William J. M. Probert
University of Queensland
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by William J. M. Probert.
Ecological Applications | 2010
Eve McDonald-Madden; William J. M. Probert; Cindy E. Hauser; Michael C. Runge; Hugh P. Possingham; Menna E. Jones; Joslin L. Moore; Tracy M. Rout; Peter A. Vesk; Brendan A. Wintle
Adaptive management has a long history in the natural resource management literature, but despite this, few practitioners have developed adaptive strategies to conserve threatened species. Active adaptive management provides a framework for valuing learning by measuring the degree to which it improves long-run management outcomes. The challenge of an active adaptive approach is to find the correct balance between gaining knowledge to improve management in the future and achieving the best short-term outcome based on current knowledge. We develop and analyze a framework for active adaptive management of a threatened species. Our case study concerns a novel facial tumor disease affecting the Australian threatened species Sarcophilus harrisii: the Tasmanian devil. We use stochastic dynamic programming with Bayesian updating to identify the management strategy that maximizes the Tasmanian devil population growth rate, taking into account improvements to management through learning to better understand disease latency and the relative effectiveness of three competing management options. Exactly which management action we choose each year is driven by the credibility of competing hypotheses about disease latency and by the population growth rate predicted by each hypothesis under the competing management actions. We discover that the optimal combination of management actions depends on the number of sites available and the time remaining to implement management. Our approach to active adaptive management provides a framework to identify the optimal amount of effort to invest in learning to achieve long-run conservation objectives.
Epidemics | 2016
William J. M. Probert; Katriona Shea; Christopher Fonnesbeck; Michael C. Runge; Tim E. Carpenter; Salome Esther Dürr; M.G. Garner; Neil Harvey; Mark Stevenson; Colleen T. Webb; Marleen Werkman; Michael J. Tildesley; Matthew J. Ferrari
Formal decision-analytic methods can be used to frame disease control problems, the first step of which is to define a clear and specific objective. We demonstrate the imperative of framing clearly-defined management objectives in finding optimal control actions for control of disease outbreaks. We illustrate an analysis that can be applied rapidly at the start of an outbreak when there are multiple stakeholders involved with potentially multiple objectives, and when there are also multiple disease models upon which to compare control actions. The output of our analysis frames subsequent discourse between policy-makers, modellers and other stakeholders, by highlighting areas of discord among different management objectives and also among different models used in the analysis. We illustrate this approach in the context of a hypothetical foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak in Cumbria, UK using outputs from five rigorously-studied simulation models of FMD spread. We present both relative rankings and relative performance of controls within each model and across a range of objectives. Results illustrate how control actions change across both the base metric used to measure management success and across the statistic used to rank control actions according to said metric. This work represents a first step towards reconciling the extensive modelling work on disease control problems with frameworks for structured decision making.
Conservation Biology | 2014
Morena Mills; Sam Nicol; Jessie A. Wells; José J. Lahoz-Monfort; Brendan A. Wintle; Michael Bode; Martin Wardrop; Terry Walshe; William J. M. Probert; Michael C. Runge; Hugh P. Possingham; Eve McDonald Madden
Policy documents advocate that managers should keep their options open while planning to protect coastal ecosystems from climate-change impacts. However, the actual costs and benefits of maintaining flexibility remain largely unexplored, and alternative approaches for decision making under uncertainty may lead to better joint outcomes for conservation and other societal goals. For example, keeping options open for coastal ecosystems incurs opportunity costs for developers. We devised a decision framework that integrates these costs and benefits with probabilistic forecasts for the extent of sea-level rise to find a balance between coastal ecosystem protection and moderate coastal development. Here, we suggest that instead of keeping their options open managers should incorporate uncertain sea-level rise predictions into a decision-making framework that evaluates the benefits and costs of conservation and development. In our example, based on plausible scenarios for sea-level rise and assuming a risk-neutral decision maker, we found that substantial development could be accommodated with negligible loss of environmental assets. Characterization of the Pareto efficiency of conservation and development outcomes provides valuable insight into the intensity of trade-offs between development and conservation. However, additional work is required to improve understanding of the consequences of alternative spatial plans and the value judgments and risk preferences of decision makers and stakeholders.
PLOS ONE | 2018
James Brazill-Boast; Moira Williams; Beth Rickwood; Thalie Partridge; Grant Bywater; Bronwyn Cumbo; Ian Shannon; William J. M. Probert; Julie Ravallion; Hugh P. Possingham; Richard F. Maloney
In a global environment of increasing species extinctions and decreasing availability of funds with which to combat the causes of biodiversity loss, maximising the efficiency of conservation efforts is crucial. The only way to ensure maximum return on conservation investment is to incorporate the cost, benefit and likelihood of success of conservation actions into decision-making in a systematic and objective way. Here we report on the application of a Project Prioritization Protocol (PPP), first implemented by the New Zealand Government, to target and prioritize investment in threatened species in New South Wales, Australia, under the state’s new Saving our Species program. Detailed management prescriptions for 368 threatened species were developed via an expert elicitation process, and were then prioritized using quantitative data on benefit, likelihood of success and implementation cost, and a simple cost-efficiency equation. We discuss the outcomes that have been realized even in the early stages of the program; including the efficient development of planning resources made available to all potential threatened species investors and the demonstration of a transparent and objective approach to threatened species management that will significantly increase the probability of meeting an objective to secure the greatest number of threatened species from extinction.
Conservation Biology | 2010
Michael Bode; William J. M. Probert; Will R. Turner; Kerrie A. Wilson; Oscar Venter
Biological Conservation | 2011
William J. M. Probert; Cindy E. Hauser; Eve McDonald-Madden; Michael C. Runge; P. W. J. Baxter; Hugh P. Possingham
Biological Conservation | 2014
Joseph R. Bennett; Graeme Elliott; Belinda Mellish; Liana N. Joseph; Ayesha I. T. Tulloch; William J. M. Probert; Martina M. I. Di Fonzo; Joanne M. Monks; Hugh P. Possingham; Richard F. Maloney
Conservation Biology | 2015
Ayesha I. T. Tulloch; Richard F. Maloney; Liana N. Joseph; Joseph R. Bennett; Martina M. I. Di Fonzo; William J. M. Probert; Shaun O'Connor; Jodie P. Densem; Hugh P. Possingham
Conservation Letters | 2016
Martina M. I. Di Fonzo; Hugh P. Possingham; William J. M. Probert; Joseph R. Bennett; Liana N. Joseph; Ayesha I. T. Tulloch; Shaun O'Connor; Jodie P. Densem; Richard F. Maloney
Ecological Modelling | 2011
William J. M. Probert; Martin Drechsler; P. W. J. Baxter; Hugh P. Possingham