Effects of threat management interactions on conservation priorities

Auerbach, Nancy A., Wilson, Kerrie A., Tulloch, Ayesha I.T., Rhodes, Jonathan R., Hanson, Jeffrey O. and Possingham, Hugh P. (2015) Effects of threat management interactions on conservation priorities. Conservation Biology, 29 6: 1626-1635. doi:10.1111/cobi.12551

Author Auerbach, Nancy A.
Wilson, Kerrie A.
Tulloch, Ayesha I.T.
Rhodes, Jonathan R.
Hanson, Jeffrey O.
Possingham, Hugh P.
Title Effects of threat management interactions on conservation priorities
Journal name Conservation Biology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1523-1739
Publication date 2015-07-14
Year available 2015
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12551
Open Access Status DOI
Volume 29
Issue 6
Start page 1626
End page 1635
Total pages 10
Place of publication Hoboken, NJ, United States
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell Publishing
Language eng
Subject 1105 Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
2303 Ecology
2309 Nature and Landscape Conservation
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.
Keyword Action prioritization
Cost-effectiveness analysis
Management action
Return on investment
Threatened species
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management Publications
Official 2016 Collection
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 6 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 6 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Sat, 05 Dec 2015, 04:57:11 EST by Gail Walter on behalf of School of Biological Sciences