Improving the use of expert opinion in disease risk analysis for conservation translocations

Abstract

Conservation translocations are subject to considerable uncertainty and risk, of which disease is one of the most recognized. To address disease risks, several protocols for qualitative disease risk analysis (qDRA) exist and are used for responsible conservation translocation planning. Existing qDRA protocols usually rely on expert judgment, but they lack quantitative aggregation of elicited estimates, transparent treatment of uncertainty, and explicit comparison of alternative disease risk management pathways. We added these factors to a qDRA for translocation of a charismatic species that is extinct in the wild, the sihek (Guam kingfisher) (Todiramphus cinnamominus). We asked a panel of seven independent experts to quantify their judgment of risks of pathogen release, exposure, and consequences for seven pathogen hazards under three translocation management scenarios. Experts suggested that implementing a full biosecurity protocol would reduce risk for several pathogen hazards but would have variable effectiveness (11–65% depending on the hazard). There was substantial uncertainty associated with individual experts and noise among different experts, showing the potential for error if decisions are based on single-point judgments (i.e., providing judgment of a central tendency without accounting for uncertainty) from one expert or on collaborative consensus of multiple experts, as is current practice.