From Population Viability Analysis to Coviability of Farmland Biodiversity and Agriculture

Mouysset, Lauriane; Doyen, Luc; Jiguet, Frédéric

doi:10.1111/cobi.12184

Cited by 63 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The original formulation of the land sparing-sharing framework omits some complexities, but it can be and already has been modified to incorporate many of these, including spatial configuration and the influence of edge effects [60,61]; the influence of changing diets and reducing food waste [50]; inclusion of some ecosystem services [4,7,50,62]; prediction of the effects of specific public policies [63]; and application to forestry [64,65], urban planning [66][67][68][69] and marine conservation [70]. It is a model, and so all assumptions can be varied and tested.…”

Section: What Does the Model Not Do?mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Have We Learned from the Land Sparing-sharing Model?

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The land sparing-sharing model provides a powerful heuristic and analytical framework for understanding the potential of agricultural landscapes to support wild species. However, its conceptual and analytical strengths and limitations remain widely contested or misunderstood. Here, I review what inferences can and cannot be derived from the framework, and discuss eight specific points of contention and confusion. The land sparing-sharing framework is underpinned by an ethic that seeks to minimise harm to non-human species. It is used to quantify how good farmland is for different species, in relation to appropriate reference land uses, and at what opportunity cost. The results of empirical studies that have used the model indicate that most species will have larger populations if food is produced on as small an area as possible, while sparing as large an area of native vegetation as possible. The potential benefits of land sharing or intermediate strategies for wild species are more limited. I review disagreements about the scope of analysis (food production cf. food security), the value of high-yield farmland for wildlife, the (ir)relevance of the Borlaug hypothesis, scale and heterogeneity, fostering human connections to nature, the prospects for land sparing in heavily-modified landscapes, the role of land sparing in improving connectivity, and the political implications of the model. Interpreted alongside insights from social, political and economic studies, the model can help us to understand how decisions about land-use will affect the persistence of wild species populations into the future.

show abstract

Section: What Does the Model Not Do?mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Have We Learned from the Land Sparing-sharing Model?

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First and foremost, resilience is about dynamic systems, including the possible existence of feedbacks, nonlinear trajectories, and thresholds. This sustainable zone is the multidimensional space within which the system is viable, that is, does not violate its viability constraints today and in the future (Baumgärtner & Quaas, 2009;Cissé et al, 2013;Doyen et al, 2017;Doyen & Martinet, 2012;Mouysset et al, 2013;Schuhbauer & Sumaila, 2016). Derived from control theory (Bellman, 1964), the aim of viability approach is to analyze the compatibility between the (possibly uncertain) dynamics of a system and a series of constraints and to determine a set of controls, actions, or decisions that would allow the system to stay within the "sustainable zone" defined by the limits of the various constraints.…”

Section: Why the Viability Approach?mentioning

confidence: 99%

From Resistance to Transformation: A Generic Metric of Resilience Through Viability

Béné

Doyen

2018

Earth's Future

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last two decades resilience has emerged as a promising concept that can help societies and more generally social‐ecological systems become less vulnerable to shocks and stressors. As such it has been adopted by a large number of disciplines—from psychology, physics, and ecology to disaster risk reduction, climate change adaption, and humanitarian and food security interventions. However, although numerous definitions or measures of resilience have been proposed, those were mainly discipline centered and, as such, failed to provide an adequate overarching framework. This paper explores the question of the formalization and measurement of resilience, with the objective to develop a generic metric that applies across the disciplines and to the different interpretations of resilience. Building on the definitions found in the literature, a continuum of five categories of resilience responses is identified: (i) resistance, (ii) coping strategies, (iii) adaptation, (iv) adaptive preference, and (v) transformation. Those categories are then reframed into a generic metric, using viability analysis—a mathematical formalism which builds on dynamic systems and control theory. Theoretical and empirical analyses are then conducted, looking in particular at how inertia and costs associated with the types of responses influence the level of resilience. To illustrate this new metric, we draw on two models widely discussed in the resilience literature: the exploitation of renewable resources and the case of lake eutrophication. Both theoretical and numerical analyses demonstrate the relevance of the typology as a generic framework for resilience but also highlight transformation as a particular case of resilience response.

show abstract

“…It is useful to identify feasibility domains for the management of a renewable resource or ecosystem, as well as trade-offs between potentially conflicting objectives or constraints imposed on such management [7,44]. As applied in this paper, the method requires identifying indicators associated with biological, economic and non-target species conservation objectives and specifying thresholds that these indicators should not violate.…”

Section: Stochastic Co-viability Of a Fishery Under Multiple Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cost of Co-viability in the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery

Gourguet

Thébaud

Jennings

et al. 2015

Environ Model Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fisheries management must address multiple, often conflicting objectives in a highly uncertain context. In particular, while the bio-economic performance of trawl fisheries is subject to high levels of biological and economic uncertainty, the impact of trawling on broader biodiversity is also a major concern for their management. The purpose of this study is to propose an analytical framework to formally assess the trade-offs associated with balancing biological, economic and non-target species conservation objectives. We use the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery (NPF), which is one of the most valuable federally managed commercial fisheries in Australia, as a case study. We develop a stochastic co-viability assessment of the fishery under multiple management objectives. Results show that, due to the variability in the interactions between the fishery and the ecosystem, current management strategies are characterized by biological and economic risks. Results highlight the trade-offs between respecting biological, economic and non-target species conservation constraints at each point in time with a high probability and maximizing the net present value of the fishery.

show abstract

From Population Viability Analysis to Coviability of Farmland Biodiversity and Agriculture

Cited by 63 publications

References 40 publications

What Have We Learned from the Land Sparing-sharing Model?

What Have We Learned from the Land Sparing-sharing Model?

From Resistance to Transformation: A Generic Metric of Resilience Through Viability

The Cost of Co-viability in the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About