首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      


Minimizing the Cost of Keeping Options Open for Conservation in a Changing Climate
Authors:MORENA MILLS  SAM NICOL  JESSIE A WELLS  JOSÉ J LAHOZ‐MONFORT  BRENDAN WINTLE  MICHAEL BODE  MARTIN WARDROP  TERRY WALSHE  WILLIAM J M PROBERT  MICHAEL C RUNGE  HUGH P POSSINGHAM  EVE MCDONALD MADDEN
Institution:1. Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland, , Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia;2. CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Ecoscience Precinct, , Dutton Park, Queensland 4102, Australia;3. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, , Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia;4. National Environmental Research Program, School of Botany, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, , Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia;5. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Botany, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, , Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia;6. Department of Sustainability, Environment and Water, Population and Communities, , Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia;7. U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, , Laurel, MD 20708, U.S.A.
Abstract:Policy documents advocate that managers should keep their options open while planning to protect coastal ecosystems from climate‐change impacts. However, the actual costs and benefits of maintaining flexibility remain largely unexplored, and alternative approaches for decision making under uncertainty may lead to better joint outcomes for conservation and other societal goals. For example, keeping options open for coastal ecosystems incurs opportunity costs for developers. We devised a decision framework that integrates these costs and benefits with probabilistic forecasts for the extent of sea‐level rise to find a balance between coastal ecosystem protection and moderate coastal development. Here, we suggest that instead of keeping their options open managers should incorporate uncertain sea‐level rise predictions into a decision‐making framework that evaluates the benefits and costs of conservation and development. In our example, based on plausible scenarios for sea‐level rise and assuming a risk‐neutral decision maker, we found that substantial development could be accommodated with negligible loss of environmental assets. Characterization of the Pareto efficiency of conservation and development outcomes provides valuable insight into the intensity of trade‐offs between development and conservation. However, additional work is required to improve understanding of the consequences of alternative spatial plans and the value judgments and risk preferences of decision makers and stakeholders. Minimizando el Costo de Mantener Opciones Abiertas para la Conservación en un Clima Cambiante
Keywords:coastal squeeze  multiple objectives  spatial planning  uncertainty  compresió  n del litoral  incertidumbre  objetivos mú  ltiples  planeació  n espacial
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号