Where and how to manage: Optimal selection of conservation actions for multiple species.

Teeffelen, A.J.A. van; Moilanen, Atte

doi:10.17161/bi.v5i0.39

Cited by 20 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The absence of strong positive correlations suggested that any prioritization would need to consider habitat indices for all three habitats, rather than one habitat acting as a surrogate for the others. These results illustrate the need to design restoration and conservation efforts such that a range of high quality habitats are conserved and managed to support a broad suite of species (Teefelen and Moilanen 2008;Stralberg et al 2009). …”

Section: Comparing Site Rankings For the Three Habitatsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Integrating Avian Habitat Distribution Models into a Conservation Planning Framework for the San Joaquin River, California, USA

Seavy

Gardali

Golet

et al. 2012

Natural Areas Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Comparing Site Rankings For the Three Habitatsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Integrating Avian Habitat Distribution Models into a Conservation Planning Framework for the San Joaquin River, California, USA

Seavy

Gardali

Golet

et al. 2012

Natural Areas Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The algorithm then iteratively searched through the remaining combinations until it exhausted a simulated conservation budget. A detailed description of this approach can be found in van Teeffelen and Moilanen () and van Teeffelen et al (). For each of the k colonies and l actions, we predicted a unique expected response, x kl .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the role of budget sufficiency, cost efficiency, and uncertainty in species management

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many conservation planning frameworks rely on the assumption that one should prioritize locations for management actions based on the highest predicted conservation value (i.e., abundance, occupancy). This strategy may underperform relative to the expected outcome if one is working with a limited budget or the predicted responses are uncertain. Yet, cost and tolerance to uncertainty rarely become part of species management plans. We used field data and predictive models to simulate a decision problem involving western burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) using prairie dog colonies (Cynomys ludovicianus) in western Nebraska. We considered 2 species management strategies: one maximized abundance and the other maximized abundance in a cost‐efficient way. We then used heuristic decision algorithms to compare the 2 strategies in terms of how well they met a hypothetical conservation objective. Finally, we performed an info‐gap decision analysis to determine how these strategies performed under different budget constraints and uncertainty about owl response. Our results suggested that when budgets were sufficient to manage all sites, the maximizing strategy was optimal and suggested investing more in expensive actions. This pattern persisted for restricted budgets up to approximately 50% of the sufficient budget. Below this budget, the cost‐efficient strategy was optimal and suggested investing in cheaper actions. When uncertainty in the expected responses was introduced, the strategy that maximized abundance remained robust under a sufficient budget. Reducing the budget induced a slight trade‐off between expected performance and robustness, which suggested that the most robust strategy depended both on one's budget and tolerance to uncertainty. Our results suggest that wildlife managers should explicitly account for budget limitations and be realistic about their expected levels of performance. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

“…Arponen et al . (2005) and Van Teeffelen & Moilanen (2008) tested various shapes of benefit functions (linear, ramp, concave and sigmoid). In this study, we used a concave benefit function because it tends to push species representation to higher levels and results in higher representation levels for rare species than other functions (Arponen et al.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maximizing conservation benefit for grassland species with contrasting management requirements

Teeffelen

Cabeza

Pöyry

et al. 2008

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary 1.Conservation management often encompasses multiple, alternative management actions on a given site, involving habitat restoration and maintenance for example. Which actions are preferable depends on the conservation goals, the expected outcomes of actions, and their associated costs. When actions affect habitat quality differently, species that vary in habitat requirements will not respond to the actions in the same way. When all these species are of conservation concern, trade-offs between them are inevitable and the selection of appropriate actions becomes less straightforward. Although this is a common planning problem, it has received little attention in the conservation planning literature. 2. We demonstrate how to obtain cost-effective planning solutions for a set of species with contrasting requirements, when multiple alternative conservation actions are available for each site. We investigate the strength of trade-offs between species with different habitat preferences, when planning optimal management of a set of semi-natural mesic grassland sites. A community of vascular plants and Lepidoptera species depends on such grasslands, which are maintained by cattle grazing. The various species differ in their responses to grazing intensity. We apply an algorithm that selects a grazing intensity for each site to maximize the benefit over all species, under a given budget constraint. 3. The optimal grazing intensity for sites, and consequently, the expected representation of species, was sensitive to the relative values assigned to species (weights) and the budget available. The outcome also depended on assumptions regarding species representation under suboptimal management. A sensitivity analysis showed that the trade-offs between species were strong, illustrating the potentially significant consequences of conservation decisions. Synthesis and applications.Maximizing conservation benefit over all species may result in high representation of some species at the cost of others. Although this is a natural consequence of budget limitations and conservation priorities, understanding these consequences is essential if planning is to accommodate species with different conservation needs. Our methodology is a novel extension of conventional reserve selection methods and can support planning for species with contrasting requirements, leading to more robust and cost-effective conservation decisions.

show abstract

Where and how to manage: Optimal selection of conservation actions for multiple species.

Cited by 20 publications

References 52 publications

Integrating Avian Habitat Distribution Models into a Conservation Planning Framework for the San Joaquin River, California, USA

Integrating Avian Habitat Distribution Models into a Conservation Planning Framework for the San Joaquin River, California, USA

On the role of budget sufficiency, cost efficiency, and uncertainty in species management

Maximizing conservation benefit for grassland species with contrasting management requirements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About