Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Andrew Metrick, M. Weitzman (1998)
Conflicts and Choices in Biodiversity PreservationJournal of Economic Perspectives, 12
T. Ranius, Hans Ekvall, M. Jonsson, G. Bostedt (2005)
Cost efficiency of measures to increase the amount of coarse woody debris in managed Norway spruce forestsForest Ecology and Management, 206
Karin Perhans, L. Gustafsson, F. Jonsson, Ulrika Nordin, H. Weibull (2007)
Bryophytes and lichens in different types of forest set-asides in boreal SwedenForest Ecology and Management, 242
C. Margules, M. Usher (1981)
Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: A reviewBiological Conservation, 21
K. Cocks, I. Baird (1989)
Using mathematical programming to address the multiple reserve selection problem: An example from the Eyre Peninsula, South AustraliaBiological Conservation, 49
S. Shriner, K. Wilson, C. Flather (2006)
Reserve networks based on richness hotspots and representation vary with scale.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 16 5
P. Ferraro (2003)
Assigning priority to environmental policy interventions in a heterogeneous worldJournal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22
M. Faustmann (1995)
Calculation of the value which forest land and immature stands possess for forestry
R. Noss (1990)
Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical ApproachConservation Biology, 4
Hägglund Hägglund, Lundmark Lundmark (1977)
Site index estimation by means of site properties: Scots pine and Norway spruce in SwedenStudia Forestalia Suecica, 138
N. Strange, C. Rahbek, Jacob Jepsen, Mette Lund (2006)
Using farmland prices to evaluate cost-efficiency of national versus regional reserve selection in DenmarkBiological Conservation, 128
Félix Forest, Félix Forest, G. Richard, R. Mathieu, T. Davies, T. Davies, Richard Cowling, D. Faith, A. Balmford, John Manning, S. Proches, M. Bank, G. Reeves, T. Hedderson, Savolainen (2007)
Preserving the evolutionary potential of floras in biodiversity hotspotsNature, 445
J. Prendergast, Rachel Quinn, John Lawton, B. Eversham, David Gibbons (1993)
Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategiesNature, 365
Paul Williams, Joslin Moore, A. Toham, Thomas Brooks, Holly Strand, J. D'amico, M. Wisz, Neil Burgess, A. Balmford, Carsten Rahbek (2003)
Integrating biodiversity priorities with conflicting socio-economic values in the Guinean–Congolian forest regionBiodiversity & Conservation, 12
Sarkar Sarkar (2006)
Biodiversity conservation planning tools: present status and challenges for the futureAnnual Review of Environment and Resources, 31
Juutinen Juutinen, Mäntymaa Mäntymaa, Mönkkönen Mönkkönen, Salmi Salmi (2004)
A cost‐efficient approach to selecting forest stands for conserving species: a case study from northern FennoscandiaForest Science, 50
J. Kuyper, Heike Schroeder, B. Linnér (2018)
The Evolution of the UNFCCCAnnual Review of Environment and Resources
Line Djupström, Line Djupström, J. Weslien, L. Schroeder (2008)
Dead wood and saproxylic beetles in set-aside and non set-aside forests in a boreal regionForest Ecology and Management, 255
R. Vane-Wright, C. Humphries, Paul Williams (1991)
What to protect?—Systematics and the agony of choiceBiological Conservation, 55
Joslin Moore, A. Balmford, Thomas Allnutt, N. Burgess (2004)
Integrating costs into conservation planning across AfricaBiological Conservation, 117
M. Ollikainen, P. Johansson, K. Lofgren (1986)
The Economics of Forestry and Natural Resources.The Economic Journal, 96
R. Naidoo, W. Adamowicz (2006)
Modeling Opportunity Costs of Conservation in Transitional LandscapesConservation Biology, 20
M. Cabeza, A. Moilanen (2001)
Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity.Trends in ecology & evolution, 16 5
D. Wilkie, G. Morelli, J. Demmer, Malcolm Starkey, P. Telfer, M. Steil (2006)
Parks and People: Assessing the Human Welfare Effects of Establishing Protected Areas for Biodiversity ConservationConservation Biology, 20
K. Messer (2006)
The conservation benefits of cost-effective land acquisition: a case study in Maryland.Journal of environmental management, 79 3
David Collard, A. Sen (1974)
On Economic Inequality.Economica, 42
R. Naidoo, A. Balmford, P. Ferraro, S. Polasky, T. Ricketts, M. Rouget (2006)
Integrating economic costs into conservation planning.Trends in ecology & evolution, 21 12
S. Polasky, J. Camm, B. Garber-Yonts (2001)
Selecting Biological Reserves Cost-Effectively: An Application to Terrestrial Vertebrate Conservation in OregonLand Economics, 77
(1992)
Woodland key habitats of rare and endangered species will be mapped in a new project of the Swedish National Board of Forestry
R. Church, C. Revelle (1974)
The maximal covering location problemPapers of the Regional Science Association, 32
A. Balmford, K. Gaston, A. Rodrigues, Alexander James (2000)
Integrating Costs of Conservation into InternationalPriority SettingConservation Biology, 14
B. Babcock, P. Lakshminarayan, Junjie Wu, D. Zilberman (1997)
Targeting Tools for the Purchase of Environmental Amenities
Amy Ando, J. Camm, S. Polasky, A. Solow (1998)
Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservationScience, 279 5359
(1985)
A growth simulator for Swedish forests , based on data from the national forest survey
Abstract: Including both economic costs and biological benefits of sites in systematic reserve selection greatly increases cost‐efficiency. Nevertheless, limited funding generally forces conservation planners to choose which data to focus the most resources on; therefore, the relative importance of different types of data must be carefully assessed. We investigated the relative importance of including information about costs and benefits for 3 different commonly used conservation goals: 2 in which biological benefits were measured per site (species number and conservation value scores) and 1 in which benefits were measured on the basis of site complementarity (total species number in the reserve network). For each goal, we used site‐selection models with data on benefits only, costs only, and benefits and costs together, and we compared the efficiency of each model. Costs were more important to include than benefits for the goals in which benefits were measured per site. By contrast, for the complementarity‐based goal, benefits were more important to include. To understand this pattern, we compared the variability in benefits and in costs for each goal. By comparing the best and the worst possible selection of sites with regard to costs alone and benefits alone for each conservation goal, we introduced a simple and consistent variability measure that is applicable to all kinds of reserve‐selection situations. In our study, benefit variability depended strongly on how the conservation goal was formulated and was largest for the complementarity‐based conservation goal. We argue that from a cost‐efficiency point of view, most resources should be spent on collecting the most variable type of data for the conservation goal at hand.
Conservation Biology – Wiley
Published: Oct 1, 2008
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.