A condition metric for Eucalyptus woodland derived from expert evaluations. Issue 1 (31st August 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sinclair, Steve J.; Bruce, Matthew J.; Griffioen, Peter; Dodd, Amanda; White, Matthew D.
• Is Part Of: Conservation biology. Volume 32:Issue 1(2018)
• Page Start: 195
• Page End: 204
• Publication Date: 2017-08-31
• Subjects: CLUS -- Eucalyptus camaldulensis -- expert elicitation -- expert system -- grassy eucalypt woodland -- regression tree -- árbol de regresión -- bosque yerboso de eucalipto -- CLUS -- Eucalyptus camaldulensi -- resultados de expertos -- sistema de expertos; Conservation biology -- Periodicals; 333.9516
• DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12941
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0888-8892

Abstract

Abstract: The evaluation of ecosystem quality is important for land‐management and land‐use planning. Evaluation is unavoidably subjective, and robust metrics must be based on consensus and the structured use of observations. We devised a transparent and repeatable process for building and testing ecosystem metrics based on expert data. We gathered quantitative evaluation data on the quality of hypothetical grassy woodland sites from experts. We used these data to train a model (an ensemble of 30 bagged regression trees) capable of predicting the perceived quality of similar hypothetical woodlands based on a set of 13 site variables as inputs (e.g., cover of shrubs, richness of native forbs). These variables can be measured at any site and the model implemented in a spreadsheet as a metric of woodland quality. We also investigated the number of experts required to produce an opinion data set sufficient for the construction of a metric. The model produced evaluations similar to those provided by experts, as shown by assessing the model's quality scores of expert‐evaluated test sites not used to train the model. We applied the metric to 13 woodland conservation reserves and asked managers of these sites to independently evaluate their quality. To assess metric performance, we compared the model's evaluation of site quality with the managers' evaluations through multidimensional scaling. The metric performed relatively well, plotting close to the center of the space defined by the evaluators. Given the method provides data‐driven consensus and repeatability, which no single human evaluator can provide, we suggest it is a valuable tool for evaluating ecosystem quality in real‐world contexts. We believe our approach is applicable to any ecosystem.