Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/wiley/maximising-return-on-conservation-investment-in-the-conterminous-usa-GiSOoQWtD9
References (42)
-
J. Ragle, D. Remsen (2010)
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species -
D. Olson, E. Dinerstein (1998)
The Global 200: A Representation Approach to Conserving the Earth’s Most Biologically Valuable EcoregionsConservation Biology, 12
-
Radeloff Radeloff, Nelson Nelson, Plantinga Plantinga, Lewis Lewis, Helmers Helmers, Lawler Lawler (2012)
Economic‐based projections of future land use under alternative economic policy scenarios in the conterminous US under alternative economic policy scenariosEcol. Appl., 22
-
M. McBride, K. Wilson, M. Bode, H. Possingham (2007)
Incorporating the Effects of Socioeconomic Uncertainty into Priority Setting for Conservation InvestmentConservation Biology, 21
-
A. Plantinga, R. Lubowski, Robert Stavins (2005)
Land-Use Change and Carbon Sinks: Econometric Estimation of the Carbon Sequestration Supply FunctionPublic Economics eJournal
-
Isla Fishburn, P. Kareiva, K. Gaston, K. Evans, P. Armsworth (2009)
State‐level variation in conservation investment by a major nongovernmental organizationConservation Letters, 2
-
Omernik Omernik (1987)
Map supplement: ecoregions of the conterminous United StatesAnn. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 77
-
Thomas Brooks, Thomas Brooks, Thomas Brooks, R. Mittermeier, G. Fonseca, G. Fonseca, J. Gerlach, M. Hoffmann, John Lamoreux, C. Mittermeier, J. Pilgrim, A. Rodrigues (2006)
Global Biodiversity Conservation PrioritiesScience, 313
-
K. Wilson, M. McBride, M. Bode, H. Possingham (2006)
Prioritizing global conservation effortsNature, 440
-
K. Wilson, M. Evans, M. Marco, D. Green, L. Boitani, H. Possingham, Federica Chiozza, C. Rondinini (2011)
Prioritizing conservation investments for mammal species globallyPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366
-
Lubowski Lubowski, Plantinga Plantinga, Stavins Stavins (2006)
Land‐use change and carbon sinks: econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply functionJ. Environ. Econ. Manage., 51
-
W. Jetz, Ç. Şekercioğlu, J. Watson (2008)
Ecological Correlates and Conservation Implications of Overestimating Species Geographic RangesConservation Biology, 22
-
E. Underwood, Kirk Klausmeyer, S. Morrison, M. Bode, M. Shaw (2009)
Evaluating conservation spending for species return: A retrospective analysis in CaliforniaConservation Letters, 2
-
Liana Joseph, R. Maloney, H. Possingham (2009)
Optimal Allocation of Resources among Threatened Species: a Project Prioritization ProtocolConservation Biology, 23
-
A. Rodrigues, S. Andelman, M. Bakarr, L. Boitani, T. Brooks, R. Cowling, L. Fishpool, G. Fonseca, K. Gaston, M. Hoffmann, Janice Long, P. Marquet, J. Pilgrim, R. Pressey, J. Schipper, W. Sechrest, S. Stuart, L. Underhill, R. Waller, Matthew Watts, Xie Yan (2004)
Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversityNature, 428
-
Plantinga Plantinga, Lubowski Lubowski, Stavins Stavins (2002)
The effects of potential land development on agricultural land pricesJ. Urban Econ., 52
-
R. Vane-Wright, C. Humphries, Paul Williams (1991)
What to protect?—Systematics and the agony of choiceBiological Conservation, 55
-
E. Underwood, M. Shaw, K. Wilson, P. Kareiva, Kirk Klausmeyer, M. McBride, M. Bode, S. Morrison, J. Hoekstra, H. Possingham (2008)
Protecting Biodiversity when Money Matters: Maximizing Return on InvestmentPLoS ONE, 3
-
M. Bode, W. Murdoch (2009)
Cost-effective conservation decisions are robust to uncertainty in the species–area relationshipProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106
-
C. Costello, S. Polasky (2004)
Dynamic reserve site selectionResource and Energy Economics, 26
-
V. Radeloff, E. Nelson, A. Plantinga, D. Lewis, D. Helmers, J. Lawler, J. Withey, Frederic Beaudry, S. Martinuzzi, V. Butsic, E. Lonsdorf, D. White, S. Polasky (2012)
Economic-based projections of future land use in the conterminous United States under alternative policy scenarios.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 22 3
-
M. Bode, K. Wilson, M. McBride, H. Possingham (2008)
Optimal Dynamic Allocation of Conservation Funding Among Priority RegionsBulletin of Mathematical Biology, 70
-
J. Fry, M. Coan, C. Homer, Debra Meyer, J. Wickham (2009)
Completion of the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 1992–2001 Land Cover Change Retrofit product -
M. Bode, K. Wilson, T. Brooks, W. Turner, R. Mittermeier, M. McBride, E. Underwood, H. Possingham (2008)
Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic groupProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105
-
J. Hoekstra, T. Boucher, T. Ricketts, C. Roberts (2004)
Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protectionEcology Letters, 8
-
Olson Olson, Dinerstein Dinerstein (2002)
The global 200: priority ecoregions for global conservationAnn. Mo. Bot. Gard., 89
-
N. Strange, B. Thorsen, J. Bladt (2006)
Optimal reserve selection in a dynamic worldBiological Conservation, 131
-
R. Alig, A. Plantinga, David Haim, Maribeth Todd (2010)
Area changes in U.S. forests and other major land uses, 1982 to 2002, with projections to 2062.General Technical Report, Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 815
-
Alexander James, K. Gaston, A. Balmford (1999)
Balancing the Earth's accountsNature, 401
-
W. Murdoch, Janet ranganathan, S. Polasky, J. Regetz (2010)
Using return on investment to maximize conservation effectiveness in Argentine grasslandsProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107
-
A. Plantinga, R. Lubowski, Robert Stavins (2002)
The Effects of Potential Land Development on Agricultural Land PricesEnvironmental Law & Policy eJournal
-
J. Omernik (1987)
Ecoregions of the Conterminous United StatesAnnals of The Association of American Geographers, 77
-
Hayri Önal (2004)
First-best, second-best, and heuristic solutions in conservation reserve site selectionBiological Conservation, 115
-
David Olson, E. Dinerstein (2002)
The Global 200: Priority ecoregions for global conservationAnnals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 89
-
S. Polasky, Kris Johnson, B. Keeler, K. Kovacs, E. Nelson, D. Pennington, A. Plantinga, J. Withey (2012)
Are investments to promote biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services alignedOxford Review of Economic Policy, 28
-
W. Murdoch, S. Polasky, K. Wilson, H. Possingham, P. Kareiva, R. Shaw (2007)
Maximizing return on investment in conservationBiological Conservation, 139
-
M. Rosenzweig (1995)
Species diversity in space and time: To a mouse -
N. Myers, R. Mittermeier, C. Mittermeier, G. Fonseca, J. Kent (2000)
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation prioritiesNature, 403
-
E. McDonald‐Madden, M. Bode, E. Game, H. Grantham, H. Possingham (2008)
The need for speed: informed land acquisitions for conservation in a dynamic property market.Ecology letters, 11 11
-
K. Wilson, E. Underwood, Scott Morrison, Kirk Klausmeyer, William Murdoch, B. Reyers, G. Wardell-Johnson, P. Marquet, Phil Rundel, Marissa McBride, R. Pressey, M. Bode, Jon Hoekstra, S. Andelman, M. Looker, C. Rondinini, P. Kareiva, M. Shaw, H. Possingham (2007)
Conserving Biodiversity Efficiently: What to Do, Where, and WhenPLoS Biology, 5
-
Amy Ando, J. Camm, S. Polasky, A. Solow (1998)
Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservationScience, 279 5359
-
C. Flather, G. Hayward, S. Beissinger, P. Stephens (2011)
Minimum viable populations: is there a 'magic number' for conservation practitioners?Trends in ecology & evolution, 26 6
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS
- ISSN
- 1461-023X
- eISSN
- 1461-0248
- DOI
- 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01847.x
- pmid
- 22913646
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Efficient conservation planning requires knowledge about conservation targets, threats to those targets, costs of conservation and the marginal return to additional conservation efforts. Systematic conservation planning typically only takes a small piece of this complex puzzle into account. Here, we use a return‐on‐investment (ROI) approach to prioritise lands for conservation at the county level in the conterminous USA. Our approach accounts for species richness, county area, the proportion of species' ranges already protected, the threat of land conversion and land costs. Areas selected by a complementarity‐based greedy heuristic using our full ROI approach provided greater averted species losses per dollar spent compared with areas selected by heuristics accounting for richness alone or richness and cost, and avoided acquiring lands not threatened with conversion. In contrast to traditional prioritisation approaches, our results highlight conservation bargains, opportunities to avert the threat of development and places where conservation efforts are currently lacking.
Journal
Ecology Letters – Wiley
Published: Nov 1, 2012