Simulation modeling accounts for uncertainty while quantifying ecological effects of development alternatives
Abstract Wildlife management often involves trade‐offs between protecting species and allowing human activities and development. Ideally, these decisions are guided by scientific studies that quantify the impacts of proposed actions on the environment. However, critical information to assess impacts...
| Published in: | Ecosphere |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3530 https://doaj.org/article/4febeb2de7264b55868637e002fe9b0a |
| Summary: | Abstract Wildlife management often involves trade‐offs between protecting species and allowing human activities and development. Ideally, these decisions are guided by scientific studies that quantify the impacts of proposed actions on the environment. However, critical information to assess impacts of proposed activities may be lacking, such as certainty in where actions will take place, which may hinder a robust impact assessment. To address this issue, we present the Development Impacts Analysis (DIA), which employs Monte Carlo simulation modeling to quantify the environmental consequences of proposed development scenarios, while accounting for uncertainty in the exact location of future development. We applied the DIA to five proposed oil leasing management scenarios under a revised management plan for the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska. For each management scenario with differing levels of proposed development (“alternatives”), oil production pads and roads were randomly simulated in proportion to estimated undiscovered oil and following alternative‐specific restrictions. We assessed habitat displacement for two caribou (Rangifer tarandus) herds, eight shorebird species, and black brant (Branta bernicla) based on reported responses to development, repeating the process 100 times for each alternative. Some habitat loss was reported for each proposed alternative, but the amount of impact varied by alternative and species. One caribou herd and most bird species indicated greatest effects in the alternative with the least restrictions on development and lesser impacts under more protective alternatives. Our results emphasized the importance of considering spatial variation in development effects and species‐specific differences when evaluating management proposals. The DIA quantified potential impacts on a suite of species under proposed management alternatives, while accounting for uncertainty in where development will occur and providing confidence intervals on estimated impacts. This illustrates that ... |
|---|