Development of a system to produce maps of agricultural profit on a continental scale: An example for Australia

Marinoni, Oswald; Garcia, Javier Navarro; Marvanek, Steve; Prestwidge, Di; Clifford, David; Laredo, Luis

doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2011.09.002

Cited by 55 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We estimated the opportunity cost to cease grazing through a stewardship agreement, based upon foregone agricultural profits (Marinoni et al 2012) similar to other conservation planning studies (e.g. Iwamura 2007, Carwardine et al 2008), although landowner bargaining power creates some uncertainty in this cost assumption ).…”

Section: Step 3 Integrate Realistic Cost Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…This appendix provides details on our modification of the agriculture profit model by Marinoni et al (2012). We modelled the net present value of opportunity costs for a 20-year stewardship program.…”

Section: Appendix 3b Model Of Opportunity Costs To Cease Grazingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We estimated the cost for invasive red fox control using a roadside-baiting strategy (Carter et al 2011) with four 14-day baiting campaigns per year (Auerbach et al 2014, Appendix C). We estimated the opportunity cost of entering into a stewardship agreement to cease grazing to be foregone profit from agriculture (Marinoni et al 2012, Auerbach et al 2014. We then calculated costs for 20 years of management using a low discount rate of 2% encouraging investment in management projects offering returns at distant dates (Johnson and Hope 2012), i.e.…”

Section: Estimating Independent Management Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…financial security is a known influence on landholders decisions to change existing practices (Pannell et al 2006 (Marinoni et al 2012), which was based upon costs, revenues, yields and commodity (including livestock production) areas that were derived from land use, detailed census information, water resource use and production costs. Where the overall cost of production outweighed the returns and resulted in negative profits, we set the yearly profit value to a minimum of $10/25 ha to simulate providing landholders with a token payment.…”

Section: Step 3 Integrate Realistic Cost Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Spatially explicit cost-effective actions for biodiversity threat abatement

Auerbach¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity decline is indisputable, and rates of future decline depend on whether threats to species persistence are abated. However, current resources for threatened species management are less than required to stop further decline. Management that abates many threats to many species is necessary, yet decisions about how to do this under resource constraints are inherently complex. My thesis incorporates systematic conservation planning and cost-effectiveness analysis in a decision-support framework for prioritising spatially-explicit management actions for many species across a region.By prioritising action where it is expected to provide the greatest benefit to the most species at least cost, my research advances the thinking on decision support, and contributes to the effort to reduce biodiversity decline.Using information on threats to species that was compiled by the Queensland, Australia government, my research develops a decision-support process for managing threats to threatened species in a bio-diverse regional-scale management area, the Burnett-Mary Natural Resource Management Region. In my thesis, predicted distributions for 65 threatened species are modelled on co-occurring presence-only species locations and ecologically-meaningful environmental data.Three threats are addressed: invasive red fox predation; too frequent and intense fire; and habitat degradation from overgrazing. Indirect threat maps are made by combining predicted distribution models of species vulnerable to specific threats and are used to identify locations where threatabating actions are most likely to provide benefit to species. Management action costs are estimated for fox control, on the basis of a roadside baiting strategy; proactive fire management, on the basis of vegetation type and proximity to human structures; and stewardship agreements to reduce grazing, on the basis of foregone agriculture profit. Spatially combining the costs and benefits of threat-abating actions leads to the ability to prioritise cost-effective locations for actions. Within the context of prioritising regional threat management actions, my research examines four topics.Firstly, an understanding of where species are affected by threats determines where to direct management. Indirect threat maps are made by combining threatened species distribution maps, but are sensitive to map scale in guiding spatially-explicit threat management efforts (Chapter 2).Using fine-scale predicted species distribution models to derive indirect threat maps, instead of general range maps, may lead to better regional management decisions.Funding limitations for threat management require that choices be made when not everything can be done. Transparent and rigorous decision support is provided by prioritising management ranked on the most, to least, cost-effective actions and locations, and is made accessible when calculated with readily-available spreadsheet and mapping software (Chapter 3). Cost-effective management iii priorities are determined by combining ind...

show abstract

Section: Step 3 Integrate Realistic Cost Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Appendix 3b Model Of Opportunity Costs To Cease Grazingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Estimating Independent Management Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Step 3 Integrate Realistic Cost Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Spatially explicit cost-effective actions for biodiversity threat abatement

Auerbach¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We estimated conservation feasibility using data on agricultural profit at full equity for the period -2006(Marinoni et al 2012. These data were calculated in a period of widespread drought, and to avoid underestimating landholder values negative profitability values were set to zero.…”

Section: Methods and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Conserving migratory and nomadic species

Runge¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Migration is an incredible phenomenon. Across cultures it moves and inspires us, from the first song of a migratory bird arriving in spring, to the sight of thousands of migratory wildebeest thundering across African plains. Not only important to us as humans, migratory species play a major role in ecosystem functioning across the globe. Migratory species use multiple landscapes and can have dramatically different ecologies across their lifecycle, making huge contributions to resource fluxes and nutrient transport. However, migrants around the world are in decline. In this thesis I examine our conservation response to these declines, exploring how well current approaches account for the unique needs of migratory species, and develop ways to improve on these. The movements of migratory species across time and space make their conservation a multidimensional problem, requiring actions to mitigate threats across jurisdictions, across habitat types and across time. Incorporating such linkages can make a dramatic difference to conservation success, yet migratory species are often treated for the purposes of conservation planning as if they were stationary, ignoring the complex linkages between sites and resources. In this thesis I measure how well existing global conservation networks represent these linkages, discovering major gaps in our current protection of migratory species. I then go on to develop tools for improving conservation of migratory species across two areas: prioritizing actions across species and designing conservation networks.Protected areas are one of our most effective conservation tools, and expanding the global protected area estate remains a priority at an international level. Globally, about 12.9% of the landscape is covered by protected areas, and in Chapter 2 I examine how well migratory birds are represented within current protected areas, specifically taking into account their need for protection across the annual cycle. I discover that just 9% of migratory birds meet standard protection targets across all parts of their migratory distribution, their breeding, non-breeding and passage distributions, in stark contrast to the 45% of non-migratory birds meeting the same targets. There is currently a major push to increase the size and comprehensiveness of the global protected area estate, and these findings highlight the need for greater emphasis on collaboration across nations to incorporate migratory connectivity into our approaches to protected area placement.One of the challenges to incorporating migratory connectivity into systematic conservation planning is that often we have only a poor understanding of the patterns of movements of migratory species ii in space and time. In Chapter 3 and 4 I develop a tool for discovering spatial dynamics in highly mobile yet data-poor species, unlocking valuable information for improved extinction risk assessment and conservation planning. Using Australian arid-zone nomadic birds as a case study, I reveal enormous variability in predicted spa...

show abstract