236 Monitoring Threatened Species and Ecological Communities
ocellata that are threatened by pervasive, cryptic vertebrate predators (foxes Vulpes
vulpes and cats Felis catus). In both of these systems there is uncertainty associated
with the effect of poison bait application on fox abundance, the relationship
between fox abundance and predation, the relationship between fox abundance
and feral cat abundance and how each of these parameters relate to rock-wallaby
and malleefowl abundances, respectively. Given that the ongoing annual
investment in fox control in NSW runs into the millions, an AM approach is being
adopted for these projects (see Chapter 31).
Improving prioritisation
An important function of monitoring and evaluation under SoS in terms of
informing decision making is to improve the reliability of priority scores derived
from the Project Prioritisation Protocol. All three parameters in the algorithm
used to rank site-managed species (benefit, likelihood of success and cost) are
based on expert estimates with uncertainty. By implementing these projects and
monitoring expenditure and outcomes, values for each of these parameters
(particularly the likelihood of success and cost in the short term) can be refined
and calibrated with empirical data, gradually reducing uncertainty in the priority
scores, and subsequently, the validity and utility of the priority rankings.
Ideally, however, prioritisation of investment should be based on actual relative
response to management. This is challenging, given that there is likely to be
variation between projects assessed as ‘on track’ (e.g. a project responding quickly/
strongly should be favoured over one responding slowly/weakly to management).
This is particularly important when making decisions about when to de-prioritise
or cease investment in a particular action or project. Any such decisions should
consider whether appropriate time has been allowed to evaluate the response to
management (Ng et al. 2014), whether the monitoring is sufficient to detect a
response (Gerber et al. 2005), and how much is being invested. Having a
centralised team coordinating the program state-wide – as well as a technical
reference group with broad oversight of the program and a review role in these
decisions – goes some way to meeting these challenges for SoS.
Lessons learned
● (^) The monitoring component of any large-scale threatened species program
should be designed to answer questions specifically relating to the program’s
objectives, and investment in monitoring should be prioritised based on its
value in terms of answering those questions relative to its cost.
● (^) Evaluation of management outcomes should be against clearly defined,
quantitative, short- and long-term targets that are derived from conceptual
models of the relevant system.