Stochastic Dominance to Account for Uncertainty and Risk in Conservation Decisions

被引:18
作者
Canessa, Stefano [1 ,2 ]
Ewen, John G. [1 ]
West, Matt [2 ]
McCarthy, Michael A. [2 ]
Walshe, Terry V. [3 ]
机构
[1] Zool Soc London, Inst Zool, Regents Pk, London, England
[2] Univ Melbourne, Sch BioSci, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia
[3] Australian Inst Marine Sci, Townsville, Qld, Australia
关键词
Cumulative distribution function; elicitation; management objectives; risk assessment; threatened species; translocation; triage; uncertainty; utility; FROG LITORIA-SPENCERI; PAYMENTS; UTILITY;
D O I
10.1111/conl.12218
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Practical conservation normally requires making decisions in the face of uncertainty. Our attitude toward that uncertainty, and the risks it entails, shape the way conservation decisions are made. Stochastic dominance (SD), a method more commonly used in economics, can be used to rank alternative conservation actions by comparing the probability distributions of their outcomes, making progressive simplified assumptions about the preferences of decision makers. Here, we illustrate the application of SD to conservation decisions using the recovery plan for an endangered frog species in Australia as a case study. SD is simple and intuitively appealing for conservation decisions; its broader application may encourage conservation decision makers to consider probabilistic uncertainty in light of their preferences, which may otherwise be difficult to recognize and assess transparently. A better treatment of attitudes towards uncertainty and risk may help ensure rational decision making in conservation and remove potential causes of stakeholder conflict.
引用
收藏
页码:260 / 266
页数:7
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2013, GUIDELINES REINTRODU, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.BIOCON.2015.07.030
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1998, Stochastic Dominance: Investment Decision Making under Uncertainty
[3]   Conservation payments under risk:: A stochastic dominance approach [J].
Benítez, PC ;
Kuosmanen, T ;
Olschewski, R ;
van Kooten, GC .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2006, 88 (01) :1-15
[4]   Indirect effects of invasive species removal devastate World Heritage Island [J].
Bergstrom, Dana M. ;
Lucieer, Arko ;
Kiefer, Kate ;
Wasley, Jane ;
Belbin, Lee ;
Pedersen, Tore K. ;
Chown, Steven L. .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 2009, 46 (01) :73-81
[5]   Finite conservation funds mean triage is unavoidable [J].
Bottrill, Madeleine C. ;
Joseph, Liana N. ;
Carwardine, Josie ;
Bode, Michael ;
Cook, Carly N. ;
Game, Edward T. ;
Grantham, Hedley ;
Kark, Salit ;
Linke, Simon ;
McDonald-Madden, Eve ;
Pressey, Robe L. ;
Walker, Susan ;
Wilson, Kerrie A. ;
Possingham, Hugh P. .
TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 2009, 24 (04) :183-184
[6]   Planning for ex situ conservation in the face of uncertainty [J].
Canessa, Stefano ;
Converse, Sarah J. ;
West, Matt ;
Clemann, Nick ;
Gillespie, Graeme ;
McFadden, Michael ;
Silla, Aimee J. ;
Parris, Kirsten M. ;
McCarthy, Michael A. .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2016, 30 (03) :599-609
[7]   Disease risks of wildlife translocations [J].
Cunningham, AA .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 1996, 10 (02) :349-353
[8]  
Duncan D.H., 2008, Landscape analysis and visualization: Spatial models for natural resource management and planning, P159, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-69168-6_9
[9]   Using expected values to simplify decision making under uncertainty [J].
Durbach, Ian N. ;
Stewart, Theodor J. .
OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2009, 37 (02) :312-330
[10]   AGGREGATION OF UTILITY-FUNCTIONS [J].
EISENBERG, E .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1961, 7 (04) :337-350