Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of conservation: The UK Biodiversity Action Plan

被引:54
|
作者
Laycock, Helen [1 ]
Moran, Dominic [2 ]
Smart, James [1 ]
Raffaelli, David [1 ]
White, Piran [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ York, Dept Environm, York YO10 5DD, N Yorkshire, England
[2] Scottish Agr Coll, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, Midlothian, Scotland
基金
英国自然环境研究理事会;
关键词
Economics; Efficiency; Evaluation; Interdisciplinary; Questionnaire; Targets; ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; MANAGEMENT; PRESERVATION; METAANALYSIS; EXTINCTION; ECONOMICS; SUCCESS; SCIENCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.biocon.2009.08.010
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Ecological and economic evaluation should be a key component of biodiversity conservation programmes since it underpins the efficient allocation of resources. However, most such programmes are not currently assessed in terms of the rate of return on investment that they provide. The UK Government launched the UK Biodiversity Action Plan in 1994. We collected data from those responsible for monitoring this programme, then used a form of cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate its effectiveness and efficiency at meeting the targets of individual Species Action Plans. In this context, effectiveness refers to the goal of maximising total conservation gains, whereas efficiency refers to maximising conservation gain per unit cost. We define the latter as a basic economic objective for conservation resource allocation. We find that the distribution of spending across plans was highly biased towards vertebrates and there was no correlation between cost and effectiveness. Non-vertebrate plans tended to be more efficient than vertebrate plans. However, following a species utility-based weighting, this tendency was less pronounced and a significant positive correlation between cost and effectiveness emerged. Nevertheless, this evidence suggests that the efficiency of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan could be improved by correcting the imbalance in spending between vertebrate and non-vertebrate plans. This study highlights the importance of effective monitoring and reporting in determining the utility of biodiversity conservation programmes. It demonstrates how explicit cost-effectiveness analysis can be used to evaluate such programmes, and shows that it could also be adapted to accommodate other forms of ecological and social value. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:3120 / 3127
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] CT colonography and cost-effectiveness
    Ifigeneia Mavranezouli
    James E. East
    Stuart A. Taylor
    European Radiology, 2008, 18
  • [22] Assessing the Cost of Global Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge
    Juffe-Bignoli, Diego
    Brooks, Thomas M.
    Butchart, Stuart H. M.
    Jenkins, Richard B.
    Boe, Kaia
    Hoffmann, Michael
    Angulo, Ariadne
    Bachman, Steve
    Bohm, Monika
    Brummitt, Neil
    Carpenter, Kent E.
    Comer, Pat J.
    Cox, Neil
    Cuttelod, Annabelle
    Darwall, William R. T.
    Di Marco, Moreno
    Fishpool, Lincoln D. C.
    Goettsch, Barbara
    Heath, Melanie
    Hilton-Taylor, Craig
    Hutton, Jon
    Johnson, Tim
    Joolia, Ackbar
    Keith, David A.
    Langhammer, Penny F.
    Luedtke, Jennifer
    Lughadha, Eimear Nic
    Lutz, Maiko
    May, Ian
    Miller, Rebecca M.
    Oliveira-Mrinda, Maria A.
    Parr, Mike
    Pollock, Caroline M.
    Ralph, Gina
    Rodriguez, Jon Paul
    Rondinini, Carlo
    Smart, Jane
    Stuart, Simon
    Symes, Andy
    Tordoff, Andrew W.
    Woodley, Stephen
    Young, Bruce
    Kingston, Naomi
    PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (08):
  • [23] HEALTH PROMOTION AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS
    COHEN, D
    HEALTH PROMOTION INTERNATIONAL, 1994, 9 (04) : 281 - 287
  • [24] A network of monitoring networks for evaluating biodiversity conservation effectiveness in Brazilian protected areas
    Roque, Fabio de Oliveira
    Uehara-Prado, Marcio
    Valente-Neto, Francisco
    Ochoa Quintero, Jose Manuel
    Ribeiro, Katia Torres
    Martins, Marlucia Bonifacio
    de Lima, Marcelo Goncalves
    Souza, Franco L.
    Fischer, Erich
    da Silva, Urbano Lopes, Jr.
    Ishida, Francoise Yoko
    Gray-Spence, Andrew
    Pereira Pinto, Joao Onofre
    Ribeiro, Danilo Bandini
    Martins, Clarissa de Araujo
    Renaud, Pierre Cyril
    Pays, Olivier
    Magnusson, William E.
    PERSPECTIVES IN ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION, 2018, 16 (04) : 177 - 185
  • [25] Conserving biodiversity takes a plan: How planners implement ecological information for biodiversity conservation
    Gagne, Sara A.
    Bryan-Scaggs, Kaitlynn
    Boyer, Robert H. W.
    Xiang, Wei-Ning
    AMBIO, 2020, 49 (09) : 1490 - 1505
  • [26] Cost-effectiveness analysis of burning mouth syndrome therapy
    Hens, Manuel J.
    Alonso-Ferreira, Veronica
    Villaverde-Hueso, Ana
    Abaitua, Ignacio
    Posada de la Paz, Manuel
    COMMUNITY DENTISTRY AND ORAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2012, 40 (02) : 185 - 192
  • [27] Cost-effectiveness analysis of fracture liaison services in Catalonia
    Suris, X.
    Pueyo-Sanchez, M. J.
    Ricart, A.
    Naranjo, A.
    Casanova, T.
    Gomez-Vaquero, C.
    Duaso, E.
    Cancio-Trujillo, J. M.
    Sanchez-Martin, J.
    Perez-Mitru, A.
    JOURNAL OF HEALTHCARE QUALITY RESEARCH, 2024, 39 (04) : 205 - 213
  • [28] The cost-effectiveness of interventions in diabetes: A review of published economic evaluations in the UK setting, with an eye on the future
    Tucker, Daniel M. D.
    Palmer, Andrew J.
    PRIMARY CARE DIABETES, 2011, 5 (01) : 9 - 17
  • [29] Transaction Costs, Participation, and the Cost-Effectiveness of Reverse Auctions: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment
    Li, Tongzhe
    Palm-Forster, Leah H.
    Bhuiyanmishu, Siddika
    ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2025, 88 (02) : 397 - 424
  • [30] Evaluation of cost-effectiveness of conservation buffer placement strategies in a river basin
    Qiu, Z.
    Hall, C.
    Hale, K.
    JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION, 2009, 64 (05) : 293 - 302