Literature DB >> 32691916

Fundamental insights on when social network data are most critical for conservation planning.

Jonathan R Rhodes1,2,3, Angela M Guerrero2,3,4,5, Örjan Bodin5, Iadine Chadès2,6.   

Abstract

As declines in biodiversity accelerate, there is an urgent imperative to ensure that every dollar spent on conservation counts toward species protection. Systematic conservation planning is a widely used approach to achieve this, but there is growing concern that it must better integrate the human social dimensions of conservation to be effective. Yet, fundamental insights about when social data are most critical to inform conservation planning decisions are lacking. To address this problem, we derived novel principles to guide strategic investment in social network information for systematic conservation planning. We considered the common conservation problem of identifying which social actors, in a social network, to engage with to incentivize conservation behavior that maximizes the number of species protected. We used simulations of social networks and species distributed across network nodes to identify the optimal state-dependent strategies and the value of social network information. We did this for a range of motif network structures and species distributions and applied the approach to a small-scale fishery in Kenya. The value of social network information depended strongly on both the distribution of species and social network structure. When species distributions were highly nested (i.e., when species-poor sites are subsets of species-rich sites), the value of social network information was almost always low. This suggests that information on how species are distributed across a network is critical for determining whether to invest in collecting social network data. In contrast, the value of social network information was greatest when social networks were highly centralized. Results for the small-scale fishery were consistent with the simulations. Our results suggest that strategic collection of social network data should be prioritized when species distributions are un-nested and when social networks are likely to be centralized.
© 2020 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  análisis de redes sociales; artificial intelligence; distribución de las especies; inteligencia artificial; programación estocástica dinámica; social network analysis; species distributions; stochastic dynamic programing; valor de la información; value of information; 人工智能; 信息价值; 物种分布; 社会网络分析; 随机动态规划

Year:  2020        PMID: 32691916      PMCID: PMC7754422          DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13500

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


  24 in total

1.  Mapping human and social dimensions of conservation opportunity for the scheduling of conservation action on private land.

Authors:  Andrew T Knight; Richard M Cowling; Mark Difford; Bruce M Campbell
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 6.560

2.  Identifying influential and susceptible members of social networks.

Authors:  Sinan Aral; Dylan Walker
Journal:  Science       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 3.  Network analysis in the social sciences.

Authors:  Stephen P Borgatti; Ajay Mehra; Daniel J Brass; Giuseppe Labianca
Journal:  Science       Date:  2009-02-13       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 4.  Assessing the impact of fisheries co-management interventions in developing countries: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Louisa Evans; Nia Cherrett; Diemuth Pemsl
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2011-04-29       Impact factor: 6.789

5.  Matching spatial property rights fisheries with scales of fish dispersal.

Authors:  Crow White; Christopher Costello
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.657

6.  Conservation success as a function of good alignment of social and ecological structures and processes.

Authors:  Orjan Bodin; Beatrice Crona; Matilda Thyresson; Anna-Lea Golz; Maria Tengö
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 6.560

7.  Social networks and environmental outcomes.

Authors:  Michele L Barnes; John Lynham; Kolter Kalberg; PingSun Leung
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-05-23       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 8.  Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems.

Authors:  Örjan Bodin
Journal:  Science       Date:  2017-08-18       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Integrating models of human behaviour between the individual and population levels to inform conservation interventions.

Authors:  Andrew D M Dobson; Emiel de Lange; Aidan Keane; Harriet Ibbett; E J Milner-Gulland
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2019-07-29       Impact factor: 6.237

10.  Quantifying the impact of uncertainty on threat management for biodiversity.

Authors:  Sam Nicol; James Brazill-Boast; Emma Gorrod; Adam McSorley; Nathalie Peyrard; Iadine Chadès
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 14.919

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.