IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v70y2011i10p1789-1796.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation spending

Author

Listed:
  • Laycock, Helen F.
  • Moran, Dominic
  • Smart, James C.R.
  • Raffaelli, David G.
  • White, Piran C.L.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Laycock, Helen F. & Moran, Dominic & Smart, James C.R. & Raffaelli, David G. & White, Piran C.L., 2011. "Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation spending," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(10), pages 1789-1796, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:10:p:1789-1796
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800911001911
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kerrie A. Wilson & Marissa F. McBride & Michael Bode & Hugh P. Possingham, 2006. "Prioritizing global conservation efforts," Nature, Nature, vol. 440(7082), pages 337-340, March.
    2. Nunes, Paulo A. L. D. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M., 2001. "Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 203-222, November.
    3. Cullen, Ross & Moran, Emma & Hughey, Kenneth F.D., 2005. "Measuring the success and cost effectiveness of New Zealand multiple-species projects to the conservation of threatened species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 311-323, May.
    4. Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1996. "Patterns of Behavior in Endangered Species Preservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 1-16.
    5. Hendriks, A. Jan, 2007. "The power of size: A meta-analysis reveals consistency of allometric regressions," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 205(1), pages 196-208.
    6. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June.
    7. Gardner M. Brown & Jason F. Shogren, 1998. "Economics of the Endangered Species Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 3-20, Summer.
    8. Cullen, Ross & Fairburn, Geoffrey A. & Hughey, Kenneth F. D., 2001. "Measuring the productivity of threatened-species programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 53-66, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Austin, Zoё & McVittie, Alistair & McCracken, Davy & Moxey, Andrew & Moran, Dominic & White, Piran C.L., 2016. "The co-benefits of biodiversity conservation programmes on wider ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 37-43.
    2. Christopher Cvitanovic & Marie F Löf & Albert V Norström & Mark S Reed, 2018. "Building university-based boundary organisations that facilitate impacts on environmental policy and practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-19, September.
    3. McVittie, Alistair & Austin, Zoe & White, Piran & Moxey, Andrew & McCracken, Davy & Moran, Dominic, 2014. "Something to grouse about? The cost-effectiveness of biodiversity measures in Scotland," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 169713, Agricultural Economics Society.
    4. Doelle, Sebastian, 2012. "Evaluation of predator-proof fenced biodiversity projects," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124289, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ressurreição, Adriana & Gibbons, James & Dentinho, Tomaz Ponce & Kaiser, Michel & Santos, Ricardo S. & Edwards-Jones, Gareth, 2011. "Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 729-739, February.
    2. Shreedhar, Ganga & Mourato, Susana, 2019. "Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Biodiversity Conservation Videos on Charitable Donations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 180-193.
    3. Kerkvliet, Joe & Langpap, Christian, 2007. "Learning from endangered and threatened species recovery programs: A case study using U.S. Endangered Species Act recovery scores," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 499-510, August.
    4. Michael Brock & Grischa Perino & Robert Sugden, 2017. "The Warden Attitude: An Investigation of the Value of Interaction with Everyday Wildlife," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(1), pages 127-155, May.
    5. Nordén, Anna & Coria, Jessica & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Lagergren, Fredrik & Lehsten, Veiko, 2017. "Divergence in stakeholders' preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 179-195.
    6. Jette Jacobsen & John Boiesen & Bo Thorsen & Niels Strange, 2008. "What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 247-263, March.
    7. Melstrom, Richard T., 2017. "The petroleum industry's response to an endangered species listing," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258281, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Dymond, John R. & Ausseil, Anne-Gaelle & Shepherd, James D. & Janssen, Helmut, 2007. "A landscape approach for assessing the biodiversity value of indigenous forest remnants: Case study of the Manawatu/Wanganui region of New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 82-91, October.
    9. Melstrom, Richard T., 2017. "Where to drill? The petroleum industry's response to an endangered species listing," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 320-327.
    10. Broberg, Thomas, 2007. "Assessing the non-timber value of old-growth forests in Sweden," Umeå Economic Studies 712, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    11. Oliver Froer, 2003. "Using Stated Preference Methods for Biodiversity Valuation. A critical analysis," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 217/2003, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    12. Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2009. "Evaluating the Welfare Effects of Biodiversity on Private Lands: A Choice Modelling Application," Working Papers in Economics 09/04, University of Waikato.
    13. Kohn, Robert E., 1999. "Thresholds and complementarities in an economic model of preserving and conserving biodiversity," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-172, June.
    14. McPherson, Michael A. & Nieswiadomy, Michael L., 2005. "Environmental Kuznets curve: threatened species and spatial effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 395-407, November.
    15. Robert Innes & George Frisvold, 2009. "The Economics of Endangered Species," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 485-512, September.
    16. Christian Langpap & Joe Kerkvliet, 2010. "Allocating Conservation Resources Under The Endangered Species Act," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(1), pages 110-124.
    17. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Buszko-Briggs, Malgorzata & Hanley, Nick, 2009. "Valuing changes in forest biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2910-2917, October.
    18. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Lienhoop, Nele & Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2015. "Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-14.
    19. Hannah Kotula, 2022. "Valuing forest ecosystem services in New Zealand," Working Papers 22_11, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    20. Gaaff, Aris & Reinhard, Stijn, 2012. "Incorporating the value of ecological networks into cost–benefit analysis to improve spatially explicit land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 66-74.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:10:p:1789-1796. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.