SummaryConsensus does not exist for which cost forms (i.e., one accounting solely for explicit cost and the other for both explicit and opportunity costs as in relative opportunity cost) are used in calculating return on investment (ROI) for conservation-related decisions. This research examines how the cost of conservation investment with and without inclusion of the opportunity cost of the protected area results in different solutions in a multi-objective optimization framework at the county level in the Central and Southern Appalachian Region of the USA. We maximize rates of ROI of both forest-dependent biodiversity and economic impact generated by forest-based payments for ecosystem services. We find that the conservation budget is optimally distributed more narrowly among counties that are more likely to be rural when the investment cost measure is relative opportunity cost than when it is explicit cost. We also find that the sacrifice in forest-dependent biodiversity per unit increase in economic impact is higher when investment cost is measured by relative opportunity cost rather than when measured by explicit cost. By understanding the consequences of using one cost measure over the other, a conservation agency can decide on which cost measure is more appropriate for informing the agency’s decision-making process.

中文翻译：

---

了解机会成本如何影响中部和南部阿巴拉契亚地区（美国）的多目标保护投资

总结对于在计算保护相关决策的投资回报 (ROI) 时使用哪种成本形式（即一种仅考虑显性成本，另一种考虑显性成本和机会成本，如相对机会成本），尚无共识。本研究探讨了在美国中部和南部阿巴拉契亚地区县级多目标优化框架中，考虑和不考虑保护区机会成本的保护投资成本如何导致不同的解决方案。我们最大化依赖森林的生物多样性和以森林为基础的生态系统服务支付产生的经济影响的投资回报率。我们发现，与显性成本相比，当投资成本衡量相对机会成本时，保护预算在更有可能成为农村地区的县之间分配得更窄。我们还发现，当投资成本以相对机会成本而非显性成本衡量时，每单位经济影响增加对依赖森林的生物多样性造成的牺牲更高。通过了解使用一种成本措施相对于另一种成本措施的后果，保护机构可以决定哪种成本措施更适合为机构的决策过程提供信息。我们还发现，当投资成本以相对机会成本而非显性成本衡量时，每单位经济影响增加对依赖森林的生物多样性造成的牺牲更高。通过了解使用一种成本措施相对于另一种成本措施的后果，保护机构可以决定哪种成本措施更适合为机构的决策过程提供信息。我们还发现，当投资成本以相对机会成本而非显性成本衡量时，每单位经济影响增加对依赖森林的生物多样性造成的牺牲更高。通过了解使用一种成本措施相对于另一种成本措施的后果，保护机构可以决定哪种成本措施更适合为机构的决策过程提供信息。