Allocating resources for land protection using continuous optimization: biodiversity conservation in the United States
Allocating resources for land protection using continuous optimization: biodiversity conservation in the United States
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/eap.2118
复制
发表时间：
2020-05-05
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Nolte, Christoph
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Armsworth, Paul R.;Benefield, Amy E.;Nolte, Christoph
空间优化方法最初是为了帮助保护组织在小空间尺度上确定保护决策而开发的，现在被用来为全球或大陆范围的优先级设置提供信息。然而，需要考虑大规模资源分配中涉及的不同决策背景。我们提出了一种持续优化方法，决策者可以将资金分配给区域办事处。然后，当地决策者使用这些资金来实施栖息地保护工作，根据资助者的目标进行评估，其效果各不相同。我们通过研究在获取土地建立新保护区时应给予美国境内不同县的相对优先顺序来说明这种连续的表述。如果对所有物种进行同等重视，美国西南部的县可以以低廉的价格购买大片土地，因此是优先保护的对象。如果仅关注受保护的物种，则优先考虑这些物种丰富的地区，特别是靠近未来栖息地转换率较高的不断扩大的远郊地区（例如德克萨斯州中南部）。保护的优先顺序对当地生态和决策过程的假设很敏感。例如，怀疑当地土地保护工作有效性的决策者应重点关注几个关键领域，而乐观的决策者应更广泛地分散资金。为大规模保护优先事项提供信息的努力应该更好地反映决策者在处理这些规模时实际面临的选择类型。他们还需要报告建议的优先事项对影响保护结果的当地过程的经常未阐明的假设的敏感性。
Spatial optimization approaches that were originally developed to help conservation organizations determine protection decisions over small spatial scales are now used to inform global or continental scale priority setting. However, the different decision contexts involved in large-scale resource allocation need to be considered. We present a continuous optimization approach in which a decision-maker allocates funding to regional offices. Local decision-makers then use these funds to implement habitat protection efforts with varying effectiveness when evaluated in terms of the funder's goals. We illustrate this continuous formulation by examining the relative priority that should be given to different counties in the coterminous United States when acquiring land to establish new protected areas. If weighting all species equally, counties in the southwest United States, where large areas can be bought cheaply, are priorities for protection. If focusing only on species of conservation concern, priorities shift to locations rich in such species, particularly near expanding exurban areas facing high rates of future habitat conversion (e.g., south-central Texas). Priorities for protection are sensitive to what is assumed about local ecological and decision-making processes. For example, decision-makers who doubt the efficacy of local land protection efforts should focus on a few key areas, while optimistic decision-makers should disperse funding more widely. Efforts to inform large-scale conservation priorities should reflect better the types of choice that decision-makers actually face when working over these scales. They also need to report the sensitivity of recommended priorities to what are often unstated assumptions about local processes affecting conservation outcomes.