Premium
Biological vs. social, economic and political priority‐setting in conservation
Author(s) -
O'Connor Casey,
Marvier Michelle,
Kareiva Peter
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
ecology letters
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.852
H-Index - 265
eISSN - 1461-0248
pISSN - 1461-023X
DOI - 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00499.x
Subject(s) - biodiversity conservation , investment (military) , corporate governance , context (archaeology) , politics , economics , public economics , environmental resource management , biodiversity , natural resource economics , ecology , business , geography , political science , biology , finance , archaeology , law
The most influential conservation priority‐setting approaches emphasize biodiversity and threats when deciding where to focus investment. However, socio‐economic and political attributes of nations influence the effectiveness of conservation actions. A combination of biological and sociological variables in the context of a ‘return on investment’ framework for establishing conservation priorities was explored. While there was some overlap between megadiversity nations and return on investment priorities, only a few countries emerged as high priorities irrespective of which factors were included in the analysis. Conversely, some countries that ranked highly as priorities for conservation when focusing solely on biological metrics, did not rank highly when governance, population pressure, economic costs and conservation needs were considered (e.g. Colombia, Ecuador, Indonesia and Venezuela). No priority‐setting scheme is a priori superior to alternative approaches. However, the analyses suggest that attention to governance and return on investment may alter biocentric assessments of ideal conservation investments.