Tradeoffs in marine reserve design: habitat condition, representation, and socioeconomic costs
-
- Carissa J. Klein
- Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions National Environmental Research Program funded Environmental Decisions Hub, School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland St. Lucia Queensland Australia
-
- Vivitskaia J. Tulloch
- Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions National Environmental Research Program funded Environmental Decisions Hub, School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland St. Lucia Queensland Australia
-
- Benjamin S. Halpern
- National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis Santa Barbara California USA
-
- Kimberly A. Selkoe
- National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis Santa Barbara California USA
-
- Matthew E. Watts
- Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions National Environmental Research Program funded Environmental Decisions Hub, School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland St. Lucia Queensland Australia
-
- Charles Steinback
- Ecotrust Portland Oregon USA
-
- Astrid Scholz
- Ecotrust Portland Oregon USA
-
- Hugh P. Possingham
- Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions National Environmental Research Program funded Environmental Decisions Hub, School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland St. Lucia Queensland Australia
この論文をさがす
説明
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>We present a novel method for designing marine reserves that trades off three important attributes of a conservation plan: habitat condition, habitat representation, and socioeconomic costs. We calculated habitat condition in four ways, using different human impacts as a proxy for condition: all impacts; impacts that cannot be managed with a reserve; land‐based impacts; and climate change impacts. We demonstrate our approach in California, where three important tradeoffs emerged. First, reserve systems that have a high chance of protecting good condition habitats cost fishers less than 3.1% of their income. Second, cost to fishers can be reduced by 1/2–2/3 by triaging less than 1/3 of habitats. Finally, increasing the probability of protecting good condition habitats from 50% to 99% costs fishers an additional 1.7% of their income, with roughly 0.3% added costs for each additional 10% confidence. Knowing exactly what the cost of these tradeoffs are informs discussion and potential compromise among stakeholders involved in protected area planning worldwide.</jats:p>
収録刊行物
-
- Conservation Letters
-
Conservation Letters 6 (5), 324-332, 2013-01-16
Wiley