Literature DB >> 24308886

Benefits of the ballot box for species conservation.

Kailin Kroetz1, James N Sanchirico, Paul R Armsworth, H Spencer Banzhaf.   

Abstract

Recent estimates reaffirm that conservation funds are insufficient to meet biodiversity conservation goals. Organisations focused on biodiversity conservation therefore need to capitalise on investments that societies make in environmental protection that provide ancillary benefits to biodiversity. Here, we undertake the first assessment of the potential ancillary benefits from the ballot box in the United States, where citizens vote on referenda to conserve lands for reasons that may not include biodiversity directly but that indirectly might enhance biodiversity conservation. Our results suggest that referenda occur in counties with significantly greater biodiversity than counties chosen at random. We also demonstrate that large potential gains for conservation are possible if the past and likely future outcomes of these ballot box measures are directly incorporated into national-scale conservation planning efforts. The possible synergies between ballot box measures and other biodiversity conservation efforts offer an under-utilised resource for supporting conservation.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd/CNRS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biodiversity; conservation; conservation movement; endangered species; integer programming; open space; referenda; reserve site selection

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24308886     DOI: 10.1111/ele.12230

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Lett        ISSN: 1461-023X            Impact factor:   9.492


  3 in total

1.  Effective conservation requires clear objectives and prioritizing actions, not places or species.

Authors:  Christopher J Brown; Michael Bode; Oscar Venter; Megan D Barnes; Jennifer McGowan; Claire A Runge; James E M Watson; Hugh P Possingham
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-08-03       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Citizens of local jurisdictions enhance plant community preservation through ballot initiatives and voter-driven conservation efforts.

Authors:  Benjamin J Crain; Chad Stachowiak; Patrick F McKenzie; James N Sanchirico; Kailin Kroetz; Paul R Armsworth
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2021-02-14       Impact factor: 6.943

3.  Factoring economic costs into conservation planning may not improve agreement over priorities for protection.

Authors:  Paul R Armsworth; Heather B Jackson; Seong-Hoon Cho; Melissa Clark; Joseph E Fargione; Gwenllian D Iacona; Taeyoung Kim; Eric R Larson; Thomas Minney; Nathan A Sutton
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 17.694

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.