Back

Evaluating a structured expert elicitation approach for adaptive conservation: Lessons from five years in practice

Mayfield, H. J.; Brazill-Boast, J.; Andren, M.; Bowen, M.; Fawcett, A.; Forge, T.; Foster, L.; Goldingay, R.; Hillier, P.; Hinds, M.; Lee, S.; Mahon, E.; Maron, M.; Mills, D.; Rowell, T.; Stuart, S.; Taylor, C.; Webster, G.; Hansen, N.

2025-11-10 ecology
10.1101/2025.11.08.687399 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Threatened species management relies on Ex ante estimates of species responses to different interventions to generate meaningful predictions. Structured expert elicitation is often used to generate these estimates, but comparisons of these expert-predicted outcomes with observed results are rare. This study aims to evaluate the utility of expert elicitation for adaptive management in the New South Wales Saving our Species (SoS) program in Australia by revisiting six species management plans that were generated from bespoke structured elicitation guidelines five years prior. Each species management plan included a defined scope, conceptual model, monitoring indicators and estimated response to management curves under different scenarios. Experts reviewed the conceptual models after five years of management and monitoring and compared the predicted response to management with observed monitoring data. In three of the six case studies, observed outcomes closely matched predictions. Where predictions diverged, factors such as unanticipated new threats and unexpected responses to interventions contributed to discrepancies. However, in all cases, the structured approach provided a clear logic for planning, enabling managers to systematically refine their understanding. The conceptual models and response curves proved valuable for collaboration, communication, and generating hypotheses for unexpected results. This work demonstrates the value of the bespoke guidelines in supporting adaptive management processes, strengthening the knowledge base for threatened species conservation while improving alignment between predictions and real-world outcomes.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Conservation Science and Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.0%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 10%
17.6%
3
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.7%
4
Conservation Letters
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.1%
50% of probability mass above
5
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.7%
6
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.5%
7
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
8
Journal of Applied Ecology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.0%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 45%
2.6%
10
Conservation Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
11
Animal Conservation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
12
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
13
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.7%
14
Biodiversity and Conservation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
15
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
16
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
17
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
18
Diversity and Distributions
26 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
19
Journal of Environmental Management
11 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
20
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
21
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
22
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
23
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
Ecological Indicators
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
25
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
26
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 22%
0.7%
27
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
28
Ecosphere
53 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%