Constraints of philanthropy on determining the distribution of biodiversity conservation funding

被引:31
作者
Larson, Eric R. [1 ]
Howell, Stephen [2 ]
Kareiva, Peter [2 ]
Armsworth, Paul R. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Dept Nat Resources & Environm Sci, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
[2] Nature Conservancy, 4245 Fairfax Dr, Arlington, VA 22203 USA
[3] Univ Tennessee, Dept Ecol & Evolutionary Biol, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA
关键词
land trust; prioritization; protected area; return on investment (ROI); systematic conservation planning; MAXIMIZING RETURN; INVESTMENT; PRIORITIES; PATTERNS; AREAS; BENEFITS; COSTS; SIZE;
D O I
10.1111/cobi.12608
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:206 / 215
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
[31]   The distribution and conservation of areas with microendemic species in a biodiversity hotspot: a multi-taxa approach [J].
Araujo, Helder F. P. de ;
Machado, Celia C. C. ;
Silva, Jose Maria Cardoso da .
PEERJ, 2024, 12
[32]   Refining biodiversity conservation priorities [J].
Harris, GM ;
Jenkins, CN ;
Pimm, SL .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2005, 19 (06) :1957-1968
[33]   Distribution parameters of large mammals and conservation management in an Afrotropical forest landscape and biodiversity hotspot [J].
Kupsch, Denis ;
Bobo, Kadiri Serge .
AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, 2024, 62 (02)
[34]   On biodiversity conservation and poverty traps [J].
Barrett, Christopher B. ;
Travis, Alexander J. ;
Dasgupta, Partha .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2011, 108 (34) :13907-13912
[35]   Biodiversity Conservation in Local Planning [J].
Miller, James R. ;
Groom, Martha ;
Hess, George R. ;
Steelman, Toddi ;
Stokes, David L. ;
Thompson, Jan ;
Bowman, Troy ;
Fricke, Laura ;
King, Brandon ;
Marquardt, Ryan .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2009, 23 (01) :53-63
[36]   Multiplying the impact of conservation funding using spatial exchange rates [J].
Armsworth, Paul R. ;
Dilkina, Bistra ;
Fargione, Joe ;
Fisher, Maria ;
Fovargue, Rachel ;
Harris, Jamal ;
Jackson, Heather B. ;
Le Bouille, Diane ;
Nolte, Christoph ;
Richards, Casey .
FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 2023, 21 (10) :489-497
[37]   Summer vs. winter: Examining the temporal distribution of avian biodiversity to inform conservation [J].
Dybala, Kristen E. ;
Truan, Melanie L. ;
Engilis, Andrew, Jr. .
CONDOR, 2015, 117 (04) :560-576
[38]   Aquatic biodiversity in Europe: a unique dataset on the distribution of Trichoptera species with important implications for conservation [J].
Schmidt-Kloiber, Astrid ;
Neu, Peter J. ;
Malicky, Michael ;
Pletterbauer, Florian ;
Malicky, Hans ;
Graf, Wolfram .
HYDROBIOLOGIA, 2017, 797 (01) :11-27
[39]   Pension Funding Constraints and Corporate Expenditures [J].
Liu, Weixi ;
Tonks, Ian .
OXFORD BULLETIN OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, 2013, 75 (02) :235-258
[40]   An overview of biodiversity and conservation status of steppes of the Anatolian Biogeographical Region [J].
Ambarli, Didem ;
Zeydanli, Ugur S. ;
Balkiz, Ozge ;
Aslan, Serdar ;
Karacetin, Evrim ;
Sozen, Mustafa ;
Ilgaz, Cetin ;
Ergen, Arzu Gursoy ;
Lise, Yildiray ;
Caglayan, Semiha Demirbas ;
Welch, Hilary J. ;
Welch, Geoff ;
Turak, Ayse S. ;
Bilgin, C. Can ;
Ozkil, Aydan ;
Vural, Mecit .
BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 2016, 25 (12) :2491-2519