Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · 70252956

Matching decision support modeling frameworks to disease emergence stages and associated management objectives

Abstract

Wildlife disease management decisions often require rapid responses to situations that are fraught with uncertainty. By recognizing that management is implemented to achieve specific objectives, resource managers and science partners can identify an analysis technique and develop a monitoring plan to evaluate management effectiveness. For emerging infectious diseases, objectives may take several distinct forms, dependent on the perceived stage of disease emergence (i.e., pre-epidemic, early outbreak, mid-epidemic, and endemic), the expected rate of spread, and the anticipated effect of the disease on host populations. Identifying modeling techniques and metrics that are linked to management objectives will require early and consistent communication between managers and science partners. We link modeling approaches that can be used to forecast and evaluate the performance of intervention strategies with a range of disease management objectives. Our aim is to help scientists recognize alternative modeling approaches which may better align with different forms of disease management objectives, and to help managers evaluate the relevance of proposed modeling approaches to their specified objectives for disease management. Recognizing that disease management objectives can take different forms, and thus require different modeling approaches, can help wildlife disease response teams (i.e., natural resource managers, scientists, and stakeholders working collaboratively) better prepare and respond to disease threats.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Evan H. Campbell Grant, Brittany A. Mosher, Riley Bernard, Alexander Wright, Robin Russell. 2024-03-04. Matching decision support modeling frameworks to disease emergence stages and associated management objectives. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.13085

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Successes and opportunities for solutions-oriented conservation research: Lessons learned from avian science

Conservation science struggles with an ongoing divide between research and action. Given its history of broad public engagement and multi-scale management coordination, avian conservation typifies many of the challenges, successes, and opportunities across the broader field of conservation and is rich with examples that may guide solutions-oriented conservation science. In semi-structured focus groups composed of bird conservation scientists and practitioners from various backgrounds, we discussed the definition, characteristics, and examples of solutions-oriented conservation science. Our discussions highlighted several examples where successful application of avian conservation science led to change in programs, policy, regulations, and social systems, including several with co-benefits for local communities. These successes were characterized by communication, collaboration, and co-development with local communities, decision-makers, practitioners, and Indigenous communities. We identified remaining opportunities for improvement, including aligning incentives and priorities between research and practice, working across disciplines to mobilize solutions, dismantling barriers to inclusion, and emphasizing the importance of relationship-building in conservation science. We outline suggestions that researchers can use to incorporate these lessons from solutions-oriented avian conservation science into training and mentoring programs.

Conservation Science and Practice

Connecting and coordinating conservation action across landscapes through regional planning processes and syntheses

Modern threats to conservation are often global; however, relevant conservation decisions and actions typically occur within local jurisdictions. The socio-ecological complexity of these problems requires collaboration across large landscapes, diverse community interests, and geopolitical boundaries, yet a lack of interoperability of planning products among decision makers, jurisdictions, and objectives impedes collaboration. Here, we provide a working model for the collaborative, iterative development of a landscape conservation design (LCD) in the Midwest region of the United States, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint, and demonstrate its applicability to the coordination of voluntary conservation actions and investments across jurisdictional boundaries. We used spatial prioritization software to synthesize over 20 datasets to develop a basemap of priority lands and waters for conservation across a diverse set of societal and ecological values (e.g., water quality, biodiversity, recreation). The Midwest Conservation Blueprint is a living plan, updated annually based on improvements in underlying data, understanding of local conditions, and public input. Landscape-scale planning is not designed to replace local knowledge or supersede decision-making authorities. However, by synthesizing existing data that represent diverse socio-ecological values and planning at a broader scale, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint documents where there are shared priorities and opportunities for collaborative landscape conservation.

Midwest

Debunking the myth of the quintessential resource manager: Precision in actionable science

“Actionable science” is a widely held standard for identifying the merits of natural resources research. Yet, science is often framed as actionable to a vaguely identified quintessential “manager” without defining either the intended manager or use. Generic descriptions lack precision for identifying end users or their needs, limiting methodological rigor in research design and leading to contextual misalignments of outputs with the need they intended to serve. Further, imprecise terminology limits the ability to evaluate impact, replicate efforts, or foster adoption and implementation of findings. This perspective article presents the heuristic of “who, what, when, where, why, how” to help researchers be more precise when describing their actionable science. Through intentional reflection, researchers can move beyond generic framings of “managers” representing monolithic organizations. “Managers” become individuals, with unique responsibilities, functions, worldviews, and levels of authority, all influencing their use of and need for scientific information and data.

Conservation Science and Practice