IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v44y2024i1d10.1007_s10669-023-09940-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Structured decision making remains underused in ecological restoration despite opportunities

Author

Listed:
  • Morgan L. Piczak

    (Carleton University)

  • Jessica A. Robichaud

    (Carleton University)

  • Peter Morrison

    (Carleton University)

  • Andrew M. Rous

    (Carleton University)

  • Ingeborg M. Mulder

    (University of Waterloo)

  • Cassandra J. Hill

    (Carleton University)

  • Tanya S. Prystay

    (Carleton University)

  • Hanna Rosner-Katz

    (Carleton University)

  • Kelly F. Robinson

    (University of Georgia)

  • Joseph R. Bennett

    (Carleton University
    Carleton University)

  • Steven J. Cooke

    (Carleton University
    Carleton University)

Abstract

Ecological restoration is considered an essential activity as we attempt to repair anthropogenic degradation. Yet, resources are limited and it is important that efforts focus on activities that are effective and yield successful restoration. Structured decision making (SDM) is an organized framework that is designed to incorporate differing values across stakeholders and evaluate alternatives. The SDM framework typically consists of six steps: define the decision problem, define objectives and evaluation criteria, develop alternatives, estimate consequences, evaluate trade-offs, and decide, implement, and monitor. Here, we posit that SDM is well suited for ecological restoration, yet remains underused. Specifically, tools such as stakeholder surveys, conceptual modeling, and multi-criteria decision analysis are notably useful in ecological restoration and can be applied under the SDM framework to ensure robust and transparent decision making. We illustrate the application of SDM to ecological restoration with case studies that used SDM alongside ecosystem service assessments, for species-as-risk management, and to assess action desirability across large and diverse stakeholder groups. Finally, we demonstrate how SDM is equipped to handle many of the challenges associated with ecological restoration by identifying commonalities. We contend that increased use of SDM for ecological restoration by environmental managers has the potential to yield wise use of limited resources and more effective restoration outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Morgan L. Piczak & Jessica A. Robichaud & Peter Morrison & Andrew M. Rous & Ingeborg M. Mulder & Cassandra J. Hill & Tanya S. Prystay & Hanna Rosner-Katz & Kelly F. Robinson & Joseph R. Bennett & Stev, 2024. "Structured decision making remains underused in ecological restoration despite opportunities," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 1-15, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:44:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-023-09940-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-023-09940-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-023-09940-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-023-09940-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gregory, Robin & Wellman, Katharine, 2001. "Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-52, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Williams, Perry J. & Kendall, William L., 2017. "A guide to multi-objective optimization for ecological problems with an application to cackling goose management," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 343(C), pages 54-67.
    4. Macmillan, Douglas C. & Harley, David & Morrison, Ruth, 1998. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of woodland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 313-324, December.
    5. Myron King & Michael van Zyll de Jong & Doug Piercey & Andy D. Nunn & Ian G. Cowx, 2022. "An integrated decision driven design framework to support the ecological restoration of rivers," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 65(8), pages 1483-1506, July.
    6. 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.
    7. Charlie Wilson & Tim Mcdaniels, 2007. "Structured decision-making to link climate change and sustainable development," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 353-370, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Joseph Arvai & Kristianna Post, 2012. "Risk Management in a Developing Country Context: Improving Decisions About Point‐of‐Use Water Treatment Among the Rural Poor in Africa," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 67-80, January.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Douglas L. Bessette & Victoria Campbell‐Arvai & Joseph Arvai, 2016. "Expanding the Reach of Participatory Risk Management: Testing an Online Decision‐Aiding Framework for Informing Internally Consistent Choices," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(5), pages 992-1005, May.
    5. Brias, Antoine & Munch, Stephan B., 2021. "Ecosystem based multi-species management using Empirical Dynamic Programming," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 441(C).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Karner, Katrin & Schmid, Erwin & Schneider, Uwe A. & Mitter, Hermine, 2021. "Computing stochastic Pareto frontiers between economic and environmental goals for a semi-arid agricultural production region in Austria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    9. Cameron A. MacKenzie & Kristy A. Bryden & Anna A. Prisacari, 2020. "Integrating narratives into decision making for complex systems engineering design issues," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 65-81, January.
    10. Duxbury, Jane & Dickinson, Sarah, 2007. "Principles for sustainable governance of the coastal zone: In the context of coastal disasters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 319-330, August.
    11. Yang, Guo-liang & Rousseau, Ronald & Yang, Li-ying & Liu, Wen-bin, 2014. "A study on directional returns to scale," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 628-641.
    12. Lo, Alex Y. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Articulation of Plural Values in Deliberative Monetary Valuation: Beyond Preference Economisation and Moralisation," MPRA Paper 30002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Rodrigo A. Estévez & Carlos Veloso & Gabriel Jerez & Stefan Gelcich, 2020. "A participatory decision making framework for artisanal fisheries collaborative governance: Insights from management committees in Chile," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 44(2), pages 144-160, May.
    14. Cleemput, Irina & Devriese, Stephan & Kohn, Laurence & Westhovens, René, 2018. "A multi-criteria decision approach for ranking unmet needs in healthcare," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(8), pages 878-884.
    15. Liu, Shuang & Proctor, Wendy & Cook, David, 2010. "Using an integrated fuzzy set and deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach to facilitate decision-making in invasive species management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2374-2382, October.
    16. Ralph L. Keeney, 2007. "Modeling Values for Anti‐Terrorism Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 585-596, June.
    17. Christos Zografos & Richard B. Howarth, 2010. "Deliberative Ecological Economics for Sustainability Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(11), pages 1-19, October.
    18. I. Linkov & F. K. Satterstrom & G. Kiker & T. P. Seager & T. Bridges & K. H. Gardner & S. H. Rogers & D. A. Belluck & A. Meyer, 2006. "Multicriteria Decision Analysis: A Comprehensive Decision Approach for Management of Contaminated Sediments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 61-78, February.
    19. 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.
    20. Anna Scolobig & Vanesa Castán Broto & Aiora Zabala, 2008. "Integrating Multiple Perspectives in Social Multicriteria Evaluation of Flood-Mitigation Alternatives: The Case of Malborghetto-Valbruna," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 26(6), pages 1143-1161, December.

    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:spr:envsyd:v:44:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-023-09940-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.