Information uncertainty influences conservation outcomes when prioritizing multi‐action management efforts

1. In managing various threats to biodiversity, it is important to prioritize multiple management actions and the levels of effort to apply. However, a spatial conservation prioritization framework that integrates these key aspects, and can be generalized, is still missing. Moreover, assessing the r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Cattarino, Lorenzo, Hermoso, Virgilio, Carwardine, Josie, Adams, Vanessa M., Kennard, Mark J., Linke, Simon
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión aceptada para publicación
Fecha de publicación:2018
País:España
Institución:Universitat de Lleida (UdL)
Repositorio:Repositori Obert UdL
OAI Identifier:oai:repositori.udl.cat:10459.1/69030
Acceso en línea:https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13147
http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/69030
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Conservation management
Conservation planning
Freshwaters
Northern Australia
Optimal resource allocation
Priority threat management
Spatial conservation prioritization
id ES_d38c3da12e161cdccf0d163a5be2840b
oai_identifier_str oai:repositori.udl.cat:10459.1/69030
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Information uncertainty influences conservation outcomes when prioritizing multi‐action management effortsCattarino, LorenzoHermoso, VirgilioCarwardine, JosieAdams, Vanessa M.Kennard, Mark J.Linke, SimonConservation managementConservation planningFreshwatersNorthern AustraliaOptimal resource allocationPriority threat managementSpatial conservation prioritization1. In managing various threats to biodiversity, it is important to prioritize multiple management actions and the levels of effort to apply. However, a spatial conservation prioritization framework that integrates these key aspects, and can be generalized, is still missing. Moreover, assessing the robustness of prioritization frameworks to uncertainty in species responses to management is critical to avoid misallocation of limited resources. Yet, the impact of information uncertainty on prioritization of management effort remains unknown. 2. We present an approach for prioritizing alternative levels of conservation management effort to multiple actions, based on the ecological responses of species to management. We estimated species responses through a structured email‐based expert elicitation process, where we also captured the uncertainty in individual experts' assessments. We identified priority locations and associated level of management of effort of four actions to abate threats to freshwater‐dependent fauna, using a northern Australia case study, and quantified sensitivity of the proposed solution to uncertainty in the answers of each individual expert. 3. Achievement of conservation targets for freshwater‐dependent fauna in the Daly River catchment would require 9.4 million AU$ per year, for a total of approximately 189 million AU$ investment over 20 years. We suggest that this could be best achieved through a mix of aerial shooting of buffalos and pigs, riparian fencing and chemical spraying of weeds, applied at varying levels of management effort in key areas of the catchment. 4. Uncertainty in experts' estimation of species responses to threats causes 60% of the species to achieve 80% of their conservation targets, which was consistent across target levels. 5. Synthesis and applications . Our prioritization approach facilitates the planning of conservation management at fine spatial scales and is applicable to terrestrial, freshwater and marine realms. Plan implementation may require policy instruments ranging from landowner stewardship agreements, market‐based mechanisms and low‐intensity land use management schemes, to regulation of commercial activities within portions of marine protected areas. However, assessing plan sensitivity to uncertainty in species response to management and finding ways of dealing with it in the prioritization rather than ignoring it, as often done, remains vital for effective achievement of conservation objectives.This study was conducted with the support of funding from the Australian Research Council (discovery grant no. DP120103353 to S.L., M.J.K. and J.C. and DECRA grant no. DE130100565 to S.L.), the Australian Government's National Environmental Research Program (M.J.K., V.H. and S. L.) and support by Griffith University and the Spanish Government (Ramon y Cajal contract RYC‐2013‐13979 to V.H.).Wiley2018info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionhttps://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13147http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/69030reponame:Repositori Obert UdL instname:Universitat de Lleida (UdL)InglésVersió postprint del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13147Journal of Applied Ecology, 2018, vol. 55, núm. 5, p. 2171-2180(c) The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2018(c) British Ecological Society, 2018info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:repositori.udl.cat:10459.1/690302026-06-24T12:42:17Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Information uncertainty influences conservation outcomes when prioritizing multi‐action management efforts
title Information uncertainty influences conservation outcomes when prioritizing multi‐action management efforts
spellingShingle Information uncertainty influences conservation outcomes when prioritizing multi‐action management efforts
Cattarino, Lorenzo
Conservation management
Conservation planning
Freshwaters
Northern Australia
Optimal resource allocation
Priority threat management
Spatial conservation prioritization
title_short Information uncertainty influences conservation outcomes when prioritizing multi‐action management efforts
title_full Information uncertainty influences conservation outcomes when prioritizing multi‐action management efforts
title_fullStr Information uncertainty influences conservation outcomes when prioritizing multi‐action management efforts
title_full_unstemmed Information uncertainty influences conservation outcomes when prioritizing multi‐action management efforts
title_sort Information uncertainty influences conservation outcomes when prioritizing multi‐action management efforts
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Cattarino, Lorenzo
Hermoso, Virgilio
Carwardine, Josie
Adams, Vanessa M.
Kennard, Mark J.
Linke, Simon
author Cattarino, Lorenzo
author_facet Cattarino, Lorenzo
Hermoso, Virgilio
Carwardine, Josie
Adams, Vanessa M.
Kennard, Mark J.
Linke, Simon
author_role author
author2 Hermoso, Virgilio
Carwardine, Josie
Adams, Vanessa M.
Kennard, Mark J.
Linke, Simon
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Conservation management
Conservation planning
Freshwaters
Northern Australia
Optimal resource allocation
Priority threat management
Spatial conservation prioritization
topic Conservation management
Conservation planning
Freshwaters
Northern Australia
Optimal resource allocation
Priority threat management
Spatial conservation prioritization
description 1. In managing various threats to biodiversity, it is important to prioritize multiple management actions and the levels of effort to apply. However, a spatial conservation prioritization framework that integrates these key aspects, and can be generalized, is still missing. Moreover, assessing the robustness of prioritization frameworks to uncertainty in species responses to management is critical to avoid misallocation of limited resources. Yet, the impact of information uncertainty on prioritization of management effort remains unknown. 2. We present an approach for prioritizing alternative levels of conservation management effort to multiple actions, based on the ecological responses of species to management. We estimated species responses through a structured email‐based expert elicitation process, where we also captured the uncertainty in individual experts' assessments. We identified priority locations and associated level of management of effort of four actions to abate threats to freshwater‐dependent fauna, using a northern Australia case study, and quantified sensitivity of the proposed solution to uncertainty in the answers of each individual expert. 3. Achievement of conservation targets for freshwater‐dependent fauna in the Daly River catchment would require 9.4 million AU$ per year, for a total of approximately 189 million AU$ investment over 20 years. We suggest that this could be best achieved through a mix of aerial shooting of buffalos and pigs, riparian fencing and chemical spraying of weeds, applied at varying levels of management effort in key areas of the catchment. 4. Uncertainty in experts' estimation of species responses to threats causes 60% of the species to achieve 80% of their conservation targets, which was consistent across target levels. 5. Synthesis and applications . Our prioritization approach facilitates the planning of conservation management at fine spatial scales and is applicable to terrestrial, freshwater and marine realms. Plan implementation may require policy instruments ranging from landowner stewardship agreements, market‐based mechanisms and low‐intensity land use management schemes, to regulation of commercial activities within portions of marine protected areas. However, assessing plan sensitivity to uncertainty in species response to management and finding ways of dealing with it in the prioritization rather than ignoring it, as often done, remains vital for effective achievement of conservation objectives.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
format article
status_str acceptedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13147
http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/69030
url https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13147
http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/69030
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Versió postprint del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13147
Journal of Applied Ecology, 2018, vol. 55, núm. 5, p. 2171-2180
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv (c) The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2018
(c) British Ecological Society, 2018
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv (c) The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2018
(c) British Ecological Society, 2018
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositori Obert UdL
instname:Universitat de Lleida (UdL)
instname_str Universitat de Lleida (UdL)
reponame_str Repositori Obert UdL
collection Repositori Obert UdL
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869420468787740672
score 15,811543

Similares en LA Referencia