Diminishing return on investment for biodiversity data in conservation planning

被引：116

作者：

Grantham, Hedley S. ^{[1
]}

Moilanen, Atte ^{[2
]}

Wilson, Kerrie A. ^{[1
,3
]}

Pressey, Robert L. ^{[1
,4
]}

Rebelo, Tony G. ^{[5
]}

Possingham, Hugh P. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Univ Queensland, Ctr Ecol, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia

[2] Univ Helsinki, Dept Biol & Environm Sci, Bioctr 3, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland

[3] Nature Conservancy, Australia Program Off, Melbourne, Vic 3053, Australia

[4] James Cook Univ, Ctr Excellence Coral Reef Studies, Australian Res Council, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia

[5] S African Natl Biodivers Inst, ZA-0001 Pretoria, South Africa

来源：

CONSERVATION LETTERS | 2008年 / 1卷 / 04期

基金：

芬兰科学院; 澳大利亚研究理事会;

关键词：

Biodiversity assessment; dynamic conservation planning; land-use modeling; resource allocation;

D O I：

10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00029.x

中图分类号：

X176 [生物多样性保护];

学科分类号：

090705 ;

摘要：

It is generally assumed that gathering more data is a good investment for conservation planning. However, the benefits of additional data have seldom been evaluated by analyzing the return on investment. If there are diminishing returns in terms of improved planning, then resources might be better directed toward other actions, depending on their relative costs and benefits. Our aim was to determine the return on investment from spending different amounts on survey data before undertaking a program of implementing new protected areas. We estimated how much protea data is obtained as a function of dollars invested in surveying. We then simulated incremental protection and loss of habitat to determine the benefit of investment in that data on the protection of proteas. We found that, after an investment of only US$ 100,000 (similar to 780,000 South Africa Rand [ZAR]), there was little increase in the effectiveness of conservation prioritizations, despite the full data set costing at least 25 times that amount.

引用

页码：190 / 198

页数：9

共 44 条

[1] Umbrellas and flagships: Efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? [J].

Andelman, SJ ;

Fagan, WF .

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2000, 97 (11) :5954-5959

[2] The value of biodiversity in reserve selection: Representation, species weighting, and benefit functions [J].

Arponen, A ;

Heikkinen, RK ;

Thomas, CD ;

Moilanen, A .

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2005, 19 (06) :2009-2014

[3] Why biodiversity surveys are good value [J].

Balmford, A ;

Gaston, KJ .

NATURE, 1999, 398 (6724) :204-205

[4]

Biggs R, 2002, S AFR J SCI, V98, P420

[5] Species, data, and conservation planning [J].

Brooks, T ;

da Fonseca, GAB ;

Rodrigues, ASL .

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2004, 18 (06) :1682-1688

[6] The questionable effectiveness of science spending by international conservation organizations in the tropics [J].

Cleary, D .

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2006, 20 (03) :733-738

[7] Social assessment as a key to conservation success [J].

Cowling, Richard M. ;

Wilhelm-Rechmann, Angelika .

ORYX, 2007, 41 (02) :135-136

[8] Introduction to systematic conservation planning in the Cape Floristic Region [J].

Cowling, RM ;

Pressey, RL .

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2003, 112 (1-2) :1-13

[9] The identification of Broad Habitat Units as biodiversity entities for systematic conservation planning in the Cape Floristic Region [J].

Cowling, RM ;

Heijnis, CE .

SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY, 2001, 67 (01) :15-38

[10]

COWLING RM, 1999, FRAMEWORK CONSERVATI

← 1 2 3 4 5 →