IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/renvpo/v9y2015i1p23-42..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conservation Planning: A Review of Return on Investment Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • James Boyd
  • Rebecca Epanchin-Niell
  • Juha Siikamäki

Abstract

Land and natural resource conservation programs are increasingly being evaluated on the basis of their return on investment (ROI). Conservation ROI analysis quantitatively measures the costs, benefits, and risks of investments, which allows conservation organizations to rank or prioritize them. This article surveys the literature in this area. We organize our discussion around the way studies treat the core elements of ROI, which include the definition and measurement of the conservation objective, identification of relevant baselines, the types of conservation investments considered, and investment costs. We discuss the state of the art of ROI analysis, highlight some unresolved issues, and make suggestions for improvements. We also describe options for extending ROI analysis beyond biodiversity conservation, which is the typical objective. The literature indicates that conservation planning that uses ROI analysis can considerably alter the location and targets of conservation, lead to more protection and higher quality conservation outcomes, and result in significant savings. The measurement and prediction of baseline ecological conditions and threats remains a central challenge for conservation ROI analysis, as does accounting for landowner and developer responses to conservation investments. Another key priority for future research is the identification of ways to more comprehensively incorporate ecosystem services and multiple environmental objectives into the assessment framework. (JEL: Q20, Q30, Q51, Q57)

Suggested Citation

  • James Boyd & Rebecca Epanchin-Niell & Juha Siikamäki, 2015. "Conservation Planning: A Review of Return on Investment Analysis," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(1), pages 23-42.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:renvpo:v:9:y:2015:i:1:p:23-42.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reep/reu014
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Claron, Charles & Mikou, Mehdi & Levrel, Harold & Tardieu, Léa, 2022. "Mapping urban ecosystem services to design cost-effective purchase of development rights programs: The case of the Greater Paris metropolis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    2. Jianxin Yang & Jian Gong & Wenwu Tang, 2019. "Prioritizing Spatially Aggregated Cost-Effective Sites in Natural Reserves to Mitigate Human-Induced Threats: A Case Study of the Qinghai Plateau, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-23, March.
    3. Ando, Amy W. & Shah, Payal, 2016. "The Economics of Conservation and Finance: A Review of the Literature," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 8(3-4), pages 321-357, June.
    4. Reisig, Dawson & Mullan, Katrina & Hansen, Andrew & Powell, Scott & Theobald, David & Ulrich, Rachel, 2021. "Natural amenities and low-density residential development: Magnitude and spatial scale of influences," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    5. Roberts, Michaela & Cresswell, Will & Hanley, Nick, 2018. "Prioritising Invasive Species Control Actions: Evaluating Effectiveness, Costs, Willingness to Pay and Social Acceptance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 1-8.
    6. Sierra-Altamiranda, Alvaro & Charkhgard, Hadi & Eaton, Mitchell & Martin, Julien & Yurek, Simeon & Udell, Bradley J., 2020. "Spatial conservation planning under uncertainty using modern portfolio theory and Nash bargaining solution," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 423(C).
    7. Enrique Calfucura & Eugenio Figueroa, 2016. "Using benefits and costs estimations to manage conservation: Chile’s protected areas," Working Papers wp418, University of Chile, Department of Economics.
    8. repec:dav:journl:y:2019:v:8:i:10:p:282 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Epanchin-Niell, Rebecca S. & Thompson, Alexandra & Han, Xianru & Post, Jessica & Miller, Jarrod & Newburn, David & Gedan, Keryn & Tully, Kate, 2023. "Coastal agricultural land use response to sea level rise and saltwater intrusion," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335970, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Kousky, Carolyn & Lingle, Brett & Ritchie, Liesel & Tierney, Kathleen, 2017. "Social Return on Investment Analysis and Its Applicability to Community Preparedness Activities: Calculating Costs and Returns," RFF Working Paper Series 17-12, Resources for the Future.
    11. Leonard, Bryan & Gigliotti, Laura & Middleton, Arthur & Kroetz, Kailin, 2022. "The Value of Remotely-Sensed Data in Terrestrial Habitat Corridor Design for Large Migratory Species," RFF Working Paper Series 22-21, Resources for the Future.
    12. Jones, Kelly W. & Mayer, Alex & Von Thaden, Juan & Berry, Z. Carter & López-Ramírez, Sergio & Salcone, Jacob & Manson, Robert H. & Asbjornsen, Heidi, 2020. "Measuring the net benefits of payments for hydrological services programs in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    13. Thiel, Kristen & Cho, Seonghoon & Armsworth, Paul, 2016. "Effects of Protected Area Size on Conservation Return on Investment with Spatial Spillovers," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235767, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. David W. Martin, 2019. "Gender Concerns When Noah the Economist Ranks Biodiversity Protection Policies," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-13, October.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q20 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - General
    • Q30 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - General
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:renvpo:v:9:y:2015:i:1:p:23-42.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aereeea.html .

    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.