Figure 4: Financial and biodiversity consequences of different attitudes towards risk.
From: Factoring attitudes towards armed conflict risk into selection of protected areas for conservation
The x axis relates only to conflict-avoiding and conflict-sensitive strategies. Different lines represent different attitudes. Conflict ignorant represents the outcomes of basing conservation decisions only on biodiversity and cost data. Conflict avoiding represents the consequences of avoiding areas with greater than a maximum allowable risk. Under conflict accounting, the risk of conflict is incorporated into planning decisions along with biodiversity and cost data. A conflict-sensitive strategy represents a combination of the previous two attitudes to risk, areas with a conflict risk greater than a maximum tolerable level are avoided, and risk of conflict is accounted for in the remaining planning units. (a,b) Number of conservation targets met. (c,d) Total cost of the protected network in billions of USD. (e,f) Overall return on investment in terms of conservation targets met per billion USD. (g) Number of targets predicted to receive no protection under the two strategies where upper limits are set on maximal tolerable risk (conflict avoiding and conflict sensitive). Data show mean estimates and 95% confidence intervals in all panels except c,d and g, where no error estimates were produced as the data represent the output from the ‘best’ protected area network, and are not affected by probabilistic losses due to conflict.
