Literature DB >> 25327837

Effect of risk aversion on prioritizing conservation projects.

Ayesha I T Tulloch1, Richard F Maloney, Liana N Joseph, Joseph R Bennett, Martina M I Di Fonzo, William J M Probert, Shaun M O'Connor, Jodie P Densem, Hugh P Possingham.   

Abstract

Conservation outcomes are uncertain. Agencies making decisions about what threat mitigation actions to take to save which species frequently face the dilemma of whether to invest in actions with high probability of success and guaranteed benefits or to choose projects with a greater risk of failure that might provide higher benefits if they succeed. The answer to this dilemma lies in the decision maker's aversion to risk--their unwillingness to accept uncertain outcomes. Little guidance exists on how risk preferences affect conservation investment priorities. Using a prioritization approach based on cost effectiveness, we compared 2 approaches: a conservative probability threshold approach that excludes investment in projects with a risk of management failure greater than a fixed level, and a variance-discounting heuristic used in economics that explicitly accounts for risk tolerance and the probabilities of management success and failure. We applied both approaches to prioritizing projects for 700 of New Zealand's threatened species across 8303 management actions. Both decision makers' risk tolerance and our choice of approach to dealing with risk preferences drove the prioritization solution (i.e., the species selected for management). Use of a probability threshold minimized uncertainty, but more expensive projects were selected than with variance discounting, which maximized expected benefits by selecting the management of species with higher extinction risk and higher conservation value. Explicitly incorporating risk preferences within the decision making process reduced the number of species expected to be safe from extinction because lower risk tolerance resulted in more species being excluded from management, but the approach allowed decision makers to choose a level of acceptable risk that fit with their ability to accommodate failure. We argue for transparency in risk tolerance and recommend that decision makers accept risk in an adaptive management framework to maximize benefits and avoid potential extinctions due to inefficient allocation of limited resources.
© 2014 Society for Conservation Biology.

Keywords:  Project Prioritization Protocol; Protocolo de Priorización de Proyectos; análisis de rentabilidad; análisis de riesgo; conservation decision making; cost-effectiveness analysis; efectividad de manejo; especies amenazadas; incertidumbre; management effectiveness; risk analysis; risk tolerance; threatened species; tolerancia de riesgo; toma de decisiones de conservación; uncertainty

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25327837     DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12386

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


  8 in total

1.  Hotspots of human impact on threatened terrestrial vertebrates.

Authors:  James R Allan; James E M Watson; Moreno Di Marco; Christopher J O'Bryan; Hugh P Possingham; Scott C Atkinson; Oscar Venter
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2019-03-12       Impact factor: 8.029

2.  The value of understanding feedbacks from ecosystem functions to species for managing ecosystems.

Authors:  Hui Xiao; Eve McDonald-Madden; Régis Sabbadin; Nathalie Peyrard; Laura E Dee; Iadine Chadès
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-08-29       Impact factor: 14.919

3.  Reconsidering priorities for forest conservation when considering the threats of mining and armed conflict.

Authors:  Brooke A Williams; Hedley S Grantham; James E M Watson; Aurélie C Shapiro; Andrew J Plumptre; Samuel Ayebare; Elizabeth Goldman; Ayesha I T Tulloch
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2022-04-10       Impact factor: 6.943

4.  Prioritizing debt conversion opportunities for marine conservation.

Authors:  Jennifer McGowan; Rob Weary; Leah Carriere; Edward T Game; Joanna L Smith; Melissa Garvey; Hugh P Possingham
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 7.563

5.  Factoring attitudes towards armed conflict risk into selection of protected areas for conservation.

Authors:  E Hammill; A I T Tulloch; H P Possingham; N Strange; K A Wilson
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2016-03-30       Impact factor: 14.919

6.  A structured elicitation method to identify key direct risk factors for the management of natural resources.

Authors:  Michael Smith; Ken Wallace; Loretta Lewis; Christian Wagner
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2015-11-24

7.  Quantifying the expected value of uncertain management choices for over-abundant Greylag Geese.

Authors:  Ayesha I T Tulloch; Sam Nicol; Nils Bunnefeld
Journal:  Biol Conserv       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 5.990

8.  Multi-targeted management of upland game birds at the agroecosystem interface in midwestern North America.

Authors:  Marlis R Douglas; Whitney J B Anthonysamy; Steven M Mussmann; Mark A Davis; Wade Louis; Michael E Douglas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-27       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.