Dynamic reserve site selection

Costello, Christopher; Polasky, Stephen

doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2003.11.005

Cited by 303 publications

(216 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

215

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Available global-scale data, in particular, on socioeconomic factors, are uncertain and likely to remain so in the future (3,6). Our analyses also do not include external factors that are expected to influence the success of biodiversity conservation, such as regional political stability (18), feedback between conservation spending and land costs (19,20), and implementation capacity (21). Additionally, our analyses treated land in each of the regions as homogeneous.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group

Bode

Wilson

Brooks

et al. 2008

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

182

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Priorities for conservation investment at a global scale that are based on a single taxon have been criticized because geographic richness patterns vary taxonomically. However, these concerns focused only on biodiversity patterns and did not consider the importance of socioeconomic factors, which must also be included if conservation funding is to be allocated efficiently. In this article, we create efficient global funding schedules that use information about conservation costs, predicted habitat loss rates, and the endemicity of seven different taxonomic groups. We discover that these funding allocation schedules are less sensitive to variation in taxon assessed than to variation in cost and threat. Two-thirds of funding is allocated to the same regions regardless of the taxon, compared with only one-fifth if threat and cost are not included in allocation decisions. Hence, if socioeconomic factors are considered, we can be more confident about global-scale decisions guided by single taxonomic groups.biodiversity hotspots ͉ costs ͉ dynamic planning ͉ priority regions ͉ congruence R ecent global-scale analyses have found that the geographic species richness patterns of different taxonomic groups have low congruence (1-3). These results cast doubt on the generality of global conservation priority regions, which are often delineated based on a single taxon (1-5). These sets of high-priority regions offer conflicting conservation investment priorities because the most effective funding allocation depends on the taxon used to measure biodiversity. However, the biodiversity value of a region is only one of a number of factors that influence where conservation funds should be spent to best safeguard biodiversity (2). Both the cost of conservation action and predicted rates of habitat loss vary greatly across space (6-8), and these factors interact with biodiversity value to determine the relative priority of different regions (6, 9-11).To test whether conservation spending priorities are sensitive to the taxon used to measure biodiversity, we efficiently allocated funding between the world's 34 terrestrial ''biodiversity hotspots'' ( Fig. 1a; ref. 12) by using seven different taxonomic measures of biodiversity [the number of endemic mammals, amphibians, birds, reptiles, freshwater fishes, tiger beetles, and vascular plants (12)]. An allocation schedule was also calculated by using all terrestrial vertebrates combined. We used the biodiversity hotspots as a test case because they are regions of exceptional biodiversity value (each contains Ͼ0.5% of all vascular plant species as endemics) that are under threat (Ͼ70% of their original habitat has already been destroyed), but do not account for the relative cost of conservation in each region. We determined efficient funding allocation schedules for the hotspots by integrating biodiversity, conservation costs, and habitat loss rates into a dynamic decision-theory framework (13), with the objective of minimizing total species loss.For each of the seven taxonomic groups, we...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group

Bode

Wilson

Brooks

et al. 2008

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

182

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, we considered a one-off planning decision. Relaxing this assumption to permit dynamic decisionmaking would allow us to explore how the optimal spatiotemporal allocation of investments responds to uncertainty either about future land supply and demand (11,12) or about species' distributions in the face of a changing climate (30). Another extension would be to consider the use of partial-purchase mechanisms like conservation easements, which many conservation groups rely on (5).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The tools score regions or sets of parcels for their biological value (6,7), conservation cost (8,9), and threat level (10)(11)(12). The available approaches assume these scores can be treated as constant.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Land market feedbacks can undermine biodiversity conservation

Armsworth

Daily

Kareiva

et al. 2006

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

218

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full or partial purchase of land has become a cornerstone of efforts to conserve biodiversity in countries with strong private property rights. Methods used to target areas for acquisition typically ignore land market dynamics. We show how conservation purchases affect land prices and generate feedbacks that can undermine conservation goals, either by displacing development toward biologically valuable areas or by accelerating its pace. The impact of these market feedbacks on the effectiveness of conservation depends on the ecological value of land outside nature reserves. Traditional, noneconomic approaches to site prioritization should perform adequately in places where land outside reserves supports little biodiversity. However, these approaches will perform poorly in locations where the countryside surrounding reserves is important for species' persistence. Conservation investments can sometimes even be counterproductive, condemning more species than they save. Conservation is most likely to be compromised in the absence of accurate information on species distributions, which provides a strong argument for improving inventories of biodiversity. Accounting for land market dynamics in conservation planning is crucial for making smart investment decisions.conservation planning ͉ reserve design ͉ site selection ͉ development pressure ͉ habitat destruction

show abstract

“…Spatial patterns may be the key to future attempts to minimize conservation-development tradeoffs, a point that has been made in the conservation targeting literature (e.g. Ando et al 1998, Ferraro 2004, Costello and Polasky 2004. 36…”

Section: Tourist Visits and Net Impacts By Distance From Major Citiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As suggested in the conservation targeting literature (e.g. Ando et al 1998, Ferraro 2004, Costello and Polasky 2004, better understanding of spatial patterns can help to minimize tradeoffs between environmental protection and economic development.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%