Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Animal Production Science Animal Production Science Society
Food, fibre and pharmaceuticals from animals
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > AN > EA05219
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 46(11)

A decision framework for natural resource management: a case study using plant introductions

K. J. Wallace
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

Department of Environment and Conservation, Locked Bag 104, Bentley Delivery Centre, Bentley, WA 6983, Australia. Email: ken.wallace@dec.wa.gov.au

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46(11) 1397-1405 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA05219
Submitted: 18 August 2005  Accepted: 24 March 2006   Published: 9 October 2006

Abstract

One means of anticipating and, thus, preventing natural resource problems, such as those that may arise from plant introductions, is to use effective decision frameworks. This paper argues that such frameworks are typified by 4 elements. These are clear goals explicitly linked to cultural values, key questions that scope problems and management options, application of appropriate analytical tools, and the connection of authority for decisions with responsibility for outcomes. These elements are explored here. Trade offs are an inevitable part of decisions concerning natural resource management, including those relating to plant introductions. Benefit-cost and multi-criteria decision analyses are useful in this regard, but must be applied using methods that ensure all the relevant cultural values and management options are explored. Some recent proposals concerning the assessment of plant introductions do not always adequately frame decision issues. Ecological risk assessments can be used to define an acceptable level of risk concerning the negative impacts of introducing new biota, and, combined with an appropriate benefit-cost or multi-criteria analysis, provide the suite of analytical tools to make effective decisions concerning plant introductions. Effective decisions are more likely when the authority to make decisions and the responsibility for unforeseen outcomes are closely linked.


Acknowledgments

I thank John Bartle, Michael Burton, Margaret Byrne, Dave Coates, David Pannell, Lynley Stone, John Virtue, Terry Walshe and 3 anonymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions on early drafts of the paper, and Matthew Williams for his advice on statistics.


References


ARMCANZ, ANZECCFM (1999) ‘The national weeds strategy: a strategic approach to weed problems of national significance.’ (Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand and Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Forestry Ministers, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra)

Baskerville GL (1995) The forestry problem: adaptive lurches of renewal. In ‘Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions’. (Eds LH Gunderson, CS Holling, SS Light) pp. 86–102. (Columbia University Press: New York, NY)

Bennett SJ, Virtue JG (2004) Salinity mitigation versus weed risks – can conflicts of interest in introducing new plants be resolved? Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 1141–1156.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | (verified 21 March 2005).

Born W, Rauschmayer F, Bräuer I (2005) Economic evaluation of biological invasions – a survey. Ecological Economics 55, 321–336.. (verified 29 August 2006)

Kingwell R, Hajkowicz S, Young J, Patton D, Trapnell L, Edward A, Krause M, Bathgate A (2003) ‘Economic evaluation of salinity management options in cropping regions of Australia.’ (Grains Research and Development Corporation: Canberra)

Lehtonen PP (2001) Pest risk assessment in the United States: guidelines for qualitative assessments for weeds. In ‘Weed risk assessment.’ (Eds RH Groves, FD Panetta, JG Virtue) pp. 117–123. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne)

Noss RF, Cooperrider AY (1994) Saving nature’s legacy: protecting and restoring biodiversity.’ (Island Press: Washington DC)

Resource Assessment Commission (1992a) Multi-criteria analysis as a resource assessment tool. Research paper no. 6. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Resource Assessment Commission (1992b) Methods for analysing development and conservation issues: the Resource Assessment Commission’s experience. Research paper no. 7. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Sinden JA, Thampapillai DJ (1995) ‘Introduction to benefit-cost analysis.’ (Longman Publishing Pty Ltd: Melbourne)

United States Environmental Protection Agency (1998) Guidelines for ecological assessment. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Federal Register 63(93):26846–26924. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/ (verified 20 March 2005).

Wainger LA, King DM (2001) Priorities for weed risk assessment: using a landscape context to assess indicators of functions, services and values. In ‘Weed risk assessment’. (Eds RH Groves, FD Panetta, JG Virtue) pp. 34–51. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne)

Wallace KJ (Ed.) (1998) Dongolocking pilot planning project for remnant vegetation. Final report (phase 1). Department of Conservation and Land Management, Perth.

Wallace KJ (2003) Confusing means with ends: a manager’s reflections on experience in agricultural landscapes of Western Australia. Ecological Management and Restoration 4, 23–28.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Wallace KJ, Beecham BC, Bone BH (2003) ‘Managing natural biodiversity in the Western Australian wheatbelt: a conceptual framework.’ (Department of Conservation and Land Management: Perth)

Walters C (1986) ‘Adaptive management of renewable resources.’ (Blackburn Press: Caldwell, NJ)

Wilks LC (1990) A survey of the contingent valuation method. Research paper no. 2. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Worboys GL, Lockwood M, De Lacy T (2005) ‘Protected area management: principles and practice.’ (Oxford University Press: South Melbourne)