Setting conservation priorities in Fiji: Decision science versus additive scoring systems

Abstract

There is a well-established scientific field – decision science – that can be used to rigorously set conservation priorities. Despite well-documented shortcomings, additive scoring approaches to conservation prioritization are still prevalent. This paper discusses the shortcomings and advantages of both approaches applied in Fiji to identify priorities for terrestrial protected areas. The two main shortcomings of using a scoring approach (discussed in Keppel (2014) [1]) that are resolved with decision science approaches (presented in Klein et al. (2014) [2]) in Fiji were (1) priorities did not achieve one of the most important stated conservation goals of representing ~40% of Fiji׳s major vegetation types and (2) the weighting of different selection criteria used was arbitrary. Both approaches considered expert knowledge and land–sea connections important to decision makers in Fiji, but only decision science can logically integrate both, in addition to other important considerations. Thus, decision makers are urged to use decision science and avoid additive scoring systems when prioritizing places for conservation. Fiji has the opportunity to be a global leader in using decision science to support integrated land–sea planning decisions.