Literature DB >> 26460820

Constraints of philanthropy on determining the distribution of biodiversity conservation funding.

Eric R Larson1, Stephen Howell2, Peter Kareiva2, Paul R Armsworth3.   

Abstract

Caught between ongoing habitat destruction and funding shortfalls, conservation organizations are using systematic planning approaches to identify places that offer the highest biodiversity return per dollar invested. However, available tools do not account for the landscape of funding for conservation or quantify the constraints this landscape imposes on conservation outcomes. Using state-level data on philanthropic giving to and investments in land conservation by a large nonprofit organization, we applied linear regression to evaluate whether the spatial distribution of conservation philanthropy better explained expenditures on conservation than maps of biodiversity priorities, which were derived from a planning process internal to the organization and return on investment (ROI) analyses based on data on species richness, land costs, and existing protected areas. Philanthropic fund raising accounted for considerably more spatial variation in conservation spending (r(2) = 0.64) than either of the 2 systematic conservation planning approaches (r(2) = 0.08-0.21). We used results of one of the ROI analyses to evaluate whether increases in flexibility to reallocate funding across space provides conservation gains. Small but plausible "tax" increments of 1-10% on states redistributed to the optimal funding allocation from the ROI analysis could result in gains in endemic species protected of 8.5-80.2%. When such increases in spatial flexibility are not possible, conservation organizations should seek to cultivate increased support for conservation in priority locations. We used lagged correlations of giving to and spending by the organization to evaluate whether investments in habitat protection stimulate future giving to conservation. The most common outcome at the state level was that conservation spending quarters correlated significantly and positively with lagged fund raising quarters. In effect, periods of high fund raising for biodiversity followed (rather than preceded) periods of high expenditure on land conservation projects, identifying one mechanism conservation organizations could explore to seed greater activity in priority locations. Our results demonstrate how limitations on the ability of conservation organizations to reallocate their funding across space can impede organizational effectiveness and elucidate ways conservation planning tools could be more useful if they quantified and incorporated these constraints.
© 2015 Society for Conservation Biology.

Keywords:  fideicomiso de tierras; land trust; planeación sistemática de la conservación; prioritization; priorización; protected area; retorno de la inversión (RDI); return on investment (ROI); systematic conservation planning; área protegida

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26460820     DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12608

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  4 in total

1.  Setting priorities in biodiversity conservation: An exercise with students, recent graduates, and environmental managers in Brazil.

Authors:  Emanuelle Cordeiro Azevedo Souza; Enrico Bernard
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2018-11-17       Impact factor: 5.129

Review 2.  Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century.

Authors:  Sean L Maxwell; Victor Cazalis; Nigel Dudley; Michael Hoffmann; Ana S L Rodrigues; Sue Stolton; Piero Visconti; Stephen Woodley; Naomi Kingston; Edward Lewis; Martine Maron; Bernardo B N Strassburg; Amelia Wenger; Harry D Jonas; Oscar Venter; James E M Watson
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 69.504

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

4.  Estimating visitors' willingness to pay for a conservation fund: sustainable financing approach in protected areas in Ethiopia.

Authors:  Sintayehu Aynalem Aseres; Raminder Kaur Sira
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2020-08-27
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.