Loading…

Navigating Complex Decisions in Restoration Investment

Ecosystem restoration requires choosing among potential interventions which differ in cost, and the time required to achieve outcomes of varying quality. Managers have different preferences for timeframes, certainty, and quality of outcomes, which can influence the choice of investment strategy. Her...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Conservation letters 2017-11, Vol.10 (6), p.748-756
Main Authors: Shoo, Luke P., Catterall, Carla P., Nicol, Sam, Christian, Rochelle, Rhodes, Jonathan, Atkinson, Penny, Butler, Don, Zhu, Roger, Wilson, Kerrie A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-d26a84f18229e5d076f3429680d9edc5b5aa7ff2bf150357044d95b1f365e283
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-d26a84f18229e5d076f3429680d9edc5b5aa7ff2bf150357044d95b1f365e283
container_end_page 756
container_issue 6
container_start_page 748
container_title Conservation letters
container_volume 10
creator Shoo, Luke P.
Catterall, Carla P.
Nicol, Sam
Christian, Rochelle
Rhodes, Jonathan
Atkinson, Penny
Butler, Don
Zhu, Roger
Wilson, Kerrie A.
description Ecosystem restoration requires choosing among potential interventions which differ in cost, and the time required to achieve outcomes of varying quality. Managers have different preferences for timeframes, certainty, and quality of outcomes, which can influence the choice of investment strategy. Here we develop a probabilistic approach to quantify expected restoration outcomes from alternative investment strategies, given operational constraints or alternative preferences. We apply the approach to a tropical forest restoration case study in which managers seek to allocate future resources between active planting and self‐organized regrowth. We find that the best strategy depends on the desired forest attributes and the time required for outcomes to be achieved. We quantify the trade‐off for three key forest attributes between restoring large areas of vegetation to low quality and restoring smaller areas to a higher quality. Explicit consideration of preferences and trade‐offs will enhance the likelihood that projects deliver desired outcomes.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/conl.12327
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2289706880</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2289706880</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-d26a84f18229e5d076f3429680d9edc5b5aa7ff2bf150357044d95b1f365e283</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWGov_oIFb8LWfGw-9iir1sLSgvTgLaS7SUnZJmvSVvvvTV0PnnwvMwPPzMu8ANwiOEVJD4133RRhgvkFGCFOaY4Zeb_801-DSYxbmESwKGkxAmyhjnaj9tZtssrv-k5_ZU-6sdF6FzPrsjcd9z4kwLts7o5p2mm3vwFXRnVRT37rGKxenlfVa14vZ_Pqsc4bQjjPW8yUKAwSGJeatpAzQwpcMgHbUrcNXVOluDF4bRCFhHJYFG1J18gQRjUWZAzuhrN98B-H5C23_hBccpQ4PcAhEwIm6n6gmuBjDNrIPtidCieJoDwnI8_JyJ9kEowG-NN2-vQPKavloh52vgFVCWTA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2289706880</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Navigating Complex Decisions in Restoration Investment</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>Wiley Open Access</source><creator>Shoo, Luke P. ; Catterall, Carla P. ; Nicol, Sam ; Christian, Rochelle ; Rhodes, Jonathan ; Atkinson, Penny ; Butler, Don ; Zhu, Roger ; Wilson, Kerrie A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Shoo, Luke P. ; Catterall, Carla P. ; Nicol, Sam ; Christian, Rochelle ; Rhodes, Jonathan ; Atkinson, Penny ; Butler, Don ; Zhu, Roger ; Wilson, Kerrie A.</creatorcontrib><description>Ecosystem restoration requires choosing among potential interventions which differ in cost, and the time required to achieve outcomes of varying quality. Managers have different preferences for timeframes, certainty, and quality of outcomes, which can influence the choice of investment strategy. Here we develop a probabilistic approach to quantify expected restoration outcomes from alternative investment strategies, given operational constraints or alternative preferences. We apply the approach to a tropical forest restoration case study in which managers seek to allocate future resources between active planting and self‐organized regrowth. We find that the best strategy depends on the desired forest attributes and the time required for outcomes to be achieved. We quantify the trade‐off for three key forest attributes between restoring large areas of vegetation to low quality and restoring smaller areas to a higher quality. Explicit consideration of preferences and trade‐offs will enhance the likelihood that projects deliver desired outcomes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1755-263X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1755-263X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/conl.12327</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Biodiversity ; Carbon sequestration ; Costs ; Decision making ; Ecosystems ; Endangered &amp; extinct species ; Investment policy ; Planting ; preferences ; Quality ; Reforestation ; Regrowth ; Time lags ; Tropical forests ; uncertainty ; Vegetation ; vegetation quality</subject><ispartof>Conservation letters, 2017-11, Vol.10 (6), p.748-756</ispartof><rights>Copyright and Photocopying: © 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>2017. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-d26a84f18229e5d076f3429680d9edc5b5aa7ff2bf150357044d95b1f365e283</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-d26a84f18229e5d076f3429680d9edc5b5aa7ff2bf150357044d95b1f365e283</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2289706880/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2289706880?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,11562,25753,27924,27925,37012,44590,46052,46476,75126</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shoo, Luke P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Catterall, Carla P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nicol, Sam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Christian, Rochelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rhodes, Jonathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, Penny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Butler, Don</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Roger</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Kerrie A.</creatorcontrib><title>Navigating Complex Decisions in Restoration Investment</title><title>Conservation letters</title><description>Ecosystem restoration requires choosing among potential interventions which differ in cost, and the time required to achieve outcomes of varying quality. Managers have different preferences for timeframes, certainty, and quality of outcomes, which can influence the choice of investment strategy. Here we develop a probabilistic approach to quantify expected restoration outcomes from alternative investment strategies, given operational constraints or alternative preferences. We apply the approach to a tropical forest restoration case study in which managers seek to allocate future resources between active planting and self‐organized regrowth. We find that the best strategy depends on the desired forest attributes and the time required for outcomes to be achieved. We quantify the trade‐off for three key forest attributes between restoring large areas of vegetation to low quality and restoring smaller areas to a higher quality. Explicit consideration of preferences and trade‐offs will enhance the likelihood that projects deliver desired outcomes.</description><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Carbon sequestration</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Endangered &amp; extinct species</subject><subject>Investment policy</subject><subject>Planting</subject><subject>preferences</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Reforestation</subject><subject>Regrowth</subject><subject>Time lags</subject><subject>Tropical forests</subject><subject>uncertainty</subject><subject>Vegetation</subject><subject>vegetation quality</subject><issn>1755-263X</issn><issn>1755-263X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWGov_oIFb8LWfGw-9iir1sLSgvTgLaS7SUnZJmvSVvvvTV0PnnwvMwPPzMu8ANwiOEVJD4133RRhgvkFGCFOaY4Zeb_801-DSYxbmESwKGkxAmyhjnaj9tZtssrv-k5_ZU-6sdF6FzPrsjcd9z4kwLts7o5p2mm3vwFXRnVRT37rGKxenlfVa14vZ_Pqsc4bQjjPW8yUKAwSGJeatpAzQwpcMgHbUrcNXVOluDF4bRCFhHJYFG1J18gQRjUWZAzuhrN98B-H5C23_hBccpQ4PcAhEwIm6n6gmuBjDNrIPtidCieJoDwnI8_JyJ9kEowG-NN2-vQPKavloh52vgFVCWTA</recordid><startdate>201711</startdate><enddate>201711</enddate><creator>Shoo, Luke P.</creator><creator>Catterall, Carla P.</creator><creator>Nicol, Sam</creator><creator>Christian, Rochelle</creator><creator>Rhodes, Jonathan</creator><creator>Atkinson, Penny</creator><creator>Butler, Don</creator><creator>Zhu, Roger</creator><creator>Wilson, Kerrie A.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201711</creationdate><title>Navigating Complex Decisions in Restoration Investment</title><author>Shoo, Luke P. ; Catterall, Carla P. ; Nicol, Sam ; Christian, Rochelle ; Rhodes, Jonathan ; Atkinson, Penny ; Butler, Don ; Zhu, Roger ; Wilson, Kerrie A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-d26a84f18229e5d076f3429680d9edc5b5aa7ff2bf150357044d95b1f365e283</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Carbon sequestration</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Endangered &amp; extinct species</topic><topic>Investment policy</topic><topic>Planting</topic><topic>preferences</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Reforestation</topic><topic>Regrowth</topic><topic>Time lags</topic><topic>Tropical forests</topic><topic>uncertainty</topic><topic>Vegetation</topic><topic>vegetation quality</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shoo, Luke P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Catterall, Carla P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nicol, Sam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Christian, Rochelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rhodes, Jonathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, Penny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Butler, Don</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Roger</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Kerrie A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Free Archive</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Conservation letters</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shoo, Luke P.</au><au>Catterall, Carla P.</au><au>Nicol, Sam</au><au>Christian, Rochelle</au><au>Rhodes, Jonathan</au><au>Atkinson, Penny</au><au>Butler, Don</au><au>Zhu, Roger</au><au>Wilson, Kerrie A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Navigating Complex Decisions in Restoration Investment</atitle><jtitle>Conservation letters</jtitle><date>2017-11</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>748</spage><epage>756</epage><pages>748-756</pages><issn>1755-263X</issn><eissn>1755-263X</eissn><abstract>Ecosystem restoration requires choosing among potential interventions which differ in cost, and the time required to achieve outcomes of varying quality. Managers have different preferences for timeframes, certainty, and quality of outcomes, which can influence the choice of investment strategy. Here we develop a probabilistic approach to quantify expected restoration outcomes from alternative investment strategies, given operational constraints or alternative preferences. We apply the approach to a tropical forest restoration case study in which managers seek to allocate future resources between active planting and self‐organized regrowth. We find that the best strategy depends on the desired forest attributes and the time required for outcomes to be achieved. We quantify the trade‐off for three key forest attributes between restoring large areas of vegetation to low quality and restoring smaller areas to a higher quality. Explicit consideration of preferences and trade‐offs will enhance the likelihood that projects deliver desired outcomes.</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/conl.12327</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1755-263X
ispartof Conservation letters, 2017-11, Vol.10 (6), p.748-756
issn 1755-263X
1755-263X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2289706880
source Publicly Available Content Database; Wiley Open Access
subjects Biodiversity
Carbon sequestration
Costs
Decision making
Ecosystems
Endangered & extinct species
Investment policy
Planting
preferences
Quality
Reforestation
Regrowth
Time lags
Tropical forests
uncertainty
Vegetation
vegetation quality
title Navigating Complex Decisions in Restoration Investment
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T19%3A54%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Navigating%20Complex%20Decisions%20in%20Restoration%20Investment&rft.jtitle=Conservation%20letters&rft.au=Shoo,%20Luke%20P.&rft.date=2017-11&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=748&rft.epage=756&rft.pages=748-756&rft.issn=1755-263X&rft.eissn=1755-263X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/conl.12327&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2289706880%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-d26a84f18229e5d076f3429680d9edc5b5aa7ff2bf150357044d95b1f365e283%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2289706880&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true