ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
John F. Organ1,2, Daniel J. Decker3, Shawn J.
Riley4, John E. McDonald, Jr. 1,2, and Shane P.
Mahoney5
1U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service
2University of Massachusetts, Amherst
3Cornell University
4Michigan State University
5Newfoundland and Labrador Dept. of Environment and
Conservation
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”
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)
Types of Uncertainty
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.
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.
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.
Structural Uncertainties
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.
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.
Limited Data Uncertainties
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.
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.
Management Uncertainties
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.
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.
Adaptive Management Process
► Situation
Analysis
► Objective Setting
► Model Development and Prediction
► Identification and Selection of Alternatives
► Monitoring
► Implementation
► Assess and Adjust
► Iteration
Fundamental
Objective(s)
Enabling
Objectives
Objectives
Situation
Analysis
Assess &
Adjust
Stakeholder
Engagement
Competing
Model
Model
Development
Competing
Model
Iterate
Monitor
Implementation
Management
Alternatives
Situation Analysis
► Define
► “Get
and/or scope the problem
your house in order”
► Phase
1: Assess the management challenge and
social-ecological context
► Phase
2: Engage stakeholders
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
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
Other
Uses
Timber
Extraction
Energy
Extraction
Outfitters
Habitat
Changes
Moose
Tourist
Hunters
Black
Bear
Coyote
Calf
Predation
Woodland
Caribou
Population
Stakeholder
Satisfaction
Canada
Lynx
Climate
Change
Resident
Hunters
Cultural/Heritage
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
Objective Setting
► Objectives
should be:
 Clearly defined
 Achievable
 Measurable within a specific time frame
Should represent Desired Future Condition
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
Impacts
► Impacts
 Significant beneficial and detrimental effects of
human-wildlife engagement
 These focus on the future conditions most desired
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
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
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
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
Structured Decision Making
Mandates:
Laws, Policies
Trigger
SDM
Analysis
Toolkit
Problem
Decide &
Take
Action
Values:
Preference
scales,
objective
weights &
risk attitudes
Objectives
Consider:
Uncertainty
& Linked
Decisions
Tradeoffs &
Organization
Alternatives
Consequences
Data
Modeling
Toolkit
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
Iteration
► Essentially
a management cycle:
 Monitor results
 Evaluate effectiveness
 Refine Models
 Refine Alternatives
 Intervene/Implement
 Monitor………
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
Active Adaptive Management
► Pursues
the reduction of uncertainty (learning)
through management
 Objective is to learn; resource-related outcome is a
useful by-product
Passive Adaptive Management
► Pursues
a resource-related objective
 Objective is to have a resource outcome; learning is a
useful by-product
SUMMARY
► Adaptive
Management is an effective method to:
 Deal with uncertainty
 Learn from management actions
 Be more effective in achieving desired results from
management