4.7 Article

Considering intervention intensity in habitat restoration planning: An application to Pacific salmon

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 299, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113536

关键词

Return on investment analysis; Habitat restoration; Species recovery; Returns to scale; Ecological thresholds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article discusses the decision-making process of intervention intensity in habitat restoration planning, and the application of a return on investment framework. Results showed that scenarios considering interventions across multiple intensities outperformed single-intensity scenarios in terms of total benefits and cost effectiveness.
Habitat restoration is a key strategy for recovering imperiled species, and planning habitat restoration activities cost effectively can help advance recovery objectives. Habitat restoration planning involves decisions about where and when to undertake restoration, and what type of restoration to undertake. This article focuses on decisions about the amount of restoration to undertake for a given type, location, and time, termed intervention intensity. A return on investment framework is developed for incorporating intervention intensity into habitat restoration planning. The framework is then applied in the context of planning habitat restoration for Pacific salmon recovery as a case study. Results showed that no single intervention type or location dominated, and several returns to scale relationships emerged across the candidate interventions. Scenarios that considered interventions across multiple intensities outperformed single-intensity scenarios in terms of total benefits and cost effectiveness. These findings highlight the usefulness of exploratory return on investment analysis for prioritizing habitat restoration interventions, and underscore the importance of systematically considering how much restoration to undertake, in addition to what to do and where.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据