Search

Agencies charged with nature conservation and protecting built-assets from fire face a policy dilemma because management that protects assets can have adverse impacts on biodiversity. Although conservation is often a policy goal, protecting built-assets usually takes precedence in fire management implementation. To make decisions that can better achieve both objectives, existing trade-offs must first be recognized, and then policies implemented to manage multiple objectives explicitly. We briefly review fire management actions that can conflict with biodiversity conservation. Through this review, we find that common management practices might not appreciably reduce the threat to built-assets but could have a large negative impact on biodiversity. We develop a framework based on decision theory that could be applied to minimize these conflicts. Critical to this approach is (1) the identification of the full range of management options and (2) obtaining data for evaluating the effectiveness of those options for achieving asset protection and conservation goals. This information can be used to compare explicitly the effectiveness of different management choices for conserving species and for protecting assets, given budget constraints. The challenge now is to gather data to quantify these trade-offs so that fire policy and practices can be better aligned with multiple objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Land acquisition is a common approach to biodiversity conservation but is typically subject to property availability on the public market. Consequently, conservation plans are often unable to be implemented as intended. When properties come on the market, conservation agencies must make a choice: purchase immediately, often without a detailed knowledge of its biodiversity value; survey the parcel and accept the risk that it may be removed from the market during this process; or not purchase and hope a better parcel comes on the market at a later date. We describe both an optimal method, using stochastic dynamic programming, and a simple rule of thumb for making such decisions. The solutions to this problem illustrate how optimal conservation is necessarily dynamic and requires explicit consideration of both the time period allowed for implementation and the availability of properties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]