Will AI replace Conservation Scientists?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 66 official task statements scored for Conservation Scientists (United States, SOC 19-1031), 18% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 34 out of 100 (range 29–40, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

Which tasks in “Conservation Scientists” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Prepare brochures and write newspaper articles” (93/100, very high); “Develop water conservation or harvest plans, using weather information systems, irrigation information management systems, or other sources of daily evapotra…” (83/100, very high); “Research stories regarding the area's natural history or environment” (75/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.

Which tasks in “Conservation Scientists” stay human?

About 60% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Provide care for park program animals” (0/100, minimal); “Revisit land users to view implemented land use practices or plans” (0/100, minimal); “Take photographs and motion pictures for use in lectures and publications and to develop displays” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.

What should someone working in “Conservation Scientists” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 18% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 60% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.

How is the AI exposure score for Conservation Scientists calculated?

Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 66 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

US dataswitch to UK

Conservation Scientists

providing visitor services, measuring and assessing vegetation resources for biological assessment companies and maintaining soil stability and vegetation for non-grazing uses. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: gathering information from geographic information systems. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 18%
changing shape: 22%
staying human: 60%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 34 out of 100 (29–40 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 66 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for conservation scientists is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, providing visitor services, such as explaining regulations, answering visitor requests, stays yours. New tools, same person answering for it.

Your week, as this page understands it

Manage, improve, and protect natural resources to maximize their use without damaging the environment. May conduct soil surveys and develop plans to eliminate soil erosion or to protect rangelands. May instruct farmers, agricultural production managers, or ranchers in best ways to use crop rotation, contour plowing, or terracing to conserve soil and water; in the number and kind of livestock and forage plants best suited to particular ranges; and in range and farm improvements, such as fencing and reservoirs for stock watering. The job title says “conservation scientists”. The real job is the part underneath: providing visitor services, such as explaining regulations, answering visitor requests. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But conservation scientists is not one task. It is 66 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is providing visitor services, such as explaining regulations, answering visitor requests, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 18%
changing shape: 22%
staying human: 60%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
3 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Shifting to AI

12 tasks

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Gathering information from geographic information systems
This is reading one thing and writing another: information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Gather information from geographic information systems (GIS) databases or applications to formulate land use recommendations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Mapping data sits in digital systems, and pulling recommendations out of it is well suited to software.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Computing design specifications for implementation of conservation practices
This is reading one thing and writing another: design specifications in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Compute design specifications for implementation of conservation practices, using survey or field information, technical guides or engineering manuals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: These are calculations from survey data and engineering manuals, which is exactly the kind of work software does reliably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analyzing results of investigations to determine measures needed to maintain or restore proper soil management
This is reading one thing and writing another: results of investigations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Analyze results of investigations to determine measures needed to maintain or restore proper soil management.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Turning investigation results into recommended soil measures is analysis over data that is already written down.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing environmental educational programs and curricula for schools
This is reading one thing and writing another: environmental educational programs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop environmental educational programs and curricula for schools.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: School environmental programs follow well established curriculum patterns, so software can produce strong first drafts.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

15 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Applying principles of specialized fields of science
The software now makes the first pass at principles of specialized fields of science, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Apply principles of specialized fields of science, such as agronomy, soil science, forestry, or agriculture, to achieve conservation objectives.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: The science is well documented, so software can suggest approaches, but applying it to a real place still needs an expert.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning and organizing public events at the park
The software now makes the first pass at public events, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Plan and organize public events at the park.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Event planning follows well-worn patterns, so software can draft the schedule, permits list and running order.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning soil management or conservation practices
The software now makes the first pass at soil management, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Plan soil management or conservation practices, such as crop rotation, reforestation, permanent vegetation, contour plowing, or terracing, to maintain soil or conserve water.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Conservation practices like crop rotation and terracing follow published guidance, so software can draft a solid plan for review.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

39 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

Providing visitor services, such as explaining regulations, answering visitor requests
This work happens in the physical world: visitor services, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Provide visitor services, such as explaining regulations, answering visitor requests, needs and complaints, and providing information about the park and surrounding areas.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Answering visitors at the park counter means being there, in person, with them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assisting with operations of general facilities
This work happens in the physical world: operations of general facilities, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Assist with operations of general facilities, such as visitor centers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Helping run a visitor center means being present in the building.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Implementing soil or water management techniques
This work happens in the physical world: soil, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Implement soil or water management techniques, such as nutrient management, erosion control, buffers, or filter strips, in accordance with conservation plans.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Putting erosion controls and buffers in place is work done on the ground.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

Show the other 56 tasks

Preparing brochures and writing newspaper articles
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: brochures in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Prepare brochures and write newspaper articles.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (86–100 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Brochures and short newspaper pieces are exactly the kind of writing software now produces at publishable quality.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing water conservation or harvest plans
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: water conservation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Develop water conservation or harvest plans, using weather information systems, irrigation information management systems, or other sources of daily evapotranspiration (ET) data.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Weather and evaporation data are public and abundant, so building a water plan from them is well suited to software.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Researching stories regarding the area's natural history or environment
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: stories regarding the area's natural history in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Research stories regarding the area's natural history or environment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Researching local natural history is reading and pulling together written sources.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Computing cost estimates of different conservation practices
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: cost estimates of different conservation practices in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Compute cost estimates of different conservation practices, based on needs of land users, maintenance requirements, or life expectancy of practices.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Costing standard conservation practices is arithmetic over published rates and maintenance schedules.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Entering local soil, water or other environmental data into adaptive or Web-based decision tools to identify appropriate analyses or techniques
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: local soil, water or other environmental data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Enter local soil, water, or other environmental data into adaptive or Web-based decision tools to identify appropriate analyses or techniques.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Entering local readings into an online decision tool and picking the right analysis is routine screen work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing proposed wetland restoration easements or providing technical recommendations
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: proposed wetland restoration easements in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Review proposed wetland restoration easements or provide technical recommendations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reviewing an easement proposal against published criteria is document work software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Compiling or interpreting biodata to determine extent or type of wetlands or to aid in program formulation
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: biodata in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Compile or interpret biodata to determine extent or type of wetlands or to aid in program formulation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Sorting biological survey data to work out wetland extent is pattern work over recorded observations.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing grant applications or making funding recommendations
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: grant applications in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Review grant applications or make funding recommendations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Scoring grant applications against published criteria is document work software handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing technical standards and specifications
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at technical standards, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop technical standards and specifications used to manage, protect, and improve the natural resources of range lands and related grazing lands.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Standards writing draws on published technical material, though it takes an expert to make them fit for use.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Compiling and maintaining official park photographic and information files
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at official park photographic, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Compile and maintain official park photographic and information files.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping photo and information files organized is largely digital cataloging, though some physical archives remain.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Studying rangeland management practices and researching range problems to provide sustained production of forage
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at rangeland management practices, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Study rangeland management practices and research range problems to provide sustained production of forage, livestock, and wildlife.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reviewing management practices and range research is largely reading and analysis over published work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Studying forage plants and their growth requirements to determine varieties best suited to particular range
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at forage plants, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Study forage plants and their growth requirements to determine varieties best suited to particular range.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Matching forage species to growing conditions is well documented and easy to look up and compare.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Responding to complaints or questions on wetland jurisdiction
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at complaints, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Respond to complaints or questions on wetland jurisdiction, providing information or clarification.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Wetland rules are published, so drafting a clear answer to a question about them is well within reach.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing or approving amendments to comprehensive local water plans or conservation district plans
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at amendments, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Review or approve amendments to comprehensive local water plans or conservation district plans.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Software can check a plan amendment against requirements, but approving it is expected to carry a professional name.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing annual reports of counties
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at annual reports of counties, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Review annual reports of counties, conservation districts, or watershed management organizations, certifying compliance with mandated reporting requirements.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Checking county reports against mandated requirements is routine document review, though certifying it carries professional weight.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing soil maps
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at soil maps, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop soil maps.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Soil mapping now runs mostly on digital survey data, though ground checks still need someone in the field.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying or recommending integrated weed and pest management
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at integrated, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Identify or recommend integrated weed and pest management (IPM) strategies, such as resistant plants, cultural or behavioral controls, soil amendments, insects, natural enemies, barriers, or pesticides.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Weed and pest management options are well documented, so software can recommend a strategy for expert sign-off.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Tailoring conservation plans to landowners' goals
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at conservation plans, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Tailor conservation plans to landowners' goals, such as livestock support, wildlife, or recreation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 47 out of 100 (40–54 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can shape a plan around stated goals, but landowners want to talk it through with someone.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Planning and developing audio-visual devices for public programs
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at audio-visual devices, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Plan and develop audio-visual devices for public programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software can design the audio-visual material, but choosing what works for park audiences takes local judgment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Initiating, scheduling or conducting annual audits or compliance checks of program implementation by local government
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at annual audits, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Initiate, schedule, or conduct annual audits or compliance checks of program implementation by local government.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 42 out of 100 (35–49 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Compliance checks follow written rules and records, so much of the audit work can be prepared automatically.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing information, knowledge
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles information, knowledge and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Provide information, knowledge, expertise, or training to government agencies at all levels to solve water or soil management problems or to assure coordination of resource protection activities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The technical guidance is well documented, but agencies rely on a trusted expert to deliver and stand behind it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Studying grazing patterns to determine number and kind of livestock that can be most profitably grazed and to determine the best grazing seasons
staying human
The ratings behind this row put patterns well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Study grazing patterns to determine number and kind of livestock that can be most profitably grazed and to determine the best grazing seasons.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Stocking decisions rest on local forage conditions that are rarely written down in enough detail.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing methods for protecting range from fire and rodent damage and for controlling poisonous plants
staying human
The ratings behind this row put methods well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Develop methods for protecting range from fire and rodent damage and for controlling poisonous plants.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Fire, rodent and poisonous plant controls are documented, but working out what suits a specific range needs local knowledge.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conferring with park staff to determine subjects and schedules for park programs
staying human
The ratings behind this row put park staff well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Confer with park staff to determine subjects and schedules for park programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Scheduling program topics is easy to draft, but the choices come from staff who know the park.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Preparing and presenting illustrated lectures and interpretive talks about park features
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: illustrated lectures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Prepare and present illustrated lectures and interpretive talks about park features.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can write the talk, but delivering it to a live audience is half the job.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Interviewing specialists in desired fields to obtain and develop data for park information programs
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles specialists and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Interview specialists in desired fields to obtain and develop data for park information programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can prepare and write up the questions, but a specialist opens up to a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Offering advice to rangeland users on water management
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles advice and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Offer advice to rangeland users on water management, forage production methods, and control of brush.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The advice is documented, but ranchers act on it because of who is giving it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Coordinating with federal land managers and other agencies and organizations to manage and protect rangelands
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles federal land managers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Coordinate with federal land managers and other agencies and organizations to manage and protect rangelands.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can prepare the material, but joint management across agencies runs on working relationships.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Participating on work teams
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles work teams and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Participate on work teams to plan, develop, or implement programs or policies for improving environmental habitats, wetlands, or groundwater or soil resources.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can draft program ideas, but sitting on a team and shaping a policy together depends on the people in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Coordinating or implementing
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles technical, financial or administrative assistance programs and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Coordinate or implement technical, financial, or administrative assistance programs for local government units to ensure efficient program implementation or timely responses to requests for assistance.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can handle the program paperwork, but local councils expect a person coordinating and answering them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Planning and implementing revegetation of disturbed sites
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: revegetation of disturbed sites, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Plan and implement revegetation of disturbed sites.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Planning the replanting is desk work, but putting seed in disturbed ground is not.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing, conducting or participating in surveys, studies or investigations of various land uses to inform corrective action plans
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: surveys, studies or investigations of various land uses, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop, conduct, or participate in surveys, studies, or investigations of various land uses to inform corrective action plans.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Designing the study is desk work, but collecting land use evidence usually means getting out to the sites.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing or conducting environmental studies
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: environmental studies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Develop or conduct environmental studies, such as plant material field trials or wildlife habitat impact studies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Field trials and habitat studies need someone setting up plots and observing them outdoors.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Measuring and assessing vegetation resources for biological assessment companies
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: vegetation resources, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Measure and assess vegetation resources for biological assessment companies, environmental impact statements, and rangeland monitoring programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Remote sensing helps, but measuring vegetation for an assessment still involves fieldwork.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Planning and directing construction and maintenance of range improvements
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: construction, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Plan and direct construction and maintenance of range improvements, such as fencing, corrals, stock-watering reservoirs, and soil-erosion control structures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Planning fences and reservoirs is partly desk work, but directing the building happens on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Planning, organizing and directing activities of seasonal staff members
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: activities of seasonal staff members, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Plan, organize and direct activities of seasonal staff members.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Rotas can be drafted automatically, but leading seasonal staff on the ground needs a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Advising land users, such as farmers or ranchers, on plans, problems or alternative conservation solutions
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: land users, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Advise land users, such as farmers or ranchers, on plans, problems, or alternative conservation solutions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Farmers weigh advice partly on who is giving it, and the adviser usually needs to see the land.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Training staff on park programs
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: staff, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Train staff on park programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Training material writes easily, but showing new staff how the programs run happens in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Regulating grazing
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: this work, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Regulate grazing, such as by issuing permits and checking for compliance with standards, and help ranchers plan and organize grazing systems to manage, improve, protect, and maximize the use of rangelands.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Permits can be drafted automatically, but checking real grazing on real land needs someone out there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing new and improved instruments and techniques
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: new and improved instruments and techniques, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Develop new and improved instruments and techniques for activities, such as range reseeding.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Inventing better reseeding tools means building and testing physical equipment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Visiting areas affected by erosion problems to identify causes or determine solutions
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: areas, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Visit areas affected by erosion problems to identify causes or determine solutions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Working out why ground is eroding means standing on it and looking at the soil and water.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Mediating agreements among rangeland users and preservationists as to appropriate land use and management
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles agreements among rangeland users and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Mediate agreements among rangeland users and preservationists as to appropriate land use and management.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Getting ranchers and conservation groups to agree depends on a person both sides trust.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Developing or maintaining working relationships with local government staff or board members
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles relationships and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop or maintain working relationships with local government staff or board members.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Keeping a good working relationship with local officials only works if a real person builds it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Conducting fact-finding or mediation sessions among government units
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles mediation sessions among government units and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Conduct fact-finding or mediation sessions among government units, landowners, or other agencies to resolve disputes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Getting neighbors and agencies to settle a dispute depends on trust built face to face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Surveying park to determine forest conditions and distribution and abundance of fauna and flora
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: park, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Survey park to determine forest conditions and distribution and abundance of fauna and flora.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Surveying the park for tree conditions and wildlife means walking it and recording what is there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Maintaining soil stability and vegetation for non-grazing uses
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: soil stability, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Maintain soil stability and vegetation for non-grazing uses, such as wildlife habitats and outdoor recreation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Holding soil and vegetation in place for wildlife and recreation is physical land management.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Managing forage resources through fire
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: forage resources, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Manage forage resources through fire, herbicide use, or revegetation to maintain a sustainable yield from the land.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Managing forage with fire, herbicide or replanting is work carried out on the land.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Monitoring projects during or after construction to ensure projects conform to design specifications
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: projects, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Monitor projects during or after construction to ensure projects conform to design specifications.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (3–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Checking that finished work matches the design means walking the site and looking at what was built.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Managing field offices or involve staff in cooperative ventures
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: field offices, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Manage field offices or involve staff in cooperative ventures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (3–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Running an office and pulling staff into joint ventures depends on relationships built in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Conducting field trips to point out scientific
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: field trips, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Conduct field trips to point out scientific, historic, and natural features of parks, forests, historic sites, or other attractions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Leading a field trip means walking the ground with a group.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Performing emergency duties to protect human life
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: emergency duties, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Perform emergency duties to protect human life, government property, and natural features of park.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Emergency response means being physically present to act.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Performing routine maintenance on park structures
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: routine maintenance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Perform routine maintenance on park structures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Routine repairs to park buildings are hands-on work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Constructing historical, scientific and nature visitor-center displays
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: historical, scientific and nature visitor-center displays, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Construct historical, scientific, and nature visitor-center displays.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Building a visitor-center display means physically making and installing it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Taking photographs and motion pictures for use in lectures and publications and to develop displays
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: photographs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Take photographs and motion pictures for use in lectures and publications and to develop displays.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Taking photographs and film of the park means being there with a camera.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Revisiting land users to view implemented land use practices or plans
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: land users, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Revisit land users to view implemented land use practices or plans.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Going back out to see what a landowner actually did means being on their land.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Providing care for park program animals
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: care, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Provide care for park program animals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Feeding and caring for program animals needs a person with them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $73,010a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
People doing this job: 25,950in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: design specifications in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: gathering information from geographic information systems and computing design specifications for implementation of conservation practices. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where visitor services get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Start with what does not change: providing visitor services, such as explaining regulations, answering visitor requests is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 18% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 22% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 60% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 66 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Gathering information from geographic information systems is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.

This week: one thing

Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to design specifications, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.

What you end up holding: a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
How long it takes: ten minutes

If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether visitor services are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.

Over the next 90 days

Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near applying principles of specialized fields of science. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.

Over the next 12 months

On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to conservation scientists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was civil engineers: only about 3% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 34/100 here, with only 18% of the task list in the top band, and “provide visitor services, such as explaining regulations, answering visitor requests, needs and…” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Civil Engineers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already monitor projects during or after construction to ensure projects conform to design specifications, and their equivalent is to inspect project sites to monitor progress and ensure conformance to design specifications and…. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Construction Managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already plan, organize and direct activities of seasonal staff members, and their equivalent is to plan, organize, or direct activities concerned with the construction or maintenance of structures…. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Soil and Plant Scientists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already develop soil maps, and their equivalent is to develop improved measurement techniques, soil conservation methods, soil sampling devices, or related technology. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 18% of its task weight, across 66 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like providing visitor services, such as explaining regulations, answering visitor requests arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

If you run a team doing this job

If you run a team doing this job, the conversation you owe them is the one on this page, and sooner than feels comfortable. Show them the ledger rather than a reassurance: the rows moving toward the software are gathering information from geographic information systems, and the rows that are not are where you want your people visible. Ask each of them to do the this-week move and bring the list to your next one-to-one. It turns a rumour into a piece of work, and it tells you which parts of your team's week are actually at stake. And say the thing out loud that a team lead usually leaves unsaid: a shrinking team is your exposure too, so do the move yourself as well.

You are reading the United States figures

The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Conservation professionals is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match

The other groups this work is counted across:

Environment professionals

In UK official statistics this job is counted as Conservation professionals and Environment professionals. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
American Job Center locator
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
- CareerOneStop local help hub
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop
Free

No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it

Nothing Collab365 runs is built for conservation scientists, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 18% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.

Try The AI Authority free →

7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.

The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for conservation scientists. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for conservation scientists launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No Space for conservation scientists yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for conservation scientists existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for conservation scientists launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Conservation Scientists?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 66 official task statements scored for Conservation Scientists (United States, SOC 19-1031), 18% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 34 out of 100 (range 29–40, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Conservation Scientists” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Prepare brochures and write newspaper articles” (93/100, very high); “Develop water conservation or harvest plans, using weather information systems, irrigation information management systems, or other sources of daily evapotra…” (83/100, very high); “Research stories regarding the area's natural history or environment” (75/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Conservation Scientists” stay human?: About 60% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Provide care for park program animals” (0/100, minimal); “Revisit land users to view implemented land use practices or plans” (0/100, minimal); “Take photographs and motion pictures for use in lectures and publications and to develop displays” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Conservation Scientists” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 18% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 60% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Conservation Scientists calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 66 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

About the data on this page

One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
3 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: onet-db (im-rt)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment: bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.