Literature DB >> 18173470

Incorporating the effects of socioeconomic uncertainty into priority setting for conservation investment.

Marissa F McBride1, Kerrie A Wilson, Michael Bode, Hugh P Possingham.   

Abstract

Uncertainty in the implementation and outcomes of conservation actions that is not accounted for leaves conservation plans vulnerable to potential changes in future conditions. We used a decision-theoretic approach to investigate the effects of two types of investment uncertainty on the optimal allocation of global conservation resources for land acquisition in the Mediterranean Basin. We considered uncertainty about (1) whether investment will continue and (2) whether the acquired biodiversity assets are secure, which we termed transaction uncertainty and performance uncertainty, respectively. We also developed and tested the robustness of different rules of thumb for guiding the allocation of conservation resources when these sources of uncertainty exist. In the presence of uncertainty in future investment ability (transaction uncertainty), the optimal strategy was opportunistic, meaning the investment priority should be to act where uncertainty is highest while investment remains possible. When there was a probability that investments would fail (performance uncertainty), the optimal solution became a complex trade-off between the immediate biodiversity benefits of acting in a region and the perceived longevity of the investment. In general, regions were prioritized for investment when they had the greatest performance certainty, even if an alternative region was highly threatened or had higher biodiversity value. The improved performance of rules of thumb when accounting for uncertainty highlights the importance of explicitly incorporating sources of investment uncertainty and evaluating potential conservation investments in the context of their likely long-term success.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18173470     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00832.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  9 in total

1.  Ecoregion prioritization suggests an armoury not a silver bullet for conservation planning.

Authors:  Stephan M Funk; Julia E Fa
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-01-27       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Waiting can be an optimal conservation strategy, even in a crisis discipline.

Authors:  Gwenllian D Iacona; Hugh P Possingham; Michael Bode
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-09-11       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Future hotspots of terrestrial mammal loss.

Authors:  Piero Visconti; Robert L Pressey; Daniele Giorgini; Luigi Maiorano; Michel Bakkenes; Luigi Boitani; Rob Alkemade; Alessandra Falcucci; Federica Chiozza; Carlo Rondinini
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  Dynamic minimum set problem for reserve design: Heuristic solutions for large problems.

Authors:  Mathieu Bonneau; Régis Sabbadin; Fred A Johnson; Bradley Stith
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Prioritizing conservation investments for mammal species globally.

Authors:  Kerrie A Wilson; Megan C Evans; Moreno Di Marco; David C Green; Luigi Boitani; Hugh P Possingham; Federica Chiozza; Carlo Rondinini
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  Governance factors in the identification of global conservation priorities for mammals.

Authors:  Johanna Eklund; Anni Arponen; Piero Visconti; Mar Cabeza
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 6.237

7.  Modeling environmentally associated morphological and genetic variation in a rainforest bird, and its application to conservation prioritization.

Authors:  Henri A Thomassen; Wolfgang Buermann; Borja Milá; Catherine H Graham; Susan E Cameron; Christopher J Schneider; John P Pollinger; Sassan Saatchi; Robert K Wayne; Thomas B Smith
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2009-07-16       Impact factor: 5.183

8.  Cheap and nasty? The potential perils of using management costs to identify global conservation priorities.

Authors:  Erin McCreless; Piero Visconti; Josie Carwardine; Chris Wilcox; Robert J Smith
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-15       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Ecosystem Services Modeling as a Tool for Defining Priority Areas for Conservation.

Authors:  Gabriela Teixeira Duarte; Milton Cezar Ribeiro; Adriano Pereira Paglia
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.