Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in assessing the cost-effectiveness of biodiversity conservation programmes

Abstract

Globally, most biodiversity conservation programmes are not currently evaluated in terms of their costs and benefits, or their rate of return on the original investment. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of such schemes is challenging as the relationship between spending and the effectiveness of conservation is dependent on many biological and socioeconomic factors. Here, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a selection of species and habitat conservation schemes undertaken through the Scotland Rural Development Programme. We use a combination of quantitative and qualitative data, based on expert knowledge, to estimate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different schemes and understand variations in the results. Our findings highlight a lack of geographical targeting in terms of where the funding might achieve the most conservation benefit, which may be contributing to high costs per unit of effectiveness. Recommendations include the need for improved advice on appropriate management and monitoring programmes that are linked closely to objectives. Conservation schemes within Scotland were used as the focus of the study, but the approaches used, interpretations drawn and improvements identified could be applied to any regional, national or international biodiversity conservation programmes. 123Biodivers Conserv (2015) 24:1359-1375 DOI 10.1007 Cost and effectiveness data can be subject to a high degree of uncertainty and hence any cost-effectiveness estimate is subject to a number of caveats. There is therefore a need to focus not only on improving the cost-effectiveness of biodiversity conservation programmes, but also to improve the robustness of cost-effectiveness assessments, in terms of data availability and accuracy and improved monitoring of the outcomes of interventions.

“Conservation value”: a review of the concept and its quantification

“…Quantitative CV assessments together with qualitative data are more likely to support decision making as they could combine useful metrics with knowledge on the ecological, political, and socioeconomic factors that can influence the success of conservation projects (Austin et al. ). Lastly, CV metrics could potentially stand as ecological indicators—understood as “a component or measure of environmentally relevant phenomena used to depict or evaluate environmental conditions or changes, or to set environmental goals” (Heink and Kowarik )—although they might not have been considered as such by the authors.…”

The importance of phenotypic diversity in conservation: Resilience of palmate newt morphotypes after fish removal in Larzac ponds (France)

“…Because of funding and logistic constraints, priorities are needed (Restani and Marzluff 2001). Determining the effectiveness of actions is a valuable pre-requisite to justify managements and obtain supports from conservation and governmental agencies (Austin et al 2015). Showing resilience of common and rare target organisms subsequently to threat removal is one of the key points in this context.…”

Priority Threat Management for biodiversity conservation: A handbook

“…The project could be designed with the same performance measure for benefits and cobenefits so that cost‐effectiveness can be assessed across all biodiversity and cobenefits together. However, defining a performance measure for diverse types of benefits can be challenging and requires an additional assumption about the relative importance of each benefit type (Austin et al., ; Hajkowicz, McDonald, & Smith, ). A second option, which we have focused on in previous case studies, is to provide an understanding into which strategies have cobenefits that align with local priorities and values, making them more appealing to particular managers or decision makers (Austin et al., ).…”