Benefits of integrating complementarity into priority threat management

作者: Iadine  Chadés , Sam  Nicol , Stephen  van Leeuwen , Belinda  Walters , Jennifer  Firn

DOI: 10.1111/COBI.12413

关键词: Environmental resource managementUnified threat managementPareto principleCost effectivenessEnvironmental economicsInjury controlBiodiversityMulti-objective optimizationComplementarity (physics)Poison controlBusiness

摘要: Conservation decision tools based on cost-effectiveness analysis are used to assess threat management strategies for improving species persistence. These approaches rank alternative by their benefit cost ratio but may fail identify the optimal sets of implement under limited budgets because they do not account redundancies. We devised a multiobjective optimization approach in which complementarity principle is applied that protect most any budget. our prioritize 53 conservation concern Pilbara, Australia. followed structured elicitation collect information benefits and costs implementing 17 different during 3-day workshop with 49 stakeholders experts biodiversity, conservation, Pilbara. compared performance priority current ranking approach. A complementary set 3 strategies: domestic herbivore management, fire research, sanctuaries provided all >50% chance persistence $4.7 million/year over 20 years. Achieving same result almost twice as much ($9.71 million/year) when were selected ranks alone. Our results show has potential double impact approaches.

参考文章(32)
Iadine Chades, Jennifer Firn, Andrew Reeson, Josie Carwardine, Tara Martin, Belinda Walters, Stephen van Leeuwen, Sam Nicol, Priority Threat Management For Pilbara Species Of Conservation Significance CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences. ,(2014) , 10.4225/08/584D9764DFA62
Ian R. Ball, Hugh P. Possingham, Matthew E. Watts, Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation prioritization Oxford University Press. pp. 185- 195 ,(2009)
JosÉ Figueira, Salvatore Greco, Matthias Ehrogott, Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys Operations Research and Management Science. ,(2005) , 10.1007/B100605
Patrick J. McEwan, Henry M. Levin, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Applications ,(2000)
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
Atte Moilanen, Hugh P. Possingham, Kerrie A. Wilson, Spatial conservation prioritization: Quantitative methods and computational tools Oxford University Press. pp. 1- 304 ,(2009)
Josie Carwardine, Trudy O’Connor, Sarah Legge, Brendan Mackey, Hugh P. Possingham, Tara G. Martin, Prioritizing threat management for biodiversity conservation Conservation Letters. ,vol. 5, pp. 196- 204 ,(2012) , 10.1111/J.1755-263X.2012.00228.X
Andrew Speirs-Bridge, Fiona Fidler, Marissa McBride, Louisa Flander, Geoff Cumming, Mark Burgman, Reducing Overconfidence in the Interval Judgments of Experts Risk Analysis. ,vol. 30, pp. 512- 523 ,(2010) , 10.1111/J.1539-6924.2009.01337.X
Jonathan M. Levine, Montserrat Vilà, Carla M. D Antonio, Jeffrey S. Dukes, Karl Grigulis, Sandra Lavorel, Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions Proceedings of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. ,vol. 270, pp. 775- 781 ,(2003) , 10.1098/RSPB.2003.2327
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