Effects of threat management interactions on conservation priorities |
| |
| Authors: | Nancy A Auerbach Kerrie A Wilson Ayesha IT Tulloch Jonathan R Rhodes Jeffrey O Hanson Hugh P Possingham |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. The University of Queensland, ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, the NERP Environmental Decisions Hub, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia;2. The University of Queensland, School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia;3. The Australian National University, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia;4. Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College‐London, Silwood Park, Ascot, United Kingdom |
| |
| Abstract: | Decisions need to be made about which biodiversity management actions are undertaken to mitigate threats and about where these actions are implemented. However, management actions can interact; that is, the cost, benefit, and feasibility of one action can change when another action is undertaken. There is little guidance on how to explicitly and efficiently prioritize management for multiple threats, including deciding where to act. Integrated management could focus on one management action to abate a dominant threat or on a strategy comprising multiple actions to abate multiple threats. Furthermore management could be undertaken at sites that are in close proximity to reduce costs. We used cost‐effectiveness analysis to prioritize investments in fire management, controlling invasive predators, and reducing grazing pressure in a bio‐diverse region of southeastern Queensland, Australia. We compared outcomes of 5 management approaches based on different assumptions about interactions and quantified how investment needed, benefits expected, and the locations prioritized for implementation differed when interactions were taken into account. Managing for interactions altered decisions about where to invest and in which actions to invest and had the potential to deliver increased investment efficiency. Differences in high priority locations and actions were greatest between the approaches when we made different assumptions about how management actions deliver benefits through threat abatement: either all threats must be managed to conserve species or only one management action may be required. Threatened species management that does not consider interactions between actions may result in misplaced investments or misguided expectations of the effort required to mitigate threats to species. |
| |
| Keywords: | action prioritization Australia cost‐effectiveness analysis management action return on investment threats threatened species acció n de manejo amenazas aná lisis de rentabilidad Australia especies amenazadas priorizació n de acció n retorno de la inversió n |
|
|
