Rapidly assessing cobenefits to advance threat-management alliances.

Conservation strategies aimed at reducing threats to biodiversity can have significant implications for multiple sectors in a socioeconomic system, but these cobenefits are often poorly understood. For example, many of the threats to native species also impede agricultural production, yet agriculture is typically perceived as in competition with conservation objectives. Although a comprehensive, multiobjective decision analysis is usually beyond the scope and capacity of conservation decision makers, failing to incorporate key socioeconomic costs and benefits into conservation decision-making processes can result in missed opportunities for diversifying outcomes and creating cost-sharing multisectoral partnerships. We devised a straightforward and readily interpretable approach to incorporate cobenefits into a threat-management prioritization approach. We used it to analyze the agricultural cobenefits of implementing 9 invasive animal management strategies designed to ensure the persistence of 148 threatened species across Australia's Lake Eyre Basin over 50 years. A structured elicitation process with 24 participants (scientists, land managers, agriculturalists, and other stakeholders) was used to collect information on each strategy, including costs, technical and social feasibility, benefits to native threatened species, and cobenefits to agricultural production systems. The costs of targeted invasive animal management to save threatened species across the basin (AU$33 million/year) outweighed the overall benefits to the agricultural industry (estimated AU$226 million/year). The return on investment for these management strategies varied substantially when agricultural cobenefits were considered alongside threatened species benefits and showed synergies and challenges. Our approach demonstrates the value of incorporating cobenefits of conservation actions into cost-effectiveness analyses to guide potential investment and partnerships and to diversify implementation pathways.

Evaluación Rápida de los Cobeneficios para Promover Alianzas de Manejo de Amenazas Resumen Las estrategias de conservación enfocadas en la reducción de las amenazas para la biodiversidad pueden tener implicaciones importantes para muchos sectores de un sistema socioeconómico, pero existe un entendimiento reducido de estos cobeneficios. Por ejemplo, muchas de las amenazas para las especies nativas también impiden la producción agrícola y a pesar de esto, comúnmente se percibe a la agricultura como una competencia para los objetivos de conservación. Aunque un análisis completo de decisiones con objetivos múltiples está usualmente más allá del enfoque y la capacidad del órgano decisorio, no incluir costos y beneficios socioeconómicos importantes dentro del proceso de toma de decisiones puede resultar en oportunidades perdidas para la diversificación de resultados y la creación de colaboraciones multisectoriales con reparto de costes. Diseñamos una estrategia directa y de fácil interpretación para incorporar los cobeneficios dentro de una estrategia de priorización de manejo de amenazas. Usamos esta estrategia para analizar los cobeneficios agrícolas de la implementación de nueve estrategias de manejo de animales invasores diseñadas para asegurar la persistencia de 148 especies amenazadas en la cuenca del Lago Eyre en Australia durante 50 años. Usamos un proceso estructurado de extracción con 24 participantes (científicos, administradores de tierras, agricultores y otros actores) para recolectar información sobre cada estrategia, incluyendo los costos, viabilidad técnica y social, beneficios para las especies nativas amenazadas y los cobeneficios para los sistemas de producción agrícola. Los costos del manejo enfocado en animales invasores para salvar a las especies amenazadas de la cuenca (AU$33 millones al año) superaron a los beneficios generales para la industria agrícola (estimados en AU$226 millones al año). El rendimiento de la inversión para estas estrategias de manejo varió sustancialmente cuando los cobeneficios agrícolas estuvieron considerados junto con los beneficios para las especies amenazadas y mostró retos y sinergias. Nuestra estrategia demuestra la importancia de la incorporación de los cobeneficios de las acciones de conservación dentro de los análisis de rentabilidad para guiar la inversión potencial y las alianzas y para diversificar las vías de implementación.

Effects of threat management interactions on conservation priorities.

Decisions need to be made about which biodiversity management actions are undertaken to mitigate threats and about where these actions are implemented. However, management actions can interact; that is, the cost, benefit, and feasibility of one action can change when another action is undertaken. There is little guidance on how to explicitly and efficiently prioritize management for multiple threats, including deciding where to act. Integrated management could focus on one management action to abate a dominant threat or on a strategy comprising multiple actions to abate multiple threats. Furthermore management could be undertaken at sites that are in close proximity to reduce costs. We used cost-effectiveness analysis to prioritize investments in fire management, controlling invasive predators, and reducing grazing pressure in a bio-diverse region of southeastern Queensland, Australia. We compared outcomes of 5 management approaches based on different assumptions about interactions and quantified how investment needed, benefits expected, and the locations prioritized for implementation differed when interactions were taken into account. Managing for interactions altered decisions about where to invest and in which actions to invest and had the potential to deliver increased investment efficiency. Differences in high priority locations and actions were greatest between the approaches when we made different assumptions about how management actions deliver benefits through threat abatement: either all threats must be managed to conserve species or only one management action may be required. Threatened species management that does not consider interactions between actions may result in misplaced investments or misguided expectations of the effort required to mitigate threats to species.

Effect of risk aversion on prioritizing conservation projects.

Conservation outcomes are uncertain. Agencies making decisions about what threat mitigation actions to take to save which species frequently face the dilemma of whether to invest in actions with high probability of success and guaranteed benefits or to choose projects with a greater risk of failure that might provide higher benefits if they succeed. The answer to this dilemma lies in the decision maker's aversion to risk--their unwillingness to accept uncertain outcomes. Little guidance exists on how risk preferences affect conservation investment priorities. Using a prioritization approach based on cost effectiveness, we compared 2 approaches: a conservative probability threshold approach that excludes investment in projects with a risk of management failure greater than a fixed level, and a variance-discounting heuristic used in economics that explicitly accounts for risk tolerance and the probabilities of management success and failure. We applied both approaches to prioritizing projects for 700 of New Zealand's threatened species across 8303 management actions. Both decision makers' risk tolerance and our choice of approach to dealing with risk preferences drove the prioritization solution (i.e., the species selected for management). Use of a probability threshold minimized uncertainty, but more expensive projects were selected than with variance discounting, which maximized expected benefits by selecting the management of species with higher extinction risk and higher conservation value. Explicitly incorporating risk preferences within the decision making process reduced the number of species expected to be safe from extinction because lower risk tolerance resulted in more species being excluded from management, but the approach allowed decision makers to choose a level of acceptable risk that fit with their ability to accommodate failure. We argue for transparency in risk tolerance and recommend that decision makers accept risk in an adaptive management framework to maximize benefits and avoid potential extinctions due to inefficient allocation of limited resources.