17 – Saving our Species^231studies presented in Boxes 17.1 and 17.2 demonstrate how conceptual models are
used to set benchmarks.
An additional benefit of this approach, for a program as large and diverse as
SoS, is that outcomes are evaluated using a standardised indicator (i.e. on track or
not on track). This means that outcomes are comparable and can be aggregated,
despite significant variability in the timing and form of management responses
(e.g. long-lived tree versus ‘boom and bust’ small mammal). This can also facilitate
prioritisation between species as well as clear communication of program-level
outcomes (e.g. ‘X% of species are on track to be secure in the wild in NSW for
100 years’).
Constraints and challenges
The main impediment to developing meaningful conceptual models and targets is
limited availability of data and knowledge on the ecology of species, habitats and
threats, and their interactions. Specifically, a lack of robust longitudinal datasets
tracking species response to management hampers our ability to make inferences.
Even under circumstances where data are available for similar species or habitats,
small variations in environmental conditions or the scale or intensity of
management often reduce its applicability. SoS is tackling these challenges by
investing in outcome monitoring for all projects being implemented to build a
significant dataset that can inform the development of conceptual models for those
species. In addition, a priority research project under SoS is currently developing a
suite of standardised conceptual models based on population viability analyses to
inform target setting across the program.
A recognised limitation of the SoS framework is that monitoring is only
prescribed at sites under management, which may not include all sites where the
species is known to occur. This is the result of taking a cost-efficient approach that
maximises outcomes across all species under a fixed budget. Conservation projects
for each species are developed by a panel of experts to meet a consistent objective:
95% probability of having a viable population in 100 years (defined as ‘secure’).
Achieving this objective ensures that the benefit function (B) of the Project
Prioritisation Protocol is equivalent between projects (Joseph et al. 2009; OEH
2013b). Effectively, this means that SoS projects represent the minimum
investment (i.e. number of sites and actions) required to meet this objective, which
often excludes some known populations, particularly for widespread or relatively
abundant species. In such cases, monitoring programs may be constrained in their
ability to report on the status and trajectory of a species’ NSW population or
compare outcomes at managed versus non-managed sites. If this type of evaluation
is particularly important for a given project (e.g. there is high uncertainty in the
benefits of management relative to other drivers, or there is a high level of dispersal
to unmanaged sites), the monitoring program can be expanded.