Optimizing Allocation of Management Resources for Wildlife
Optimizing Allocation of Management Resources for Wildlife
复制标题
优化野生动物管理资源配置
DOI：
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00589.x
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
6.3
通讯作者：
J. Winter
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. Marsh;A. Dennis;H. Hines;A. Kutt;K. Mcdonald;Ellen C. Weber;Stephen Williams;J. Winter
翻译后摘要：分配资金的基础上，受威胁的物种名单的物种保护是不是最具成本效益的方式，促进恢复或最大限度地减少灭绝率。 利用生态和社会因素以及威胁类别，我们设计了一个决策支持过程，以帮助政策制定者分配资源用于管理本地野生动物，并澄清导致优先列表的考虑因素。每个物种在相关管辖范围内根据三个标准进行评分：（1）威胁类别，（2）灭绝后果，（3）成功恢复的潜力。这一方法为决策者和其他利益攸关方（衡量标准的相对重要性）以及科学家（根据标准对物种进行评分）提供了独立投入的机会。因此，这一过程明确地将社会价值观与决策过程的技术方面分开，同时承认这两种投入的合法性。我们将我们的技术应用于两个澳大利亚的案例研究在不同的空间尺度：昆士兰州的青蛙（1,728,000平方公里; 116种）和哺乳动物的湿热带生物区（18,500平方公里; 96种）。我们确定了7种青蛙和10种哺乳动物作为保护的优先事项。这些青蛙包括根据昆士兰州立法被列为濒危的9种物种中的1种，被列为脆弱的10种物种中的3种，被列为稀有的22种物种中的2种，以及被列为最不受关注的75种物种中的1种。确定的哺乳动物包括6种濒危物种中的3种，4种易危物种中的1种，11种稀有物种中的5种，75种最不受关注的物种中的1种。我们用来识别物种的方法对两个分类组的比较是稳健的。我们的结论是：（1）我们的过程有助于比较所需的数据，以便在分类组之间做出透明，具有成本效益和战略性的管理决策;（2）该过程应用于筛选物种以供进一步讨论，而不是用于分配资源本身。
Abstract: Allocating money for species conservation on the basis of threatened species listings is not the most cost‐effective way of promoting recovery or minimizing extinction rates. Using ecological and social factors in addition to threat categories, we designed a decision‐support process to assist policy makers in their allocation of resources for the management of native wildlife and to clarify the considerations leading to a priority listing. Each species is scored on three criteria at the scale of the relevant jurisdiction: (1) threat category, (2) consequences of extinction, and (3) potential for successful recovery. This approach provides opportunity for independent input by policy makers and other stakeholders (who weight the relative importance of the criteria) and scientists (who score the species against the criteria). Thus the process explicitly separates societal values from the technical aspects of the decision‐making process while acknowledging the legitimacy of both inputs. We applied our technique to two Australian case studies at different spatial scales: the frogs of Queensland (1,728,000 km2; 116 species) and the mammals of the Wet Tropics bioregion (18,500 km2; 96 species). We identified 7 frog and 10 mammal species as priorities for conservation. The frogs included 1 of the 9 species classified as endangered under Queensland legislation, 3 of the 10 species classified as vulnerable, 2 of the 22 species classified as rare, and 1 of the 75 species classified as least concern. The mammals identified included 3 of the 6 species classified as endangered, 1 of the 4 species classified as vulnerable, 5 of the 11 species classified as rare, and 1 of the 75 species classified as least concern. The methods we used to identify species were robust to comparisons across the two taxonomic groups. We concluded that (1) our process facilitates comparisons of data required to make transparent, cost‐effective, and strategic management decisions across taxonomic groups and (2) the process should be used to short‐list species for further discussion rather than for allocating resources per se.