The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Active Adaptive Management for Conservation
Abstract
Abstract: Active adaptive management balances the requirements of management with the need to learn about the system being managed, which leads to better decisions. It is difficult to judge the benefit of management actions that accelerate information gain, relative to the benefit of making the best management decision given what is known at the time. We present a first step in developing methods to optimize management decisions that incorporate both uncertainty and learning via adaptive management. We assumed a manager can allocate effort to discrete units (e.g., areas for revegetation or animals for reintroduction), the outcome can be measured as success or failure (e.g., the revegetation in an area is successful or the animal survives and breeds), and the manager has two possible management options from which to choose. We further assumed that there is an annual budget that may be allocated to one or both of the two options and that the manager must decide on the allocation. We used Bayesian updating of the probability of success of the two options and stochastic dynamic programming to determine the optimal strategy over a specified number of years. The costs, level of certainty about the success of the two options, and the timeframe of management all influenced the optimal allocation of the annual budget. In addition, the choice of management objective had a large influence on the optimal decision. In a case study of Merri Creek, Melbourne, Australia, we applied the approach to determining revegetation strategies. Our approach can be used to determine how best to manage ecological systems in the face of uncertainty.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Minimizing the cost of environmental management decisions by optimizing statistical thresholds
Field, S. A., Tyre, A. J., Jonzén, N., Rhodes, J. R., & Possingham, H. P. (2004) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00625.x · Cited by 236
Self-citation
Cited by
(2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12039-3 · Cited by 502
Runge, M. C., Converse, S. J., & Lyons, J. E. (2011) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.12.020 · Cited by 450
Setting Conservation Priorities
Wilson, K. A., Carwardine, J., & Possingham, H. P. (2009) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04149.x · Cited by 324
Self-citationQuantitative evidence for the effects of multiple drivers on continental-scale amphibian declines
Grant, E. H. C., Miller, D. A. W., Schmidt, B. R., Adams, M. J., Amburgey, S. M., Chambert, T., Cruickshank, S. S., Fisher, R. N., Green, D. M., Hossack, B. R., et al. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep25625 · Cited by 283
Prescribed burning: how can it work to conserve the things we value?
Penman, T. D., Christie, F. J., Andersen, A. N., Bradstock, R. A., Cary, G. J., Henderson, M. K., Price, O., Tran, C., Wardle, G. M., Williams, R. J., et al. (2011) · International Journal of Wildland Fire · doi:10.1071/wf09131 · Cited by 258
Metadata
- Authors
- McCARTHY, M. A., & POSSINGHAM, H. P.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-03-21
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 956-963
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2035537103
- Cited by
- 335
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 39.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Active Adaptive Management for Conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00677.x
- The paper
- McCARTHY, M. A., & POSSINGHAM, H. P. (2007). Active Adaptive Management for Conservation. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00677.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.