Factoring attitudes towards armed conflict risk into selection of protected areas for conservation

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Factoring attitudes towards armed conflict risk into selection of protected areas for conservation. / Hammill, E.; Tulloch, A.I.T.; Possingham, H.P.; Strange, Niels; Wilson, K.A.

In: Nature Communications, Vol. 7, 11042, 2016.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Hammill, E, Tulloch, AIT, Possingham, HP, Strange, N & Wilson, KA 2016, 'Factoring attitudes towards armed conflict risk into selection of protected areas for conservation', Nature Communications, vol. 7, 11042. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11042

APA

Hammill, E., Tulloch, A. I. T., Possingham, H. P., Strange, N., & Wilson, K. A. (2016). Factoring attitudes towards armed conflict risk into selection of protected areas for conservation. Nature Communications, 7, [11042]. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11042

Vancouver

Hammill E, Tulloch AIT, Possingham HP, Strange N, Wilson KA. Factoring attitudes towards armed conflict risk into selection of protected areas for conservation. Nature Communications. 2016;7. 11042. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11042

Author

Hammill, E. ; Tulloch, A.I.T. ; Possingham, H.P. ; Strange, Niels ; Wilson, K.A. / Factoring attitudes towards armed conflict risk into selection of protected areas for conservation. In: Nature Communications. 2016 ; Vol. 7.

Bibtex

@article{24ecca472ca44c20ae2260da59607358,
title = "Factoring attitudes towards armed conflict risk into selection of protected areas for conservation",
abstract = "The high incidence of armed conflicts in biodiverse regions poses significant challenges in achieving international conservation targets. Because attitudes towards risk vary, we assessed different strategies for protected area planning that reflected alternative attitudes towards the risk of armed conflicts. We find that ignoring conflict risk will deliver the lowest return on investment. Opting to completely avoid conflict-prone areas offers limited improvements and could lead to species receiving no protection. Accounting for conflict by protecting additional areas to offset the impacts of armed conflicts would not only increase the return on investment (an effect that is enhanced when high-risk areas are excluded) but also increase upfront conservation costs. Our results also demonstrate that fine-scale estimations of conflict risk could enhance the cost-effectiveness of investments. We conclude that achieving biodiversity targets in volatile regions will require greater initial investment and benefit from fine-resolution estimates of conflict risk.",
author = "E. Hammill and A.I.T. Tulloch and H.P. Possingham and Niels Strange and K.A. Wilson",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1038/ncomms11042",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
journal = "Nature Communications",
issn = "2041-1723",
publisher = "nature publishing group",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Factoring attitudes towards armed conflict risk into selection of protected areas for conservation

AU - Hammill, E.

AU - Tulloch, A.I.T.

AU - Possingham, H.P.

AU - Strange, Niels

AU - Wilson, K.A.

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - The high incidence of armed conflicts in biodiverse regions poses significant challenges in achieving international conservation targets. Because attitudes towards risk vary, we assessed different strategies for protected area planning that reflected alternative attitudes towards the risk of armed conflicts. We find that ignoring conflict risk will deliver the lowest return on investment. Opting to completely avoid conflict-prone areas offers limited improvements and could lead to species receiving no protection. Accounting for conflict by protecting additional areas to offset the impacts of armed conflicts would not only increase the return on investment (an effect that is enhanced when high-risk areas are excluded) but also increase upfront conservation costs. Our results also demonstrate that fine-scale estimations of conflict risk could enhance the cost-effectiveness of investments. We conclude that achieving biodiversity targets in volatile regions will require greater initial investment and benefit from fine-resolution estimates of conflict risk.

AB - The high incidence of armed conflicts in biodiverse regions poses significant challenges in achieving international conservation targets. Because attitudes towards risk vary, we assessed different strategies for protected area planning that reflected alternative attitudes towards the risk of armed conflicts. We find that ignoring conflict risk will deliver the lowest return on investment. Opting to completely avoid conflict-prone areas offers limited improvements and could lead to species receiving no protection. Accounting for conflict by protecting additional areas to offset the impacts of armed conflicts would not only increase the return on investment (an effect that is enhanced when high-risk areas are excluded) but also increase upfront conservation costs. Our results also demonstrate that fine-scale estimations of conflict risk could enhance the cost-effectiveness of investments. We conclude that achieving biodiversity targets in volatile regions will require greater initial investment and benefit from fine-resolution estimates of conflict risk.

U2 - 10.1038/ncomms11042

DO - 10.1038/ncomms11042

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 27025894

VL - 7

JO - Nature Communications

JF - Nature Communications

SN - 2041-1723

M1 - 11042

ER -

ID: 159741783