z-logo
Premium
Una Comparación de Modelos de Priorización de Conservación Global con Patrones Espaciales de Gastos de Organizaciones de Conservación No Gubernamentales
Author(s) -
HOLMES GEORGE,
SCHOLFIELD KATHERINE,
BROCKINGTON DAN
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
conservation biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.2
H-Index - 222
eISSN - 1523-1739
pISSN - 0888-8892
DOI - 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01879.x
Subject(s) - geography , prioritization , biodiversity , wilderness area , biodiversity conservation , wilderness , politics , natural resource economics , development economics , environmental protection , environmental resource management , socioeconomics , political science , business , ecology , economics , biology , law , process management
  In recent decades, various conservation organizations have developed models to prioritize locations for conservation. Through a survey of the spending patterns of 281 conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), we examined the relation between 2 such models and spatial patterns of spending by conservation NGOs in 44 countries in sub‐Saharan Africa. We tested whether, at the country level, the proportion of a country designated as a conservation priority was correlated with where NGOs spent money. For one model (the combination of Conservation International's hotspots and High Biodiversity Wilderness Areas, which are areas of high endemism with high or low levels of vegetation loss respectively), there was no relation between the proportion of a country designated as a priority and levels of NGO spending, including by the NGO associated with the model. In the second model (Global 200), the proportion of a country designated as a priority and the amount of money spent by NGOs were significantly and positively related. Less money was spent in countries in northern and western sub‐Saharan Africa than countries in southern and eastern Africa, relative to the proportion of the country designated as a conservation priority. We suggest that on the basis of our results some NGOs consider increasing their spending on the areas designated as of conservation priority which are currently relatively underfunded, although there are economic, political, cultural, historical, biological, and practical reasons why current spending patterns may not align with priority sites.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here