IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Are investments to promote biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services aligned?

  • Stephen Polasky
  • Kris Johnson
  • Bonnie Keeler
  • Kent Kovacs
  • Erik Nelson
  • Derric Pennington
  • Andrew J. Plantinga
  • John Withey

The conservation community is divided over the proper objective for conservation, with one faction focused on ecosystem services that contribute to human well-being and another faction focused on the intrinsic value of biodiversity. Despite the underlying difference in philosophy, it is not clear that this divide matters in a practical sense of guiding what a conservation organization should do in terms of investing in conservation. In this paper we address the degree of alignment between ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation strategies, using data from the state of Minnesota, USA. Minnesota voters recently passed an initiative that provides approximately $171m annually in dedicated funding for conservation. We find a high degree of alignment between investing conservation funds to target the value of ecosystem services and investing them to target biodiversity conservation. Targeting one of these two objectives generates 47–70 per cent of the maximum score of the other objective. We also find that benefits of conservation far exceed the costs, with a return on investment of between 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 in our base-case analysis. In general, investing in conservation to increase the value of ecosystem services is also beneficial for biodiversity conservation, and vice-versa. Copyright 2012, Oxford University Press.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oxrep/grs011
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Oxford University Press in its journal Oxford Review Of Economic Policy.

Volume (Year): 28 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 (Spring)
Pages: 139-163

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:28:y:2012:i:1:p:139-163
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://oxrep.oupjournals.org/

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:28:y:2012:i:1:p:139-163. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.