Biological and operational determinants of the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation programs

Abstract Context. Comprehensive evaluation of biodiversity conservation programs is essential for informing their development as well as the design of future programs. Such evaluations should not be limited to whether targets have been met, but should also assess the cost and efficiency of meeting targets, and any factors contributing to success or failure. Aims. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of individual-species conservation programs, and the biological and operational factors affecting these. We used the species action plans (SAPs) within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan as our case study. Methods. We used cost–effectiveness analysis, cost–utility analysis and threat-reduction assessment to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of individual SAPs. Then we used statistical models to investigate the relative importance of biological and operational factors affecting cost, effectiveness and efficiency. Key results. Conservation plan success was affected by both biological and operational factors. Invertebrate plans tended to be less effective, whereas vertebrate plans were less efficient. Plans for widely distributed species with longer generation times tended to be less efficient. Of the three different evaluation approaches, cost-effectiveness analysis offered the best combination of ease of data collection and accuracy of data content. Conclusions. The most successful SAPs concerned species with short generation times and narrow distributions. Operationally, the most successful SAPs were concise and focussed and showed clear lines of responsibility for implementation. Implications. Techniques such as cost–effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and threat reduction assessment should be used to inform decisions on maximising the rate of return on conservation investments, although broader ecological implications and socio-cultural benefits should also be considered. The success of conservation plans is influenced by both biological and operational factors. Because biological factors cannot be controlled or altered, where species exhibit characteristics that are likely to make their conservation less effective or efficient, it is critical that operational factors are optimised. High-quality data are necessary to underpin prioritisation decisions, and monitoring to deliver reliable data on both the benefits and costs of conservation should form a core component of conservation programs.

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

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

[3]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Prioritizing Land and Sea Conservation Investments to Protect Coral Reefs , 2010, PloS one.

[4]  P. Kareiva,et al.  How Good Are Endangered Species Recovery Plans? , 2001 .

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

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

[7]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Does recovery planning improve the status of threatened species , 2011 .

[8]  J. Davidson,et al.  Conserving biodiversity: the UK approach. , 2007 .

[9]  Devra G. Kleiman,et al.  Improving the Evaluation of Conservation Programs , 2000 .

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

[11]  R. Fraser,et al.  A method for evaluating alternative landscape management scenarios in relation to the biodiversity conservation of habitats , 2007 .

[12]  N. Hanley,et al.  Assessing the success of agri-environmental policy in the UK , 1999 .

[13]  HighWire Press Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London , 1781, The London Medical Journal.

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

[15]  Amy L. Freestone,et al.  Reorienting Systematic Conservation Assessment for Effective Conservation Planning , 2011, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[16]  Dominic Moran,et al.  Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation spending , 2011 .

[17]  J. Rachlinski,et al.  The Effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: A Quantitative Analysis , 2005 .

[18]  D. Fink,et al.  Jurisdiction Over Endangered Species' Habitat: the Impacts of People and Property on Recovery Planning , 2002 .

[19]  Liana N. Joseph,et al.  Optimal Allocation of Resources among Threatened Species: a Project Prioritization Protocol , 2009, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

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

[21]  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 .

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

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

[24]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Linking cost efficiency evaluation with population viability analysis to prioritize wetland bird conservation actions , 2011 .

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

[26]  H. Kujala,et al.  Costs of Integrating Economics and Conservation Planning , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

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

[28]  G. Gilbert Linear Mixed Models: A Practical Guide Using Statistical Software , 2008 .

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

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

[31]  Anni Arponen,et al.  Governance factors in the identification of global conservation priorities for mammals , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[32]  K. Gaston,et al.  Integrating Costs of Conservation into InternationalPriority Setting , 2000 .

[33]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Prioritizing conservation investments for mammal species globally , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

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

[35]  P. Kareiva,et al.  Improving U.S. Endangered Species Act Recovery Plans: Key Findings and Recommendations of the SCB Recovery Plan Project , 2002 .

[36]  Authorship and the Use of Biological Information in Endangered Species Recovery Plans , 2001 .