Prioritization of Species Status Assessments for Decision Support

Ashley B. C. Goode (), Erin Rivenbark (), Jessica A. Gilbert () and Conor P. McGowan ()
Additional contact information
Ashley B. C. Goode: Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Erin Rivenbark: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia 30345
Jessica A. Gilbert: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia 30345
Conor P. McGowan: Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611; U.S. Geological Survey, Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611

Decision Analysis, 2023, vol. 20, issue 4, 311-325

Abstract: Species status assessments are used to inform U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) decision making for Endangered Species Act (ESA) classification decisions, recovery planning, and more. The large number of species that require assessment and uncertainty in the data available impede the process of assigning and completing the assessments, which makes creating a multiyear work plan extremely difficult. An optimized triaging system that maximizes the use of the best available information while managing the complex ESA workload and meeting deadlines is necessary. We used a structured decision-making framework to approach the problem with the goal of creating a prioritization tool that would be effective at scheduling assessments, given the best information available and priorities of the USFWS. We collected data on the species awaiting assessment and developed a value function that incorporates existing deadlines, taxonomic uncertainty, controversy of the species, and population and habitat data availability and quality. We used a constrained linear optimization algorithm to maximize the value function and ensure that workload capacity was not exceeded. A comparison of model scenarios indicates that imposed deadlines impact the model more than capacity constraints. Additionally, differential weighting of the metrics significantly affected the outcome of the model. In the future, elicitation of metric weights should be done routinely before the model is run for use in official planning to ensure alignment with current USFWS priorities. Output from this optimization can be used to inform a five-year work plan, allocate resources, and discuss workforce decisions.

Keywords: optimization; Excel solver; work plan prioritization (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/deca.2023.0026 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:311-325

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Decision Analysis from INFORMS Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Asher ().