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

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
AI-generated summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-17

This study evaluated a structured expert elicitation approach used in Australian conservation planning over five years, finding that while predictions closely matched outcomes in some cases, the approach facilitated adaptive management and hypothesis generation regardless of accuracy.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

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.
Full text 1,758 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
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. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00