Search

Policy guidelines for creating new protected areas commonly recommend larger protected areas be favored. We examine whether these recommendations are justified, providing the first evaluation of this question to use return-on-investment (ROI) methods that account for how protected area size influences multiple ecological benefits and the economic costs of protection. We examine areas acquired to protect forested ecosystems in the eastern US that are rich in endemic species. ROI analyses often alter recommendations about protected area size from those obtained when considering only ecological benefits or only economic costs. Large protected areas offer a greater ecological return per dollar invested if the goal of protecting sites is to reduce forest fragmentation on the wider landscape, whereas smaller sites offer a higher ROI when prioritizing sites offering protection to more species. A portfolio of site sizes may need to be included in protected area networks when multiple objectives motivate conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Protected areas anchor the ecological infrastructure that societies need for long-term prosperity and provide benefits to local, national, and global stakeholders. However, these areas continue to go unfunded. In this paper, we have provided the first estimate of the return on investment for nine large protected areas that compose the core of the ecological infrastructure of the State of Amapá, which is located in a new forest frontier in Brazilian Amazonia. These nine protected areas will require US $147.2 million over five years in order to be established and then US $32.7 million in annual recurrent costs. If implemented, these nine protected areas have the potential to contribute at least US $362.4 million per year in benefits (timber, non-timber forest products, nature-based tourism, fisheries, and carbon) to the local economy. The return on investment (ROI) of these protected areas will be 1.6% during the first five years and 10% thereafter; however, ROI could reach 45.8% or more if option and non-use values are also included as benefits. Although the costs of establishing the protected area system in Amapá are higher (US $3.2–3.5 ha − 1 y − 1 ) than the costs reported in other tropical forest regions (US $0.2–0.4 ha − 1 y − 1 ), the investments required are within the reach of both state and national governments. Our study shows that if fully implemented, protected areas can become engines for socio-economic upliftment, making the conservation-centered development model a feasible option for most of the world's new forest frontiers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Protected areas (including other effective area-based conservation measures) are a cornerstone of biodiversity conservation. Many countries are increasingly committed to expanding protected area coverage to 30%, which requires an increase in global annual spending from $24b to ~$140b (between $103b and $177b). We find that by trading nature-based carbon credits in voluntary carbon markets at the current average market price of $5 t−1CO 2 , 79 countries and territories can expand protected areas without capital deficit, together generate return on investments of $121b yr−1 and sequester 3 GtCO 2 eyr−1. Another 30 countries can meet at least half of their investment costs, and sequester an additional 2.8 GtCO 2 e yr−1. Additionally, we show that protection can extend to 33% of the Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) outside the existing protected area network. Our results point to the largely untapped potential of nature-based climate solutions to accelerate protected area expansion, thereby conserving biodiversity and mitigating climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Climate warming challenges our approach to building systems of protected areas because it is likely to drive accelerating shifts in species distributions, and the projections of those future species distributions are uncertain. There are several important sources of uncertainty intrinsic to using species occurrence projections for reserve system design including uncertainty in the number of occurrences captured by any reserve selection solution, and uncertainty arising from the different approaches used to fit predictive models. Here we used the present and future predicted distributions of Iberian herptiles to analyze how dynamics and uncertainty in species distributions may affect decisions about resource allocation for conservation in space and time. We identified priority areas maximizing coverage of current and future (2020 and 2080) predicted distributions of 65 species, under “Mild” and “Severe” uncertainty. Next, we applied a return-on-investment analysis to quantify and make explicit trade-offs between investing in areas selected when optimizing for different times and with different uncertainty levels. Areas identified as important for conservation in every time frame and uncertainty level were the ones considered to be robust climate adaptation investments, and included chiefly already protected areas. Areas identified only under “Mild” uncertainty were considered good candidates for investment if extra resources are available and were mainly located in northern Iberia. However, areas selected only in the “Severe” uncertainty case should not be completely disregarded as they may become climatic refugia for some species. Our study provides an objective methodology to deliver “no regrets” conservation investments. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Spatial variance in returns from natural resources, driven by resource dynamics and regulations, can have strong consequences for equitable delivery of value to individuals and communities. Yet resource management models implicitly weight returns equally across space, even when space is explicitly included in model dynamics and policy. Here we translate financial portfolio theory from the temporal to spatial realm and use it to quantify the inherent tradeoff between resource returns and social equity, defined as a more uniform distribution of resource value across space. We illustrate this approach with a marine case study of the Channel Islands, California, USA. Depending on the spatial distribution of resources, increasing spatial equity requires nonlinear reductions in resource returns. Realistic management options, such as effort-based fisheries regulations or marine protected areas, increase or reduce this tradeoff, respectively. We also quantify two critical advantages of portfolio approaches to management: they improve outcomes by avoiding false expectations and increase either resource return or social equity while maintaining the other. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Ecological and economic evaluation should be a key component of biodiversity conservation programmes since it underpins the efficient allocation of resources. However, most such programmes are not currently assessed in terms of the rate of return on investment that they provide. The UK Government launched the UK Biodiversity Action Plan in 1994. We collected data from those responsible for monitoring this programme, then used a form of cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate its effectiveness and efficiency at meeting the targets of individual Species Action Plans. In this context, effectiveness refers to the goal of maximising total conservation gains, whereas efficiency refers to maximising conservation gain per unit cost. We define the latter as a basic economic objective for conservation resource allocation. We find that the distribution of spending across plans was highly biased towards vertebrates and there was no correlation between cost and effectiveness. Non-vertebrate plans tended to be more efficient than vertebrate plans. However, following a species utility-based weighting, this tendency was less pronounced and a significant positive correlation between cost and effectiveness emerged. Nevertheless, this evidence suggests that the efficiency of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan could be improved by correcting the imbalance in spending between vertebrate and non-vertebrate plans. This study highlights the importance of effective monitoring and reporting in determining the utility of biodiversity conservation programmes. It demonstrates how explicit cost-effectiveness analysis can be used to evaluate such programmes, and shows that it could also be adapted to accommodate other forms of ecological and social value. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Robust evaluation of the impact of biodiversity conservation actions is important not only for ensuring that conservation strategies are effective and maximise return on investment, but also to identify and celebrate successful conservation strategies. This evaluation can be retrospective (comparing the current situation to a counterfactual scenario) or forward-looking (comparing future scenarios with or without conservation). However, assessment of impact using experimental or quasi-experimental designs is typically difficult in conservation, so rigorous inferential approaches are required. Inferential assessment of impact is a key part of the new IUCN Green Status of Species, which greatly amplifies the need for standardised and practical species impact evaluation methods. Here, we use the Green Status of Species method as a base to review how inferential methods can be used to evaluate conservation impact at the species level. We identify three key components of the inferential impact evaluation process—estimation of scenario outcomes, selection of baseline scenario, and frame of reference—and explain, with examples, how to reduce the subjectivity of these steps. We propose a step-by-step guide, incorporating these principles, that can be used to infer scenario outcomes in order to evaluate past and future conservation impact in a wide range of situations, not just Green Status of Species assessments. We recommend that future non-experimental conservation interventions facilitate the process of evaluating impact by identifying the variable(s) that will be used to measure impact at the design stage, and by using conceptual models to help choose conservation actions most likely to have the desired impact. • There is increasing need to evaluate the impact of conservation interventions. • Experimental designs provide strong evidence of impact, but are hard to implement. • We present a rigorous, yet feasible, method for inferential impact evaluation. • The new IUCN Green Status of Species involves past and future impact evaluation. • Methods apply to any inferential assessment of impact, including the Green Status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global conservation needs far exceed the available resources, so scarce resources must be used cost-effectively. Although many conservation priory-setting frameworks used by NGO’s or public agencies explicitly claim to emphasize efficiency or wise investment, none actually incorporates costs in a formal return-on-investment (ROI) framework. We illustrate here how an ROI framework can be applied to real world resource allocation decisions faced by conservation organizations. We present two examples: (1) allocating resources to purchase land in 21 ecoregions that make up the Temperate Forest Habitat in the US; (2) allocating resources among a variety of conservation actions (not just land purchase) in Mediterranean habitats, with rates of habitat loss factored into the analysis. An important feature of both case studies is that costs vary by orders of magnitude, depending on where or how one is doing conservation. Second, because costs and biodiversity are not well correlated, enormous savings are possible by applying an ROI analysis. Moreover, recommended priorities after including costs in the calculations often deviate substantially from priorities based solely on biodiversity measures. Hence we argue that a major effort of conservationist biologists should be to include and record the costs of conservation actions. If serious attention is not given to returns on investment, it implies that “money is no object.” [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Payment-for-results mechanisms have the potential to increase funding for Critically Endangered species such as the black rhino (Diceros bicornis). Developing such financial mechanisms requires an understanding of the efficacy of conservation interventions, the potential conservation return on investment and an ability to rigorously measure the impact of interventions, such as change in abundance of live or poached animals. However, imperfect detection must be considered to derive robust estimates of these measures. Managing black rhino is often done at the metapopulation level (in distinct management units) where ecological and observational processes can differ substantially between populations. We developed a multi-state capture-mark-resight model to estimate the abundance of live rhino and carcasses from annual historical observations. We used age, sex and management units as covariates. We used 25 years of monitoring data from two sections with contrasting rhino densities in Tsavo West National Park, Kenya as a test case. The model presented can be used to estimate abundances of rhino from historical data and provides a mechanism to measure changes across multiple management sections. We foresee this model being used as the basis for impact measurement of a rhino impact financing mechanism. The model can easily be modified for use in other species managed in a metapopulation framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The private wildlife sector in South Africa must demonstrate value in the face of political pressures for economic growth, job creation and food security. Through structured survey questionnaires of landowners and managers from 276 private wildlife ranches, we describe patterns of wildlife-based land uses (WBLUs), estimate their financial and social contributions and compare these with livestock farming. We show that 46% of surveyed properties combined wildlife with livestock, 86% conducted two or more WBLUs and 80% conducted consumptive use activities. Intensive breeding was conducted on 46% of properties and covered 5.1% of their total land area. Revenues were higher on wildlife only properties than livestock farms, but we were unable to compare the profitability of wildlife and livestock due to data gaps for livestock. Profits from WBLUs were highly variable, while mean return on investment (ROI) was 0.068. Wildlife properties employed more people per unit area than livestock farms, properties conducting ecotourism employed more than twice as many people as non-ecotourism properties, and biltong hunting properties employed 50% fewer people than non-biltong hunting properties. Mean game meat production on wildlife only properties was 4.07 kg/ha, while the top producers harvested game meat at a level comparable with some extensive livestock farms. We suggest that the financial and social benefits of wildlife ranching on marginal land make this a viable land use, but that the contributions towards biodiversity conservation need to be quantified. The South African model could be a suitable option for other African countries seeking sustainable land use alternatives. • 80% of private wildlife properties in South Africa conduct consumptive land uses • Intensive breeding covers 5% of the total land area of private wildlife properties • Profitability is highly variable between properties, with an average ROI of 0.068 • Wildlife properties employ more people per unit area than livestock farms • The private wildlife sector is a financially sustainable land use option on marginal land [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]