With the above pieces in hand, it is possible to understand potential efficiencies to deliver habitat for both duck populations and supporters, and where there might be trade-offs. This approach falls short of formal integration of the three goals, but it links all three in a common framework and is both computationally and conceptually tractable. As proof of concept, Krainyk et al. (2019), Palumbo et al. (2021) and Devers et al. (2017) have developed spatial planning tools at the international, regional and state scales, respectively, that incorporate considerations for habitat delivery to meet both waterfowl population and social concerns. These powerful tools provide tangible guidance for NAWMP/North American Wetlands Conservation Act investments across multiple scales, and they generate hypotheses that could be adaptively evaluated through time. Existing examples provide compelling opportunities for extension:
1. The quantification of multiple benefits conferred by waterfowl habitat resources continues. Further work to understand the spatial and temporal flow of these multiple benefits, and continuing to include these in planning tools, will enhance NAWMP partners’ ability to engage broader segments of society in conserving the many values associated with waterfowl habitats.
2. Designing efficient conservation programs requires consideration of the benefits and costs of delivering various conservation alternatives. Incorporating relative costs into planning tools is an important antecedent to understanding the trade-offs among conservation choices. A group of black brant waterfowl hunters at Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Ryan Hagerty, USFWS 20 2024 NAWMP Update | Expanding the Partnership
3. When deciding among conservation alternatives, it is important to consider the rate at which benefits accrue. Generally, in instances where habitat interventions are designed to restore ecosystem function, benefits begin to accrue as soon as the restoration is complete. However, it may take time for full ecosystem function to recover. Alternatively, for options that conserve existing ecosystem function, the benefits will accrue at the rate they would have been lost without conservation action (Possingham et al. 2015). Therefore, investing resources to conserve habitat at low risk of conversion may yield poor returns.
4. The sensitivity of waterfowl populations to habitat changes varies across the annual cycle. Incorporating information from recent Integrated Population Models could help focus resources on life cycle events that are most impactful for meeting NAWMP goals. Incorporating these components into new or existing planning tools will help engage new supporters while delivering more efficient conservation programs and avoiding substantial opportunity costs currently present in funding allocations. Further, strong international cooperation and coordination across Canada, the United States and Mexico are essential to ensure conservation resources are invested where they will be most effective in accomplishing NAWMP goals.
