A General Framework for Prioritizing Land Units for Ecological Protection and Restoration

Abstract

/ Past methods of prioritizing sites for protection and restoration have focused on lists of criteria or algorithms. These methods lack a common underlying framework, such that the process is explicit and repeatable, assumptions are highlighted, and commonalities and differences among prioritizations can be readily assessed. Our objective in this paper is to provide such a framework for cases where the goal of setting priorities is to maximize the ecological benefit gained from limited resources. We provide simple and general models that can be used to prioritize sites based on the projected ecological benefit per unit restoration or protection effort and to estimate the total projected benefit of restoring or protecting a set of sites. These models, which are based on an expression of the functional relationship between an end point and effort, hold up under a variety of situations and provide a common language for prioritization. We then discuss procedures for estimating model terms-calculations from regression curves when data are available, and use of judgement indicators when data are relatively limited. Finally, we present two case studies that apply the models and examine selected past prioritizations in the context of our framework.

Planes actuales de restauración ecológica en Latinoamérica: Avances y omisiones

“…*Autores consultados para definir los criterios de evaluación: Cipollini et al, 2005;Evans & Guariguata, 2016;Hyman & Leibowitz, 2000;Latawiec et al, 2015;Stephanie et al, 2005;McDonald, et al, 2016a;Murcia & Guariguata, 2014;Wilson et al, 2011 Revista de Ciencias Ambientales (Trop J Environ Sci). (Julio-Diciembre, 2017 Posteriormente, en cada plan se identificaron los elementos esenciales de planificación que debe tener un proyecto de restauración, elementos descritos a continuación:…”

“…La priorización de áreas de restauración es un componente fundamental de la planeación de cualquier proyecto a gran escala (Mansourian, Vallauri, & Dudley, 2005). La determinación de los aspectos a evaluar en la priorización se hizo con base en la identificación de: (i) temas concurrentes en los planes y (ii) aspectos clave para la priorización como información biofísica, económica, social y previos usos del suelo (Figura 1, caja 3B; Cipollini, Maruyama, & Zimmerman, 2005;Hyman & Leibowitz, 2000;Latawiec, Strassburg, Brancalion, Rodrigues, & Gardner, 2015;Wilson et al, 2011). 2.…”

Restoration priorities and strategies

“…most examples in this report), the first step is to find out (estimate) whether increasing the value of already protected land by restoration, allocating the resources for establishment of new protected areas, or a combination of the two really is the most efficient conservation approach (e.g. Hyman & Leibowitz 2000, Possingham et al 2015. Adding restoration to the conservation action portfolio makes the systematic planning of conservation resource allocation more complex, since it adds another (and dynamic) element (Possingham et al 2009).…”

Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada Science Symposium

“…This approach to measuring conservation value is based on a cost-effectiveness framework similar to that of Hyman and Leibowitz (2000). Conservation investments, which are allocated at the site scale, may be the cost of outright acquisition of currently unprotected lands, purchase of development rights, stewardship incentives, or whatever action is deemed necessary to remove the threat.…”