Page 111 - A bird’s-eye view of recreation - Rogier Pouwels

where management measures might result in a larger increase in the population at a regional scale. Option 3 shows that visitor density is just one of the variables that determine the population size of a bird species. For Woodlark, a larger population size might also be achieved by one or more of the following: changing the number of trees, increasing the area of heathland on suitable soil types, and reducing traffic noise. Chapter 4 described how spatial maps, like option 4, can be used in a collaborative decision-making process by the managers of a nature area (e.g. the Veluwe) as it shows for each local situation where reducing visitor densities will result in a larger population size for the area. Providing information on the impact on breeding densities increases salience and gives site managers and stakeholders insight into the severity of local impacts. However, this type of visualization will not indicate whether or not the conservation targets will be achieved.
All six options tell a different story. Although strong, clear messages, like options 5 and 6, are often seen as efficient ways to communicate knowledge, they simplify this knowledge and neglect the complexity of the impact of outdoor recreation on bird conservation. A strongly simplified message may be effective in communicating a problem and raising awareness, but to create solutions more complex forms of knowledge, such as options 3 and 4, are needed.
When choosing between simple and complex visualizations, particular attention
should be given to uncertainties as they affect trade-offs between credibility, salience
and legitimacy (Sarkki et al. 2013, Heink et al. 2015). Although Speigelhalter et al.
(2011), Wardekker et al. (2008) and Morgan (2009) provided examples of how to
express and visualize uncertainties in more comprehensible ways for stakeholders,
Ascough et al. (2008) showed that giving consideration to the consequences of all 6 uncertainties can be difficult and Redpath et al. (2013) argued that it can lead to a loss
of stakeholder engagement in the decision-making process. Nevertheless, I agree with Ascough et al. (2008) and ní Aodha and Edwards (2017) that neglecting uncertainties is one of the pitfalls of using scientific models in decision making and that addressing the different types of uncertainties (Spiegelhalter and Riesch 2011, Brugnach et al. 2008) should be part of the process. In Chapter 5 I proposed a step-wise approach of adaptive management and boundary management for managing the different types of uncertainties. Using scenarios can also help to deal with uncertainties as it encourages an explorative dialogue between stakeholders and site managers about the risks involved (Voinov et al. 2016).
Synthesis
109