Klamath Center for Conservation Research, Orleans, CA, 95556, USA.
Species Conservation Toolkit Initiative, Chicago Zoological Society, Brookfield, IL, 60513, USA.
Sci Rep. 2019 Jul 12;9(1):10130. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-45032-2.
Although population viability analysis (PVA) can be an important tool for strengthening endangered species recovery efforts, the extent to which such analyses remain embedded in the social process of recovery planning is often unrecognized. We analyzed two recovery plans for the Mexican wolf that were developed using similar data and methods but arrived at contrasting conclusions as to appropriate recovery goals or criteria. We found that approximately half of the contrast arose from uncertainty regarding biological data, with the remainder divided between policy-related decisions and mixed biological-policy factors. Contrasts arose from both differences in input parameter values and how parameter uncertainty informed the level of precaution embodied in resulting criteria. Policy-related uncertainty originated from contrasts in thresholds for acceptable risk and disagreement as to how to define endangered species recovery. Rather than turning to PVA to produce politically acceptable definitions of recovery that appear science-based, agencies should clarify the nexus between science and policy elements in their decision processes. The limitations we identify in endangered-species policy and how PVAs are conducted as part of recovery planning must be addressed if PVAs are to fulfill their potential to increase the odds of successful conservation outcomes.
尽管种群生存力分析（PVA）可以成为加强濒危物种恢复工作的重要工具，但此类分析在恢复规划的社会进程中所嵌入的程度往往未被认识到。我们分析了两份使用相似数据和方法制定的墨西哥狼恢复计划，但在适当的恢复目标或标准方面得出了截然不同的结论。我们发现，大约一半的差异源于对生物数据的不确定性，其余部分则分为与政策相关的决策和混合生物政策因素。差异既源于输入参数值的差异，也源于参数不确定性如何影响所产生标准中体现的谨慎程度。与政策相关的不确定性源于可接受风险的阈值差异以及对于如何定义濒危物种恢复的分歧。各机构不应求助于 PVA 来制定看似基于科学的、在政治上可接受的恢复定义，而应在其决策过程中阐明科学与政策要素之间的联系。如果 PVA 要发挥其潜力，增加成功保护结果的可能性，则必须解决我们在濒危物种政策中发现的局限性，以及将 PVA 作为恢复规划的一部分进行的局限性。
