Rangeland Systems by David D. Briske

Rangeland Systems by David D. Briske

Author:David D. Briske
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Springer International Publishing, Cham


9.6.2 Structured Decision-Making via State and Transition Models8

In this section, we ask: can STMs be used in a more systematic way to prioritize management objectives and to efficiently allocate management funds? Below we discuss why managers may benefit from integrating STMs into a structured decision-making process, and developing STMs such that they enable quantitative predictions of management outcomes .

Ecosystem management decisions are invariably complex. There may be a lack of understanding about the processes underlying a specific problem. Alternatively, there may be multiple and potentially competing objectives for management, which may not be readily apparent, but which should be determined before developing the model. For instance, when faced with an imperative to both manage for a certain plant community and protect a threatened species, it may be that the habitat for that species does not correspond to the desired vegetation state. In addition, it may be that an objective to minimize costs is at odds with the funds required to restore a community to the desired state. Stakeholders will not value all of these objectives in the same way, but it is the role of the decision-maker to evaluate these trade-offs. Last, there may be multiple potential alternative management strategies, but high uncertainty and disagreement about ecosystem responses to management. For the decision-maker, choosing the best course of action to help achieve the specified objectives can be extremely difficult (Runge 2011; Gregory et al. 2012).

Many of these problems can be addressed by using a systematic approach to the decision-making process. The term “structured decision-making” broadly refers to a framework that incorporates a logical sequence of steps to help decision-maker s (1) define their decision context; (2) identify measurable objectives; (3) formulate alternative management strategies; (4) explore the consequences of those alternatives in relation to the specified objectives; and, if necessary (5) make trade-offs among objectives (Gregory et al. 2012). The framework utilizes a broad suite of decision-analysis tools that can aid transparent and logical decision-making (Addison et al. 2013). Despite the multitude of tools and methods that may be applied, the basic premise is a framework that is driven by the objectives, or values, of those involved in the decision-making process (Keeney 1996; Runge 2011).

STMs are typically developed as conceptual models, informed by expert knowledge and existing data. Such models may quantify the characteristics of states but lack a quantification of transition probabilities given particular values of controlling variables and management actions (i.e., they are qualitative or semiquantitative STMs). Within the structured decision-making framework (Fig. 9.4), a qualitative STM can be used to clarify the decision context among stakeholders, the desired direction of change and key attributes of interest (objectives), and the different management interventions that might be employed to achieve this change (alternatives). In addition, qualitative STMs could be used to begin exploring the consequences of the alternatives in relation to the objectives. As a decision-support tool, a qualitative STM is often all that is required to guide a good management decision within the structured decision-making process. For instance, an STM (based on Bestelmeyer et al.



Download



Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.