Article

Objectives for Multiple-Species Conservation Planning

The Ecology Centre, School of Integrative Biology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia.
Conservation Biology (Impact Factor: 4.17). 07/2006; 20(3):871-81. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00369.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

The first step in conservation planning is to identify objectives. Most stated objectives for conservation, such as to maximize biodiversity outcomes, are too vague to be useful within a decision-making framework. One way to clarify the issue is to define objectives in terms of the risk of extinction for multiple species. Although the assessment of extinction risk for single species is common, few researchers have formulated an objective function that combines the extinction risks of multiple species. We sought to translate the broad goal of maximizing the viability of species into explicit objectives for use in a decision-theoretic approach to conservation planning. We formulated several objective functions based on extinction risk across many species and illustrated the differences between these objectives with simple examples. Each objective function was the mathematical representation of an approach to conservation and emphasized different levels of threat. Our objectives included minimizing the joint probability of one or more extinctions, minimizing the expected number of extinctions, and minimizing the increase in risk of extinction from the best-case scenario. With objective functions based on joint probabilities of extinction across species, any correlations in extinction probabilities had to be known or the resultant decisions were potentially misleading. Additive objectives, such as the expected number of extinctions, did not produce the same anomalies. We demonstrated that the choice of objective function is central to the decision-making process because alternative objective functions can lead to a different ranking of management options. Therefore, decision makers need to think carefully in selecting and defining their conservation goals.
Resumen: La identificación de objetivos es el primer paso en la planificación de conservación. La mayoría de los objetivos de conservación, tal como maximizar la biodiversidad, son muy vagos para ser útiles en un marco de toma de decisiones. Una manera de clarificar el tema es la definición de objetivos en términos del riesgo de extinción de múltiples especies. Aunque la evaluación del riesgo de extinción de una especie individual es común, pocos investigadores han formulado una función de objetivos que combina los riesgos de extinción de múltiples especies. Tratamos de traducir el objetivo general de maximizar la viabilidad de especies en objetivos explícitos para ser usados en un método de decisión teórica de planificación de conservación. Formulamos diversas funciones de objetivos basados en el riesgo de extinción de muchas especies, e ilustramos las diferencias entre esos objetivos con ejemplos simples. Cada función de objetivo fue la representación matemática de un método de conservación y enfatizaba diferentes niveles de amenaza. Nuestros objetivos incluyeron la minimización de la probabilidad conjunta de una o más extinciones, la minimización del número esperado de extinciones y la minimización del incremento en el riesgo de extinción en el mejor escenario. Con las funciones de objetivos basadas en probabilidades conjuntas de extinción de las especies, cualquier correlación en las probabilidades de extinción debería ser conocida o las decisiones resultantes eran potencialmente erróneas. Objetivos aditivos, tal como el número esperado de extinciones, no produjeron las mismas anomalías. Demostramos que la elección de la función de objetivo es central en el proceso de toma de decisiones porque las funciones de objetivos alternativas pueden llevar a una diferente clasificación de las opciones de manejo. Por lo tanto, los tomadores de decisiones deben pensar la selección y definición de sus metas de conservación cuidadosamente.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Emily Nicholson
  • Source
    • ", 2005 ) , and in many areas outside disease control , such as in wildlife manage - ment ( Walters and Hilborn , 1976 ; Shea et al . , 2002 ; Nicholson and Possingham , 2006 ; Probert et al . , 2011 ) , weed control ( Shea et al . "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Formal decision-analytic methods can be used to frame disease control problems, the first step of which is to define a clear and specific objective. We demonstrate the imperative of framing clearly-defined management objectives in finding optimal control actions for control of disease outbreaks. We illustrate an analysis that can be applied rapidly at the start of an outbreak when there are multiple stakeholders involved with potentially multiple objectives, and when there are also multiple disease models upon which to compare control actions. The output of our analysis frames subsequent discourse between policy-makers, modellers and other stakeholders, by highlighting areas of discord among different management objectives and also among different models used in the analysis. We illustrate this approach in the context of a hypothetical foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak in Cumbria, UK using outputs from five rigorously-studied simulation models of FMD spread. We present both relative rankings and relative performance of controls within each model and across a range of objectives. Results illustrate how control actions change across both the base metric used to measure management success and across the statistic used to rank control actions according to said metric. The output of our analysis frames subsequent discourse between policy-makers, modellers and other stakeholders, by highlighting areas of discord among different management objectives and also among different models used in the analysis. This work represents a first step towards reconciling the extensive modelling work on disease control problems with frameworks for structured decision making.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2015 · Epidemics
  • Source
    • "This process must be managed – turned towards the desired direction therefore a planning function here plays a significant role. Different authors (Delmar & Shane, 2003; Nicholson & Possingham, 2006; Bottrill & Pressey, 2012; Chadwick, 2013; etc.) have widely analysed the importance of planning process, its system complexity and components role in the assessment of organization activity. However, R&D planning requires a separate analysis and research because of the specificity of this activity comparing with the ordinary organization activity and the output created. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Planning of research and development (further R&D) requires a separate analysis and research because of the specificity of this activity comparing with the ordinary organization activity and the output created. Therefore the main purpose of this paper is to present an R&D planning system approach at research organization, considering the peculiarities of R&D activity. It has been modelled after the analysis of the existing planning methodologies, the identification of the main stages of the planning process and by the formation of R&D process and output planning features. The system presents the main areas of R&D performance planning, considering different types of R&D.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2015 · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
  • Source
    • "Or do managers also want to target species with rare or vulnerable habitats? Alternative choices will lead to different prioritizations of management actions (Nicholson and Possingham 2006). The traditional approach to systematic conservation planning for reserve selection often uses data on the distribution of species, i.e., species richness, to inform decisions. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Conservation practitioners, faced with managing multiple threats to biodiversity and limited funding, must prioritize investment in different management actions. From an economic perspective, it is routine practice to invest where the highest rate of return is expected. This return-on-investment (ROI) thinking can also benefit species conservation, and researchers are developing sophisticated approaches to support decision-making for costeffective conservation. However, applied use of these approaches is limited. Managers may be wary of ‘‘black-box’’ algorithms or complex methods that are difficult to explain to funding agencies. As an alternative, we demonstrate the use of a basic ROI analysis for determining where to invest in cost-effective management to address threats to species. This method can be applied using basic geographic information system and spreadsheet calculations. We illustrate the approach in a management action prioritization for a biodiverse region of eastern Australia. We use ROI to prioritize management actions for two threats to a suite of threatened species: habitat degradation by cattle grazing, and predation by invasive red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). We show how decisions based on cost-effective threat management depend upon how expected benefits to species are defined and how benefits and costs co-vary. By considering a combination of species richness, restricted habitats, species vulnerability, and costs of management actions, small investments can result in greater expected benefit compared with management decisions that consider only species richness. Furthermore, a landscape management strategy that implements multiple actions is more efficient than managing only for one threat, or more traditional approaches that don’t consider ROI. Our approach provides transparent and logical decision support for prioritizing different actions intended to abate threats associated with multiple species; it is of use when managers need a justifiable and repeatable approach to investment.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2014 · Ecological Applications
Show more