Why do we map threats? Linking threat mapping with actions to make better conservation decisions

Abstract

Spatial representations of threatening processes – “threat maps” – can identify where biodiversity is at risk, and are often used to identify priority locations for conservation. In doing so, decision makers are prone to making errors, either by assuming that the level of threat dictates spatial priorities for action or by relying primarily on the location of mapped threats to choose possible actions. We show that threat mapping can be a useful tool when incorporated within a transparent and repeatable structured decision‐making (SDM) process. SDM ensures transparent and defendable conservation decisions by linking objectives to biodiversity outcomes, and by considering constraints, consequences of actions, and uncertainty. If used to make conservation decisions, threat maps are best developed with an understanding of how species respond to actions that mitigate threats. This approach will ensure that conservation actions are prioritized where they are most cost‐effective or have the greatest impact, rather than where threat levels are highest.

Cost-Effective Resource Allocator: A decision support tool for threatened species management

“…We fill this gap by providing a userfriendly decision support tool based on cost-effectiveness calculations, which determines the set of management strategies that achieve the highest number of expected extant years across a group of threatened species given a budget constraint. The 'Cost-Effective Resource Allocator' is an advancement over approaches that prioritize the conservation of species with no consideration of data uncertainties or potential management trade-offs (as discussed in Tulloch et al, 2015). This tool also builds on previous frameworks (e.g.…”

Clear consideration of costs, condition and conservation benefits yields better planning outcomes

“…This is because most studies have assumed that biodiversity is in a pristine state. Few, if any, land or seascapes are devoid of anthropogenic impacts (Halpern et al, 2008;Sanderson et al, 2002), and so it is necessary to account for the location, magnitude, and implications of these disturbances when identifying priorities for management (Tulloch et al, 2015). A comprehensive approach is needed to provide clarity over how the conservation benefit should be calculated with respect to a specific conservation objective at hand, alongside information on management costs and landscape condition.…”

“…Decision science can assist in framing and solving complex problems such as this by: defining clear objectives and constraints related to the problem, evaluating the consequences of management actions with respective to the objectives, and selecting the best option (Gregory et al, 2012;Polasky et al, 2011;Tulloch et al, 2015). A comprehensive decision-theoretic approach would allow the conservation benefit of a given management intervention to be correctly formulated and considered within a spatial prioritization exercise, along with data on the monetary costs of such an intervention.…”

A modelling framework for MSP-oriented cumulative effects assessment

“…Cumulative effects assessment (CEA) have received increasing attention to aid the identification of marine conservation priorities and management actions (Halpern et al, , 2015Micheli et al, 2013;Tulloch et al, 2015). Their application has been exemplified in many different geographical domains ranging 5 from global (Halpern et al, 2015) or sea basin (Korpinen et al, 2012;Micheli et al, 2013) level to regional level Holon et al, 2015;Murray et al, 2015) assessments.…”

“…Their application has been exemplified in many different geographical domains ranging 5 from global (Halpern et al, 2015) or sea basin (Korpinen et al, 2012;Micheli et al, 2013) level to regional level Holon et al, 2015;Murray et al, 2015) assessments. Moreover, the need to address anthropogenic impacts on marine ecosystems is widely expressed through environmental legislations (MSFD), requiring coordinated management programs to reach the good 10 environmental status (GES) and the marine spatial planning (MSP) directive, requiring an ecosystem-based approach aiming at ensuring that collective pressures from human activities are kept at levels compatible with the GES and contribute to the sustainable use of marine goods and services and their preservation for future generation.…”