Effect of risk aversion on prioritizing conservation projects.

作者: Ayesha I.T. Tulloch , Richard F. Maloney , Liana N. Joseph , Joseph R. Bennett , Martina M.I. Di Fonzo

DOI: 10.1111/COBI.12386

关键词: Actuarial scienceEnvironmental resource managementCost effectivenessRisk management toolsRisk analysis (business)BusinessTime consistencyAdaptive managementRisk managementRisk assessmentRisk aversion

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

参考文章(41)
AYESHA I. T. TULLOCH, IADINE CHADÈS, HUGH P. POSSINGHAM, Accounting for complementarity to maximize monitoring power for species management. Conservation Biology. ,vol. 27, pp. 988- 999 ,(2013) , 10.1111/COBI.12092
James M. Gibbons, Emily Nicholson, E. J. Milner-Gulland, Julia P. G. Jones, Should payments for biodiversity conservation be based on action or results? Journal of Applied Ecology. ,vol. 48, pp. 1218- 1226 ,(2011) , 10.1111/J.1365-2664.2011.02022.X
Tomas Björk, Agatha Murgoci, Xun Yu Zhou, MEAN–VARIANCE PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION WITH STATE‐DEPENDENT RISK AVERSION Mathematical Finance. ,vol. 24, pp. 1- 24 ,(2014) , 10.1111/J.1467-9965.2011.00515.X
L Richard Little, John Parslow, Gavin Fay, R Quentin Grafton, Anthony DM Smith, André E Punt, Geoffrey N Tuck, None, Environmental Derivatives, Risk Analysis, and Conservation Management Conservation Letters. ,vol. 7, pp. 196- 207 ,(2014) , 10.1111/CONL.12041
Gareth D. Lennox, Paul R. Armsworth, Suitability of short or long conservation contracts under ecological and socio-economic uncertainty Ecological Modelling. ,vol. 222, pp. 2856- 2866 ,(2011) , 10.1016/J.ECOLMODEL.2011.04.033
Leslie A. Real, Fitness, Uncertainty, and the Role of Diversification in Evolution and Behavior The American Naturalist. ,vol. 115, pp. 623- 638 ,(1980) , 10.1086/283588
D.W. Stephens, S.R. Paton, How constant is the constant of risk-aversion? Animal Behaviour. ,vol. 34, pp. 1659- 1667 ,(1986) , 10.1016/S0003-3472(86)80253-6
Joseph R. Bennett, Graeme Elliott, Belinda Mellish, Liana N. Joseph, Ayesha I.T. Tulloch, William J.M. Probert, Martina M.I. Di Fonzo, Joanne M. Monks, Hugh P. Possingham, Richard Maloney, Balancing phylogenetic diversity and species numbers in conservation prioritization, using a case study of threatened species in New Zealand Biological Conservation. ,vol. 174, pp. 47- 54 ,(2014) , 10.1016/J.BIOCON.2014.03.013
Mark A. Burgman, Denys Yemshanov, Risks, decisions and biological conservation Diversity and Distributions. ,vol. 19, pp. 485- 489 ,(2013) , 10.1111/DDI.12060
Stephen Polasky, Stephen R. Carpenter, Carl Folke, Bonnie Keeler, Decision-making under great uncertainty: environmental management in an era of global change Trends in Ecology and Evolution. ,vol. 26, pp. 398- 404 ,(2011) , 10.1016/J.TREE.2011.04.007