solution algorithm (which produces decision thresholds). Adaptive resource management (ARM) is described as a special case of SDM developed for recurrent decision problems that are characterized by uncertainty. We believe that SDM, in general, and ARM, in particular, provide good approaches to conservation and management. Use of SDM and ARM also clarifies the distinct roles of ecological thresholds, utility thresholds, and decision thresholds in informed decision processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bellman, R. 1957. Dynamic programming. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennetts, R. E., J. E. Gross, K. Cahill, C. McIntyre, B. B. Bingham, A. Hubbard, L. Cameron, and S. L. Carter. 2007. Linking monitoring to management and planning: Assessment points as a generalized approach. George Wright Forum 24:59–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton, T. G. 2003. Understanding the ecology of extinction: Are we close to the critical threshold? Annales Zoologici Fennici 40:71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bestelmeyer, B. T. 2006. Threshold concepts and their use in rangeland management and restoration: The good, the bad, and the insidious. Restoration Ecology 14:325–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin, P., and B. L. B. Wiman. 2007. The usefulness of stability concepts in forest management when coping with increasing climate uncertainties. Forest Ecology and Management 242:541–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borchers, D. L., S. T. Buckland, and W. Zucchini. 2003. Estimating animal abundance. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. H., T. J. Valone, and C. G. Curtin. 1997. Reorganization of an arid ecosystem in response to recent climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 94:9729–9733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgman, M. 2005. Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caughley, G. 1994. Directions in conservation biology. The Journal of Animal Ecology 63:215–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemen, R. T., and T. Reilly. 2001. Making hard decisions with decision tools. Pacific Grove: Duxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conroy, M. J., and C. T. Moore. 2001. Simulation models and optimal decision making in natural resource management. In Modeling in natural resource management: valid development, interpretation and application, ed. T. M. Shenk and A. B. Franklin, 91–104. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conroy, M. J., C. R. Allen, J. T. Peterson, L. Pritchard, and C. T. Moore. 2003. Landscape change in the southern Piedmont: Challenges, solutions, and uncertainty across scales. Conservation Ecology 8:3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorazio, R. M., and F. A. Johnson. 2003. Bayesian inference and decision theory—A framework for decision making in natural resource management. Ecological Applications 13:556–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig, L. 2001. How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation 100:65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, S. A., A. J. Tyre, N. Jonzen, J. R. Rhodes, and H. P. Possingham. 2004. Minimizing the cost of environmental management decisions by optimizing statistical thresholds. Ecology Letters 7:669–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonnesbeck, C. J. 2005. Solving dynamic wildlife resource optimization problems using reinforcement learning. Natural Resource Modeling 18:1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groffman, P., J. Baron, T. Blett, A. Gold, I. Goodman, L. Gunderson, B. Levinson, M. Palmer, H. Paerl, G. Peterson, N. Poff, D. Rejeski, J. Reynolds, M. Turner, K. Weathers, and J. Wiens. 2006. Ecological thresholds: The key to successful environmental management or an important concept with no practical application? Ecosystems 9:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, L. H. 2000. Ecological resilience—in theory and application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31:425–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, B. S., H. M. Regan, H. P. Possingham, and M. A. McCarthy. 2006. Accounting for uncertainty in marine reserve design. Ecology Letters 9:2–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huggett, A. J. 2005. The concept and utility of ‘ecological thresholds’ in biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 124:301–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intriligator, M. D. 1971. Mathematical optimization and economic theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, F. A., C. T. Moore, W. L. Kendall, J. A. Dubovsky, D. F. Caithamer, J. R. Kelley, and B. K. Williams. 1997. Uncertainty and the management of mallard harvests. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:202–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, W. L. 2001. Using models to facilitate complex decisions. In Modeling in natural resource management: valid development, interpretation and application, ed. T. M. Shenk and A. B. Franklin, 147–170. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lande, R. 1987. Extinction thresholds in demographic-models of territorial populations. American Naturalist 130:624–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubow, B. C. 1995. SDP: Generalized software for solving stochastic dynamic optimization problems. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:738–742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J. E., M. C. Runge, H. P. Laskowski, and W. L. Kendall. 2008. Monitoring in the context of structured decision-making and adaptive management. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1683–1692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J., M. C. Runge, J. D. Nichols, B. C. Lubow, and W. L. Kendall. 2009a. Structured decision making as a conceptual framework to identify thresholds for conservation and management. Ecological Applications 19:1079–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J., C. L. McIntyre, J. E. Hines, J. D. Nichols, J. A. Schmutz, and M. C. MacCluskie. 2009b. Dynamic multistate site occupancy models to evaluate hypotheses relevant to conservation of Golden Eagles in Denali National Park, Alaska. Biological Conservation 142:2726–2731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J., P. L. Fackler, J. D. Nichols, M. C. Runge, C. McIntyre, B. L. Lubow, M. G. McCluskie, and J. A. Schmutz. 2011. An adaptive management framework for optimal control of recreational activities in Denali National Park. Conservation Biology 25:316–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, D., and S. Jennings. 2005. Power of monitoring programmes to detect decline and recovery of rare and vulnerable fish. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, M. A., and H. P. Possingham. 2007. Active adaptive management for conservation. Conservation Biology 21:956–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGowan, C., D. R. Smith, J. A. Sweka, J. Martin, J. D. Nichols, R. Wong, J. E. Lyons, L. J. Niles, K. Kalasz, J. Brust, M. Klopfer, and B. Spear. 2011. Multi-species modeling for adaptive management of horseshoe crabs and red knots in the Delaware Bay. Natural Resource Modeling 24:117–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miranda, M. J., and P. L. Fackler. 2002. Applied computational economics and finance. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, J. D. 2001. Using models in the conduct of science and management of natural resources. In Modeling in natural resource management: development, interpretation and application, ed T. M. Shenk and A. B. Franklin, 11–34. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, J. D., and B. K. Williams. 2006. Monitoring for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21:668–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual, M., and F. Guichard. 2005. Criticality and disturbance in spatial ecological systems. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20:88–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runge, M. C., F. A. Johnson, M. G. Anderson, M. D. Koneff, E. T. Reed, and S. E. Mott. 2006. The need for coherence between waterfowl harvest and habitat management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:1231–1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seber, G. A. F. 1982. The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. New York: MacMillian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, R. L. 2002. Sampling. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, C. J., and R. Hilborn. 1978. Ecological optimization and adaptive management. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9:157–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. K. 1982. Optimal stochastic control in natural resource management – framework and examples. Ecological Modelling 16:275–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. K. 1989. Review of dynamic optimization methods in renewable natural resource management. Natural Resource Modeling 3:137–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. K. 1996. Adaptive optimization of renewable natural resources: Solution algorithms and a computer program. Ecological Modelling 93:101–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. K. 1997. Approaches to the management of waterfowl under uncertainty. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:714–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B.K., and J.D. Nichols. In press. Optimization in natural resources conservation. In Thresholds for conservation, ed. G. Gunterspergen and P. Geissler: Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. K., J. D. Nichols, and M. J. Conroy. 2002. Analysis and management of animal populations: Modeling, estimation, and decision making. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2007. Adaptive management: The U.S. Department of the Interior technical guide. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. K. 2009. Markov decision processes in natural resources management: Observability and uncertainty. Ecological Modelling 220:830–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoccoz, N. G., J. D. Nichols, and T. Boulinier. 2001. Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16:446–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Bill Kendall, Bruce Lubow, Mike Runge, and Ken Williams for sharing ideas about decision making and thresholds. The manuscript benefitted from constructive comments by Glenn Guntenspergen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James D. Nichols .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nichols, J., Eaton, M., Martin, J. (2014). Thresholds for Conservation and Management: Structured Decision Making as a Conceptual Framework. In: Guntenspergen, G. (eds) Application of Threshold Concepts in Natural Resource Decision Making. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8041-0_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics