Optimality in prioritizing conservation projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The resources available to safeguard biodiversity are limited, and so funding must be allocated cost‐effectively. To achieve this, conservation projects—such as threatened species recovery projects, or pest management projects—are often prioritized using algorithms. Conventionally, prioritizations have been generated by ranking projects according to their cost‐effectiveness and selecting the top projects within a budget, or using backwards heuristic algorithms which iteratively remove projects until a budget is met. Yet such algorithms may not deliver optimal solutions. We investigated the performance of exact algorithms, a class of algorithms that guarantee optimality, compared with conventional algorithms for project prioritization. Specifically, we conducted a simulation study, involving 40 conservation projects, 50 species, and 80 management actions, and a case study involving recovery projects for 62 of New Zealand’s threatened bird species. In each of these studies, we generated prioritizations by (i) exact algorithms, (ii) ranking projects using cost‐effectiveness, (iii) a backwards heuristic algorithm, and (iv) randomly funding projects. After generating the prioritizations, we evaluated their performance. We found that exact algorithms outperform conventional algorithms for project prioritization. In the simulation study, both the ranking and backwards heuristic algorithms returned solutions that were highly suboptimal when compared with solutions by exact algorithms. In the case study, both conventional algorithms returned solutions that would be expected to result in the needless loss of millions of years of avian evolutionary history due to poor planning. Furthermore, conventional algorithms returned solutions with large amounts of unallocated funding—providing little guidance for decision makers. Despite concerns that exact algorithm solvers require an inordinate amount of time, the longest run in either study took less than three minutes. Our results suggest that conservation agencies could benefit enormously from exact algorithms. To help make exact algorithms more accessible, we developed theoppr Rpackage ( https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=oppr ) which can use open‐source and commercial exact algorithm solvers to identify optimal solutions for a range of objectives and constraints. Our findings suggest that conservation plans could be substantially improved using exact algorithms, which could potentially save millions of dollars and lead to more species being saved from extinction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".