Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation spending

Evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency should be an integral component of biodiversity conservation strategies. We used Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA) and Threat Reduction Assessment (TRA) to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of individual Species Action Plans (SAPs) with regard to improving conservation status and reducing threats within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Spending was highly biassed towards vertebrates, in particular mammals and birds. Of 38 fully-costed SAPs, the top five most expensive SAPs accounted for almost 80% of the total money spent. Just over half of the SAPs studied had improved the conservation status of the species concerned, and one third of SAPs achieved at least a 50% reduction in threats. SAP cost was significantly positively related to improvement in conservation status but unrelated to threat reduction for that species. Effectiveness and efficiency were significantly correlated with one another in terms of threat reduction for different species, but there was no correlation between effectiveness and efficiency in terms of improving conservation status. Although conservation decisions should not be made solely on the outcome of such analyses, CUA and TRA can provide an important contribution to the evidence base to inform the development of more effective and efficient conservation strategies.

[1]  K. Hughey,et al.  Cost effectiveness of endangered species management: the kokako (Callaeas cinerea) in New Zealand , 2004 .

[2]  Kenneth F. D. Hughey,et al.  COPY: A new technique for evaluation of biodiversity protection projects , 1999 .

[3]  K. Hughey,et al.  Measuring the success and cost effectiveness of New Zealand multiple-species projects to the conservation of threatened species , 2005 .

[4]  J. Bergh,et al.  Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense? , 2001 .

[5]  Mark W. Milke,et al.  Quantitative decision tools for conservation programme planning: practice, theory and potential , 1999, Environmental Conservation.

[6]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Prioritizing global conservation efforts , 2006, Nature.

[7]  J. Greenwood,et al.  Comparative Losses of British Butterflies, Birds, and Plants and the Global Extinction Crisis , 2004, Science.

[8]  N. Hockley.  No shortcuts to prioritising conservation funding , 2010 .

[9]  Dominic Moran,et al.  Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of conservation: the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. , 2009 .

[10]  E. Bulte,et al.  Economic Science, Endangered Species, and Biodiversity Loss , 2000 .

[11]  M. Bean,et al.  Measuring progress in US endangered species conservation. , 2005, Ecology letters.

[12]  Robert E. Wright,et al.  Valuing the diversity of biodiversity , 2006 .

[13]  農林水産奨励会農林水産政策情報センター,et al.  The green book : appraisal and evaluation in central government , 2003 .

[14]  Craig R. Miller,et al.  The Endangered Species Act: Dollars and Sense? , 2002 .

[15]  Nancy Jennings,et al.  REVIEW: Questionnaires in ecology: a review of past use and recommendations for best practice , 2005 .

[16]  D. Pearce,et al.  Global biodiversity priorities: A cost-effectiveness index for investments , 1996 .

[17]  C. S. Holling.  Cross-Scale Morphology, Geometry, and Dynamics of Ecosystems , 1992 .

[18]  Andrew Metrick,et al.  Patterns of Behavior in Biodiversity Preservation , 1994 .

[19]  J. Shogren,et al.  Economics of the Endangered Species Act , 1998 .

[20]  T. Caro,et al.  On the Use of Surrogate Species in Conservation Biology , 1999 .

[21]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Maximizing return on investment in conservation , 2007 .

[22]  Ronald E. Hester,et al.  Issues in environmental science and technology , 1994 .

[23]  Subhrendu K. Pattanayak,et al.  Money for Nothing? A Call for Empirical Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation Investments , 2006, PLoS biology.

[24]  P. White,et al.  The use of willingness‐to‐pay approaches in mammal conservation , 2001 .

[25]  Martin Solan,et al.  Chapter 2:Ecosystem Services and Policy: A Review of Coastal Wetland Ecosystem Services and an Efficiency-Based Framework for Implementing the Ecosystem Approach , 2010 .

[26]  Ross Cullen,et al.  Integrating Economics into Priority Setting and Evaluation in Conservation Management , 2003 .

[27]  A. Hendriks,et al.  The power of size: A meta-analysis reveals consistency of allometric regressions , 2007 .

[28]  J. Marzluff,et al.  Funding Extinction? Biological Needs and Political Realities in the Allocation of Resources to Endangered Species Recovery , 2002 .

[29]  Richard Margoluis,et al.  Threat Reduction Assessment: a Practical and Cost‐Effective Approach to Evaluating Conservation and Development Projects , 1999 .

[30]  Ross Cullen,et al.  Measuring the productivity of threatened-species programs , 2001 .

[31]  Piran C. L. White,et al.  Economic values of threatened mammals in Britain: A case study of the otter Lutra lutra and the water vole Arvicola terrestris , 1997 .

[32]  D. Moran,et al.  The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in conservation decision-making , 2010 .