Gaps and Mismatches between Global Conservation Priorities and Spending

Halpern, Benjamin S.; Pyke, Christopher R.; Fox, Helen E.; Haney, Jennifer; Schlaepfer, Martin A.; Zaradic, Patricia A.

doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00258.x

Cited by 132 publications

(118 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The identification and prioritization of global conservation networks are a major focus of conservation dollars (73). However, rankings inherently depend on the currency used to evaluate regions.…”

Section: Setting Priorities Among Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogenetic trees and the future of mammalian biodiversity

Davies

Fritz²,

Grenyer

et al. 2008

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

135

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phylogenies describe the origins and history of species. However, they can also help to predict species' fates and so can be useful tools for managing the future of biodiversity. This article starts by sketching how phylogenetic, geographic, and trait information can be combined to elucidate present mammalian diversity patterns and how they arose. Recent diversification rates and standing diversity show different geographic patterns, indicating that cradles of diversity have moved over time. Patterns in extinction risk reflect both biological differences among mammalian lineages and differences in threat intensity among regions. Phylogenetic comparative analyses indicate that for small-bodied mammals, extinction risk is governed mostly by where the species live and the intensity of the threats, whereas for large-bodied mammals, ecological differences also play an important role. This modeling approach identifies species whose intrinsic biology renders them particularly vulnerable to increased human pressure. We outline how the approach might be extended to consider future trends in anthropogenic drivers, to identify likely future battlegrounds of mammalian conservation, and the likely casualties. This framework could help to highlight consequences of choosing among different future climatic and socioeconomic scenarios. We end by discussing priority-setting, showing how alternative currencies for diversity can suggest very different priorities. We argue that aiming to maximize long-term evolutionary responses is inappropriate, that conservation planning needs to consider costs as well as benefits, and that proactive conservation of largely intact systems should be part of a balanced strategy. extinction risk ͉ latent risk ͉ mammals T he Tree of Life-phylogeny-is a powerful metaphor for life's diversity, showing all species, including our own, as part of an interrelated whole. But phylogeny is more than a metaphor. It is also a research tool-the result of evolutionary processes integrated over the history of life, it can be analyzed for insights into how those processes have shaped today's biota (1). This approach is becoming increasingly powerful as the trees become ever more inclusive, built from rapidly accumulating databases using methods that continue to be improved (2, 3).Species' histories are of interest, but their futures are of more pressing concern. The Tree of Life is currently under sustained attack, as people increasingly dominate landscapes (4). Comparisons of extinction rates between today and geological history are difficult for many reasons (5), but the Tree of Life is already being pruned more quickly than it is growing (6), and extinction rates are projected to rise by at least another order of magnitude over the next centuries (7). This article describes how phylogeny has a role to play in understanding the pattern of survivors and casualties and how it can help us both to predict species' futures and to estimate some of the biodiversity value that would be lost if they went extinct.We focus o...

show abstract

Section: Setting Priorities Among Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogenetic trees and the future of mammalian biodiversity

Davies

Fritz²,

Grenyer

et al. 2008

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

135

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…C urrently, the majority of conservation programs are applied at national and subnational scales (1,2), but global and regional coordination is becoming more common (3). Increasingly, both government and nongovernment organizations spend resources outside their country of origin, reflecting an internationalization of conservation efforts (1,4).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Between-country collaboration and consideration of costs increase conservation planning efficiency in the Mediterranean Basin

Kark

Levin

Grantham

et al. 2009

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

176

204

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of global and regional coordination in conservation is growing, although currently, the majority of conservation programs are applied at national and subnational scales. Nevertheless, multinational programs incur transaction costs and resources beyond what is required in national programs. Given the need to maximize returns on investment within limited conservation budgets, it is crucial to quantify how much more biodiversity can be protected by coordinating multinational conservation efforts when resources are fungible. Previous studies that compared different scales of conservation decision-making mostly ignored spatial variability in biodiversity threats and the cost of actions. Here, we developed a simple integrating metric, taking into account both the cost of conservation and threats to biodiversity. We examined the Mediterranean Basin biodiversity hotspot, which encompasses over 20 countries. We discovered that for vertebrates to achieve similar conservation benefits, one would need substantially more money and area if each country were to act independently as compared to fully coordinated action across the Basin. A fully coordinated conservation plan is expected to save approximately US$67 billion, 45% of total cost, compared with the uncoordinated plan; and if implemented over a 10-year period, the plan would cost Ϸ0.1% of the gross national income of all European Union (EU) countries annually. The initiative declared in the recent Paris Summit for the Mediterranean provides a political basis for such complex coordination. Surprisingly, because many conservation priority areas selected are located in EU countries, a partly coordinated solution incorporating only EU-Mediterranean countries is almost as efficient as the fully coordinated scenario. biodiversity costs ͉ complementarity ͉ vertebrates

show abstract

“…Only a few studies examine conservation spending (Halpern et al 2006;Lerner et al 2007;Underwood et al 2008), and ours is the first to look simultaneously at both measures of conservation effort by a major conservation NGO. The overall area protected is correlated with overall spend- Table 2 The 95% confidence set of models of spatial variation in hectares protected by The Nature Conservancy in the United States at the state level (n = 48).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, studying conservation allocation decisions at a finer spatial resolution, while informative, would necessarily provide an incomplete picture of the allocation decisions that TNC faces. By focusing on the state level, our study nests between studies of conservation allocation decisions at whole country or ecoregion scales (O'Connor et al 2003;Halpern et al 2006;Bode et al 2008) and more localized studies of allocation decisions within a particular state that focus on county-level spending patterns (Underwood et al 2008).…”

Section: Scale Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

State‐level variation in conservation investment by a major nongovernmental organization

Fishburn

Kareiva

Gaston

et al. 2009

Conservation Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Few empirical studies examine how conservation organizations distribute the resources that they have available for habitat conservation, despite numerous theoretical studies that recommend how these resources should be directed. Here we examine the distribution of conservation investments made over 49 years by a major conservation nongovernmental organization (NGO), The Nature Conservancy (TNC). We measured the level of conservation effort across U.S. states by the area protected and the upfront cost of protection, accounting for easements and land acquisitions. While correlated, we show that two measures of conservation effort (area and amount invested) cannot be used as reliable proxies for one another. The distributions of both measures of conservation effort are explained by combinations of one biological (species richness) and three socioeconomic (land price, rate of development and action of other NGOs) factors, revealing a generally strategic pattern of investment by TNC. Finally, we identify examples of underinvestment in particular states by TNC.

show abstract

Gaps and Mismatches between Global Conservation Priorities and Spending

Cited by 132 publications

References 21 publications

Phylogenetic trees and the future of mammalian biodiversity

Phylogenetic trees and the future of mammalian biodiversity

Between-country collaboration and consideration of costs increase conservation planning efficiency in the Mediterranean Basin

State‐level variation in conservation investment by a major nongovernmental organization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About