Literature DB >> 21129029

Conservation planning with multiple organizations and objectives.

Michael Bode1, Will Probert, Will R Turner, Kerrie A Wilson, Oscar Venter.   

Abstract

There has been a dramatic increase in the number of conservation organizations worldwide. It is now common for multiple organizations to operate in the same landscape in pursuit of different conservation goals. New objectives, such as maintenance of ecosystem services, will attract additional funding and new organizations to conservation. Systematic conservation planning helps in the design of spatially explicit management actions that optimally conserve multiple landscape features (e.g., species, ecosystems, or ecosystem services). But the methods used in its application implicitly assume that a single actor implements the optimal plan. We investigated how organizational behavior and conservation outcomes are affected by the presence of autonomous implementing organizations with different objectives. We used simulation models and game theory to explore how alternative behaviors (e.g., organizations acting independently or explicitly cooperating) affected an organization's ability to protect their feature of interest, and investigated how the distribution of features in the landscape influenced organizations' attitudes toward cooperation. Features with highly correlated spatial distributions, although typically considered an opportunity for mutually beneficial conservation planning, can lead to organizational interactions that result in lower levels of protection. These detrimental outcomes can be avoided by organizations that cooperate when acquiring land. Nevertheless, for cooperative purchases to benefit both organizations' objectives, each must forgo the protection of land parcels that they would consider to be of high conservation value. Transaction costs incurred during cooperation and the sources of conservation funding could facilitate or hinder cooperative behavior. ©2010 Society for Conservation Biology.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21129029     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01610.x

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


  7 in total

1.  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

2.  Citizens of local jurisdictions enhance plant community preservation through ballot initiatives and voter-driven conservation efforts.

Authors:  Benjamin J Crain; Chad Stachowiak; Patrick F McKenzie; James N Sanchirico; Kailin Kroetz; Paul R Armsworth
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2021-02-14       Impact factor: 6.943

3.  Optimal conservation outcomes require both restoration and protection.

Authors:  Hugh P Possingham; Michael Bode; Carissa J Klein
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 8.029

4.  A lack of response of the financial behaviors of biodiversity conservation nonprofits to changing economic conditions.

Authors:  Eric R Larson; Alison G Boyer; Paul R Armsworth
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2014-11-03       Impact factor: 2.912

5.  Factoring economic costs into conservation planning may not improve agreement over priorities for protection.

Authors:  Paul R Armsworth; Heather B Jackson; Seong-Hoon Cho; Melissa Clark; Joseph E Fargione; Gwenllian D Iacona; Taeyoung Kim; Eric R Larson; Thomas Minney; Nathan A Sutton
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 17.694

6.  Combining Stakeholder- and Social Network- Analysis to Improve Regional Nature Conservation: A Case Study from Osnabrück, Germany.

Authors:  Felix Przesdzink; Laura Mae Herzog; Florian Fiebelkorn
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 3.266

7.  Opportunities for cost-sharing in conservation: variation in volunteering effort across protected areas.

Authors:  Paul R Armsworth; Lisette Cantú-Salazar; Mark Parnell; Josephine E Booth; Rob Stoneman; Zoe G Davies
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.