Limits...
Prioritizing conservation investments for mammal species globally.

Wilson KA, Evans MC, Di Marco M, Green DC, Boitani L, Possingham HP, Chiozza F, Rondinini C - Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. (2011)

Bottom Line: We determined priority areas for investment in threat abatement actions, in both a cost-effective and spatially and temporally explicit way, for the threatened mammals of the world.We evaluated the likelihood of success of investments using information on the past frequency and duration of legislative effectiveness at a country scale.The resolution of the analysis and the incorporation of likelihood of success made little difference to this result, but affected the spatial location of these investments.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia. k.wilson2@uq.edu.au

ABSTRACT
We need to set priorities for conservation because we cannot do everything, everywhere, at the same time. We determined priority areas for investment in threat abatement actions, in both a cost-effective and spatially and temporally explicit way, for the threatened mammals of the world. Our analysis presents the first fine-resolution prioritization analysis for mammals at a global scale that accounts for the risk of habitat loss, the actions required to abate this risk, the costs of these actions and the likelihood of investment success. We evaluated the likelihood of success of investments using information on the past frequency and duration of legislative effectiveness at a country scale. The establishment of new protected areas was the action receiving the greatest investment, while restoration was never chosen. The resolution of the analysis and the incorporation of likelihood of success made little difference to this result, but affected the spatial location of these investments.

Show MeSH
Comparative irreplaceability of sites (the frequency of selection of each site in 100 runs of the investment algorithm) when the likelihood of investment success (LoS) is explicitly accounted for in the selection of sites and when it is ignored. ‘Comparable in both’ refers to sites where the difference in irreplaceability is less than 5% regardless of whether the likelihood of success is accounted for. Sites that are always irreplaceable have a selection frequency of 100%.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3140730&req=5

RSTB20110108F4: Comparative irreplaceability of sites (the frequency of selection of each site in 100 runs of the investment algorithm) when the likelihood of investment success (LoS) is explicitly accounted for in the selection of sites and when it is ignored. ‘Comparable in both’ refers to sites where the difference in irreplaceability is less than 5% regardless of whether the likelihood of success is accounted for. Sites that are always irreplaceable have a selection frequency of 100%.

Mentions: Accounting for the likelihood of success in the allocation of funds did not influence the average area and budget allocated to each action, but rather the locations receiving investment differed (figure 4). For example, some countries received greater investment when the likelihood of investment failure was not accounted for (e.g. Ethiopia, Liberia, Myanmar and Nigeria). Seven fewer species met their targets when the likelihood of investment success was not explicitly accounted for but the level of target achievement for these species was still greater than 95 per cent.Figure 4.


Prioritizing conservation investments for mammal species globally.

Wilson KA, Evans MC, Di Marco M, Green DC, Boitani L, Possingham HP, Chiozza F, Rondinini C - Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. (2011)

Comparative irreplaceability of sites (the frequency of selection of each site in 100 runs of the investment algorithm) when the likelihood of investment success (LoS) is explicitly accounted for in the selection of sites and when it is ignored. ‘Comparable in both’ refers to sites where the difference in irreplaceability is less than 5% regardless of whether the likelihood of success is accounted for. Sites that are always irreplaceable have a selection frequency of 100%.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3140730&req=5

RSTB20110108F4: Comparative irreplaceability of sites (the frequency of selection of each site in 100 runs of the investment algorithm) when the likelihood of investment success (LoS) is explicitly accounted for in the selection of sites and when it is ignored. ‘Comparable in both’ refers to sites where the difference in irreplaceability is less than 5% regardless of whether the likelihood of success is accounted for. Sites that are always irreplaceable have a selection frequency of 100%.
Mentions: Accounting for the likelihood of success in the allocation of funds did not influence the average area and budget allocated to each action, but rather the locations receiving investment differed (figure 4). For example, some countries received greater investment when the likelihood of investment failure was not accounted for (e.g. Ethiopia, Liberia, Myanmar and Nigeria). Seven fewer species met their targets when the likelihood of investment success was not explicitly accounted for but the level of target achievement for these species was still greater than 95 per cent.Figure 4.

Bottom Line: We determined priority areas for investment in threat abatement actions, in both a cost-effective and spatially and temporally explicit way, for the threatened mammals of the world.We evaluated the likelihood of success of investments using information on the past frequency and duration of legislative effectiveness at a country scale.The resolution of the analysis and the incorporation of likelihood of success made little difference to this result, but affected the spatial location of these investments.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia. k.wilson2@uq.edu.au

ABSTRACT
We need to set priorities for conservation because we cannot do everything, everywhere, at the same time. We determined priority areas for investment in threat abatement actions, in both a cost-effective and spatially and temporally explicit way, for the threatened mammals of the world. Our analysis presents the first fine-resolution prioritization analysis for mammals at a global scale that accounts for the risk of habitat loss, the actions required to abate this risk, the costs of these actions and the likelihood of investment success. We evaluated the likelihood of success of investments using information on the past frequency and duration of legislative effectiveness at a country scale. The establishment of new protected areas was the action receiving the greatest investment, while restoration was never chosen. The resolution of the analysis and the incorporation of likelihood of success made little difference to this result, but affected the spatial location of these investments.

Show MeSH