Targeting resource investments to achieve sediment reduction and improved Great Barrier Reef health

Star, Megan; Rolfe, John; Donaghy, Peter; Beutel, Terrence S.; Whish, Giselle; Abbott, Brett N.

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2012.03.016

Cited by 26 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The field of decision science provides information and tools to ensure that conservation prioritizations deliver objective, defensible, and efficient decisions. Costeffectiveness analyses are increasingly being used to inform conservation problems, ranging from threatened species management (Joseph et al 2009;Carwardine et al 2012) to coral reef conservation (Klein et al 2010) to marine water quality improvement (Star et al 2013;Beher et al 2016). This article makes a substantial contribution to the field as it presents a demographically motivated benefit function that can be used in cost-effectiveness analyses that is able to account for threats to a species that operate on different and/or multiple life history stages.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritization of Marine Turtle Management Projects: A Protocol that Accounts for Threats to Different Life History Stages

Klein

Beher

Chaloupka

et al. 2016

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Project prioritization protocols are an important tool for allocating conservation resources efficiently, and have been applied to a range of species and ecosystems. Current approaches are inadequate when applied to species with distinct threats impacting different and/or multiple life history stages, such as sea turtles. We develop a model that integrates the benefit of any management project on a population by way of its expected population growth rate, including projects targeting different and/or multiple life history stages. To illustrate its utility, we prioritize projects for investment relevant to Australia's eastern population of Flatback turtle (Natator depressus). We rely upon expert‐elicitation to estimate individual benefit parameters, feasibility, and cost, and calculate the cost‐effectiveness of each project. The most cost‐effective project was not the most feasible, cheapest, or most beneficial. Our approach will help managers make efficient decisions that account for the full range of threats operating on a population.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritization of Marine Turtle Management Projects: A Protocol that Accounts for Threats to Different Life History Stages

Klein

Beher

Chaloupka

et al. 2016

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…catchment management improving coastal water quality) can be used to incentivise stakeholders (e.g. pastoralists) carrying higher management costs (Star et al, 2013). Cumulative impact assessment and scenario planning can also be used in participatory processes with stakeholders to help them navigate complex resource-management decisions.…”

Section: Assessing Management Co-benefits and Trade-offsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated cross-realm planning: A decision-makers' perspective

Álvarez‐Romero

Adams

Pressey

et al. 2015

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Star et al . ). Despite clear and substantive impacts of behavioural factors in measures of revealed impatience (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Studies have shown that the vast majority of sediment is generated by over‐stocking and poor grazing land management that also reduce resource quality (Star et al . , ). Behaviours in these contexts may be driven by a complex set of factors, but recent work indicates that bounded rationality and behavioural aspects may be important (Rolfe and Gregg ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Myopia and saliency in renewable resource management

Gregg

Rolfe

2018

Aus J Agri & Res Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important challenge in managing renewable resources is to understand why owners and managers sometimes make decisions that deplete resources and future earnings, such as when graziers allow pastures and land condition to be degraded. In this paper, we test two potential reasons for unsustainable management practices, myopia and salience, with each explaining why resource managers may exhibit impatience in harvest decisions. Myopia is associated with decision makers placing lower weight on future outcomes than would be implied by their pure time preference. Salience is associated with overweighting of consumption 'now', implying inconsistency in time preferences. To test for these effects on renewable resource management, an incentivised, dynamic field experiment was carried out with rangeland grazing enterprise owners in northeastern Australia that related management choices with uncertain rainfall events to both profits and land condition over time. Results demonstrate that respondents exhibiting myopia/salience in their choices tended to achieve lower cumulative scores in the experiment, as well as lower land conditions on their properties as measured with remote sensing data. Our results explain why there may be persistent optimisation failures by resource owners that reduce both profits and environmental outcomes.

show abstract

Targeting resource investments to achieve sediment reduction and improved Great Barrier Reef health

Cited by 26 publications

References 33 publications

Prioritization of Marine Turtle Management Projects: A Protocol that Accounts for Threats to Different Life History Stages

Prioritization of Marine Turtle Management Projects: A Protocol that Accounts for Threats to Different Life History Stages

Integrated cross-realm planning: A decision-makers' perspective

Myopia and saliency in renewable resource management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About