Time discounting and the decision to protect areas that are near and threatened or remote and cheap to acquire

被引:12
作者
Armsworth, Paul R. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Tennessee, Dept Ecol & Evolutionary Biol, 569 Dabney Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA
关键词
Aichi; deforestation; dual-rate discounting; land-use change; residual reserves; time preference; GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY; REVEALED PREFERENCES; LAND-USE; CONSERVATION; BIODIVERSITY; COSTS; DEFORESTATION; ECONOMICS;
D O I
10.1111/cobi.13129
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Should conservation organizations focus on protecting habitats that are at imminent risk of being converted but are expensive or more remote areas that are less immediately threatened but where a large amount of land can be set aside? Variants of this trade-off commonly arise in spatial planning. I used models of land-use change near a deforestation frontier to examine this trade-off. The optimal choice of where to protect was determined by how decisions taken today accounted for ecological benefits and economic costs of conservation actions that would occur sometime in the future. I used an ecological and economic discount rate to weight these benefits and costs. A large economic discount rate favored protecting more remote areas, whereas a large, positive ecological discount rate favored protecting habitat near the current deforestation frontier. The decision over where to protect was also affected by the influence economic factors had on landowners' decisions, the rate of technological change, and ecological heterogeneity of the landscape. How benefits and costs through time are accounted for warrants careful consideration when specifying conservation objectives. It may provide a niche axis along which conservation organizations differentiate themselves when competing for donor funding or other support. Descuento de Tiempo y la Decision para Proteger areas Cercanas y Amenazadas o Remotas y de Bajo Costo Deberian las organizaciones de la conservacion enfocarse en proteger habitats que estan en riesgo inminente de cambiar el uso de suelo pero que tienen un precio elevado o areas mas remotas con una amenaza menor, pero en donde se puede reservar una gran cantidad de suelo? Es comun que las variantes de este intercambio surjan en la planeacion espacial. Use modelos de cambio en el uso de suelo cercano a fronteras de deforestacion para examinar este intercambio. La opcion optima de en donde proteger se determino por como las decisiones que se toman hoy en dia consideran los beneficios ecologicos y los costos economicos de las acciones de conservacion que ocurririan en algun momento del futuro. Use una tasa de descuento ecologico y economico para sopesar estos costos y beneficios. Una tasa mayor de descuento economico favorecio la proteccion del habitat cercano a la frontera de deforestacion actual. La decision sobre en donde proteger tambien se vio afectada por la influencia que los factores economicos tuvieron sobre las decisiones del propietario, la tasa de cambio tecnologico, y la heterogeneidad ecologica del paisaje. Como se consideran los beneficios y costos a lo largo del tiempo garantiza una consideracion cuidadosa cuando se especifican los objetivos de conservacion. Esto puede proporcionar un eje de nicho a lo largo del cual las organizaciones de la conservacion puedan diferenciarse entre si cuando compitan por el financiamiento de un donador o cualquier otro apoyo. Resumen ?? ?????????????????????????????????, ??????????????????, ????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????, ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????, ??????????????????????, ????????????????????????????? ???: ???; ??: ???? Article impact statement: Spatial conservation priorities depend on how benefits and costs through time are weighted.
引用
收藏
页码:1063 / 1073
页数:11
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]   Rarity-Weighted Richness: A Simple and Reliable Alternative to Integer Programming and Heuristic Algorithms for Minimum Set and Maximum Coverage Problems in Conservation Planning [J].
Albuquerque, Fabio ;
Beier, Paul .
PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (03)
[2]  
Amundsen Ole., 2011, STRATEGIC CONSERVATI
[3]  
Angelsen A., 2007, FOREST COVER CHANGE
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2012, LITTLE BIODIVERSITY, DOI DOI 10.1038/nature22900
[5]   Is conservation right to go big? Protected area size and conservation return-on-investment [J].
Armsworth, Paul R. ;
Jackson, Heather B. ;
Cho, Seong-Hoon ;
Clark, Melissa ;
Fargione, Joseph E. ;
Iacona, Gwenllian D. ;
Kim, Taeyoung ;
Larson, Eric R. ;
Minney, Thomas ;
Sutton, Nathan A. .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2018, 225 :229-236
[6]   Inclusion of costs in conservation planning depends on limited datasets and hopeful assumptions [J].
Armsworth, Paul R. .
YEAR IN ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2014, 1322 :61-76
[7]   Opportunities for Cost-Sharing in Conservation: Variation in Volunteering Effort across Protected Areas [J].
Armsworth, Paul R. ;
Cantu-Salazar, Lisette ;
Parnell, Mark ;
Booth, Josephine E. ;
Stoneman, Rob ;
Davies, Zoe G. .
PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (01)
[8]   The Size, Concentration, and Growth of Biodiversity-Conservation Nonprofits [J].
Armsworth, Paul R. ;
Fishburn, Isla S. ;
Davies, Zoe G. ;
Gilbert, Jennifer ;
Leaver, Natasha ;
Gaston, Kevin J. .
BIOSCIENCE, 2012, 62 (03) :271-281
[9]   Costs of Integrating Economics and Conservation Planning [J].
Arponen, Anni ;
Cabeza, Mar ;
Eklund, Johanna ;
Kujala, Heini ;
Lehtomaki, Joona .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2010, 24 (05) :1198-1204
[10]   Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis [J].
Atkinson, Giles ;
Mourato, Susana .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES, 2008, 33 :317-344