Premium
Prioritizing conservation activities using reserve site selection methods and population viability analysis
Author(s) -
Newbold Stephen C.,
Siikamäki Juha
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
ecological applications
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.864
H-Index - 213
eISSN - 1939-5582
pISSN - 1051-0761
DOI - 10.1890/08-0599.1
Subject(s) - site selection , watershed , environmental resource management , population , cost–benefit analysis , environmental science , opportunity cost , selection (genetic algorithm) , prioritization , population viability analysis , ecology , computer science , business , habitat , biology , endangered species , economics , demography , neoclassical economics , machine learning , artificial intelligence , sociology , political science , law , process management
In recent years a large literature on reserve site selection (RSS) has developed at the interface between ecology, operations research, and environmental economics. Reserve site selection models use numerical optimization techniques to select sites for a network of nature reserves for protecting biodiversity. In this paper, we develop a population viability analysis (PVA) model for salmon and incorporate it into an RSS framework for prioritizing conservation activities in upstream watersheds. We use spawner return data for three closely related salmon stocks in the upper Columbia River basin and estimates of the economic costs of watershed protection from NOAA to illustrate the framework. We compare the relative cost‐effectiveness of five alternative watershed prioritization methods, based on various combinations of biological and economic information. Prioritization based on biological benefit–economic cost comparisons and accounting for spatial interdependencies among watersheds substantially outperforms other more heuristic methods. When using this best‐performing prioritization method, spending 10% of the cost of protecting all upstream watersheds yields 79% of the biological benefits (increase in stock persistence) from protecting all watersheds, compared to between 20% and 64% for the alternative methods. We also find that prioritization based on either costs or benefits alone can lead to severe reductions in cost‐effectiveness.