IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v48y2014icp204-205.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Setting conservation priorities in Fiji: Decision science versus additive scoring systems

Author

Listed:
  • Klein, Carissa J.
  • Jupiter, Stacy D.
  • Possingham, Hugh P.

Abstract

There is a well-established scientific field – decision science – that can be used to rigorously set conservation priorities. Despite well-documented shortcomings, additive scoring approaches to conservation prioritization are still prevalent. This paper discusses the shortcomings and advantages of both approaches applied in Fiji to identify priorities for terrestrial protected areas. The two main shortcomings of using a scoring approach (discussed in Keppel (2014) [1]) that are resolved with decision science approaches (presented in Klein et al. (2014) [2]) in Fiji were (1) priorities did not achieve one of the most important stated conservation goals of representing ~40% of Fiji׳s major vegetation types and (2) the weighting of different selection criteria used was arbitrary. Both approaches considered expert knowledge and land–sea connections important to decision makers in Fiji, but only decision science can logically integrate both, in addition to other important considerations. Thus, decision makers are urged to use decision science and avoid additive scoring systems when prioritizing places for conservation. Fiji has the opportunity to be a global leader in using decision science to support integrated land–sea planning decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Klein, Carissa J. & Jupiter, Stacy D. & Possingham, Hugh P., 2014. "Setting conservation priorities in Fiji: Decision science versus additive scoring systems," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 204-205.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:48:y:2014:i:c:p:204-205
    DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.03.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X14000803
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.03.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hugh P. Possingham & Kerrie A. Wilson, 2005. "Turning up the heat on hotspots," Nature, Nature, vol. 436(7053), pages 919-920, August.
    2. Klein, Carissa J. & Jupiter, Stacy D. & Watts, Matthew & Possingham, Hugh P., 2014. "Evaluating the influence of candidate terrestrial protected areas on coral reef condition in Fiji," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 360-365.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard Meissner, 2022. "eThekwini’s green and ecological infrastructure policy landscape: research paradigms, theories and epistocrats," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 543-560, September.
    2. Dissanayake, Sahan T.M. & Önal, Hayri, 2011. "Amenity driven price effects and conservation reserve site selection: A dynamic linear integer programming approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2225-2235.
    3. Josie Carwardine & Kerrie A Wilson & Matt Watts & Andres Etter & Carissa J Klein & Hugh P Possingham, 2008. "Avoiding Costly Conservation Mistakes: The Importance of Defining Actions and Costs in Spatial Priority Setting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(7), pages 1-6, July.
    4. Keppel, Gunnar, 2014. "The importance of expert knowledge in conservation planning – Comment to an article by C.J. Klein et al," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 202-203.
    5. Roberts, Michaela & Cresswell, Will & Hanley, Nick, 2018. "Prioritising Invasive Species Control Actions: Evaluating Effectiveness, Costs, Willingness to Pay and Social Acceptance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 1-8.
    6. Robin Naidoo & Taylor H Ricketts, 2006. "Mapping the Economic Costs and Benefits of Conservation," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(11), pages 1-12, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:48:y:2014:i:c:p:204-205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.