4.6 Article

Uncertainty analysis for regional-scale reserve selection

期刊

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
卷 20, 期 6, 页码 1688-1697

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00560.x

关键词

distribution discounting; distribution smoothing; information-gap decision theory; reserve-network design; site-selection algorithm; spatial reserve design; zonation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methods for reserve selection and conservation planning often ignore uncertainty. For example, presence-absence observations and predictions of habitat models are used as inputs but commonly assumed to be without error We applied information-gap decision theory to develop uncertainty analysis methods for reserve selection. Our proposed method seeks a solution that is robust in achieving a given conservation target, despite uncertainty in the data. We maximized robustness in reserve selection through a novel method, distribution discounting, in which the site- and species-specific measure of conservation value (related to species-specific occupancy probabilities) was penalized by an error measure (in our study, related to accuracy of statistical prediction). Because distribution discounting can be implemented as a modification of input files, it is a computationally efficient solution for implementing uncertainty analysis into reserve selection. Thus, the method is particularly useful for high-dimensional decision problems characteristic of regional conservation assessment. We implemented distribution discounting in the zonation reserve-selection algorithm that produces a hierarchy of conservation priorities throughout the landscape. We applied it to reserve selection for seven priority fauna in a landscape in New South Wales, Australia. The distribution discounting method can be easily adapted for use with different kinds of data (e.g., probability of occurrence or abundance) and different landscape descriptions (grid or patch based) and incorporated into other reserve-selection algorithms and software.

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

4.6
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