Abstract
Active engagement with practitioners is a crucial component of model-based decision-making in conservation management; it can assist with data acquisition, improve models and help narrow the ‘knowing–doing’ gap. We worked with practitioners of one of the worst invasive species in Australia, the cane toad Rhinella marina, to revise a model that estimates the effectiveness of landscape barriers to contain spread. The original model predicted that the invasion could be contained by managing artificial watering points on pastoral properties, but was initially met with scepticism by practitioners, in part due to a lack of engagement during model development. We held a workshop with practitioners and experts in cane toad biology. Using structured decision-making, we elicited concerns about the original model, revised its structure, updated relevant input data, added an economic component and found the most cost-effective location for a barrier across a range of fixed budgets and management scenarios. We then conducted scenario analyses to test the sensitivity of management decisions to model revisions. We found that toad spread could be contained for all of the scenarios tested. Our modelling suggests a barrier could cost $4·5 M (2015 AUD) over 50 years for the most likely landscape scenario. The incorporation of practitioner knowledge into the model was crucial. As well as improving engagement, when we incorporated practitioner concerns (particularly regarding the effects of irrigation and dwellings on toad spread), we found a different location for the optimal barrier compared to a previously published study (Tingley et al. 2013). Synthesis and applications. Through engagement with practitioners, we turned an academic modelling exercise into a decision-support tool that integrated local information, and considered more realistic scenarios and constraints. Active engagement with practitioners led to productive revisions of a model that estimates the effectiveness of a landscape barrier to contain spread of the invasive cane toad R. marina. Benefits also include greater confidence in model predictions, improving our assessment of the cost and feasibility of containing the spread of toads.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 216-224 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Journal of Applied Ecology |
| Volume | 54 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Feb 2017 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- artificial waterbodies
- containment
- cost-efficiency
- engagement
- knowing–doing gap
- point process
- Rhinella marina
- spread model
- stakeholders
- structured decision-making
Cite this
}
Cost and feasibility of a barrier to halt the spread of invasive cane toads in arid Australia : incorporating expert knowledge into model-based decision-making. / Southwell, Darren; Tingley, Reid; Bode, Michael; Nicholson, Emily; Phillips, Ben L.
In: Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 54, No. 1, 01.02.2017, p. 216-224.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost and feasibility of a barrier to halt the spread of invasive cane toads in arid Australia
T2 - incorporating expert knowledge into model-based decision-making
AU - Southwell, Darren
AU - Tingley, Reid
AU - Bode, Michael
AU - Nicholson, Emily
AU - Phillips, Ben L.
PY - 2017/2/1
Y1 - 2017/2/1
N2 - Active engagement with practitioners is a crucial component of model-based decision-making in conservation management; it can assist with data acquisition, improve models and help narrow the ‘knowing–doing’ gap. We worked with practitioners of one of the worst invasive species in Australia, the cane toad Rhinella marina, to revise a model that estimates the effectiveness of landscape barriers to contain spread. The original model predicted that the invasion could be contained by managing artificial watering points on pastoral properties, but was initially met with scepticism by practitioners, in part due to a lack of engagement during model development. We held a workshop with practitioners and experts in cane toad biology. Using structured decision-making, we elicited concerns about the original model, revised its structure, updated relevant input data, added an economic component and found the most cost-effective location for a barrier across a range of fixed budgets and management scenarios. We then conducted scenario analyses to test the sensitivity of management decisions to model revisions. We found that toad spread could be contained for all of the scenarios tested. Our modelling suggests a barrier could cost $4·5 M (2015 AUD) over 50 years for the most likely landscape scenario. The incorporation of practitioner knowledge into the model was crucial. As well as improving engagement, when we incorporated practitioner concerns (particularly regarding the effects of irrigation and dwellings on toad spread), we found a different location for the optimal barrier compared to a previously published study (Tingley et al. 2013). Synthesis and applications. Through engagement with practitioners, we turned an academic modelling exercise into a decision-support tool that integrated local information, and considered more realistic scenarios and constraints. Active engagement with practitioners led to productive revisions of a model that estimates the effectiveness of a landscape barrier to contain spread of the invasive cane toad R. marina. Benefits also include greater confidence in model predictions, improving our assessment of the cost and feasibility of containing the spread of toads.
AB - Active engagement with practitioners is a crucial component of model-based decision-making in conservation management; it can assist with data acquisition, improve models and help narrow the ‘knowing–doing’ gap. We worked with practitioners of one of the worst invasive species in Australia, the cane toad Rhinella marina, to revise a model that estimates the effectiveness of landscape barriers to contain spread. The original model predicted that the invasion could be contained by managing artificial watering points on pastoral properties, but was initially met with scepticism by practitioners, in part due to a lack of engagement during model development. We held a workshop with practitioners and experts in cane toad biology. Using structured decision-making, we elicited concerns about the original model, revised its structure, updated relevant input data, added an economic component and found the most cost-effective location for a barrier across a range of fixed budgets and management scenarios. We then conducted scenario analyses to test the sensitivity of management decisions to model revisions. We found that toad spread could be contained for all of the scenarios tested. Our modelling suggests a barrier could cost $4·5 M (2015 AUD) over 50 years for the most likely landscape scenario. The incorporation of practitioner knowledge into the model was crucial. As well as improving engagement, when we incorporated practitioner concerns (particularly regarding the effects of irrigation and dwellings on toad spread), we found a different location for the optimal barrier compared to a previously published study (Tingley et al. 2013). Synthesis and applications. Through engagement with practitioners, we turned an academic modelling exercise into a decision-support tool that integrated local information, and considered more realistic scenarios and constraints. Active engagement with practitioners led to productive revisions of a model that estimates the effectiveness of a landscape barrier to contain spread of the invasive cane toad R. marina. Benefits also include greater confidence in model predictions, improving our assessment of the cost and feasibility of containing the spread of toads.
KW - artificial waterbodies
KW - containment
KW - cost-efficiency
KW - engagement
KW - knowing–doing gap
KW - point process
KW - Rhinella marina
KW - spread model
KW - stakeholders
KW - structured decision-making
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84983001468&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/1365-2664.12744
DO - 10.1111/1365-2664.12744
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84983001468
VL - 54
SP - 216
EP - 224
JO - Journal of Applied Ecology
JF - Journal of Applied Ecology
SN - 0021-8901
IS - 1
ER -