Assessing replacement cost of conservation areas: how does habitat loss influence priorities?

Replacement cost refers to the loss incurred if the ideal set of conservation areas cannot be protected due to compulsory inclusion or exclusion of some area candidates. This cost can be defined either in terms of loss of conservation value or in terms of extra acquisition cost, and it has a clear mathematical definition as a difference between the value of the unconstrained optimal solution and a constrained suboptimal solution. In this work we for the first time show how replacement cost can be calculated in the context of sequential reserve selection, where a reserve network is developed over a longer time period and ongoing habitat loss influences retention and availability of sites. In case of site exclusion, a question that can be asked is, “if a site belonging to the ideal (optimal) solution cannot be obtained, what expected loss in reserve network value does this entail by the end of the planning period given that the rest of the solution is re-organized in the most advantageous manner?” Heuristically, the proposed method achieves the ambit of combining irreplaceability and vulnerability into one score of site importance. We applied replacement cost analysis to conservation prioritization for wood-inhabiting fungi in Norway, identifying factors that influence replacement cost and urgency of site acquisition. Among other things we find that the reliability of loss rate information is important, because the optimal site acquisition order may be strongly influenced by underestimated loss rates.

[1]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Replacement cost: A practical measure of site value for cost-effective reserve planning , 2006 .

[2]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Opportunity cost of ad hoc marine reserve design decisions: an example from South Australia , 2003 .

[3]  M. Drechsler.  Probabilistic approaches to scheduling reserve selection , 2005 .

[4]  T. Brooks,et al.  Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities , 2006, Science.

[5]  S. Sarkar,et al.  Systematic conservation planning , 2000, Nature.

[6]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Prioritizing global conservation efforts , 2006, Nature.

[7]  Robert C. Bailey,et al.  Management options for river conservation planning: condition and conservation re‐visited , 2007 .

[8]  Matthew E. Watts,et al.  Is maximizing protection the same as minimizing loss? Efficiency and retention as alternative measures of the effectiveness of proposed reserves , 2004 .

[9]  S. Andelman,et al.  Conserving Biodiversity Efficiently: What to Do, Where, and When , 2007, PLoS biology.

[10]  S. Polasky,et al.  Dynamic reserve site selection , 2004 .

[11]  W. Darwall,et al.  Key Biodiversity Areas as Site Conservation Targets , 2004 .

[12]  Heather M. Leslie,et al.  Using siting algorithms in the design of marine reserve networks , 2003 .

[13]  Stephanie A. Snyder,et al.  A Scenario Optimization Model for Dynamic Reserve Site Selection , 2004 .

[14]  I. R. Johnson,et al.  Shades of irreplaceability: towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal , 1994, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[15]  Simon Ferrier,et al.  A new predictor of the irreplaceability of areas for achieving a conservation goal, its application to real-world planning, and a research agenda for further refinement , 2000 .

[16]  R. Sabbadin,et al.  Pre-emptive conservation versus "fire-fighting": A decision theoretic approach , 2007 .

[17]  Richard M Cowling,et al.  Conservation planning in a changing world. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[18]  R. Holt,et al.  A Survey and Overview of Habitat Fragmentation Experiments , 2000 .

[19]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world , 2004 .

[20]  C. Revelle,et al.  Counterpart Models in Facility Location Science and Reserve Selection Science , 2002 .

[21]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Area‐Based Refinement for Selection of Reserve Sites with the Benefit‐Function Approach , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[22]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  Novel methods for the design and evaluation of marine protected areas in offshore waters , 2008 .

[23]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  The Value of Biodiversity in Reserve Selection: Representation, Species Weighting, and Benefit Functions , 2005 .

[24]  Andrew Fall,et al.  Comparing static versus dynamic protected areas in the Québec boreal forest , 2008 .

[25]  Norsk institutt for skogforskning,et al.  Rapport fra skogforskningen , 1998 .

[26]  S. Polasky,et al.  Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. , 2006, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[27]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Accounting for habitat loss rates in sequential reserve selection : Simple methods for large problems , 2007 .

[28]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: Unifying reserve selection strategies , 2007 .