Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Conservation planning
• Systematic cons. planning is about maximizing cost-effectiveness
• Very sophisticated on biological side
• Relatively crude on costs side
• But, great gains result from consideration of costs *costs are heterogeneous
*plans more efficient when this accounted for
Outline
I. What are conservation costs?
II. How are conservation costs assessed?
III. How are conservation plans improved by including costs?
TREE 21: 681-687 (2006)
I. What are conservation costs?
• Acquisition costs
• Management costs
• Transaction costs
• Damage costs
• Opportunity costs
Focus on monetary costs
$ $ $
• Non-monetary proxies:
I. What are conservation costs?
Add map of non-monetary proxies
WEIGHTEDNON-MONETARYCOST PROXY
Tres Positive
NeutralNegativeTres Negative
Positive
=
How are costs used?
• Cost-effective analysis:– Costs in $ terms, benefits
in original units; maximize benefits per $ of cost
• Cost-benefit analysis:– Map all $ costs and $
benefits of conservation, compare
II. Assessing conservation costs
• Examples of spatial distribution of acquisition costs, management costs, opportunity costs
• No examples of transaction costs or damage costs
Acquisition costs
• United States: county-level data on agricultural land values
Acquisition costs
• Denmark: county-level data on agricultural land values
Strange et al. Biol. Conserv. 2007
Acquisition costs
• South Africa: modelled farm-level sale prices
Osano et al. Unpublished data
Acquisition costs
• Bahia, Brazil: modelled farm-level sale prices
Chomitz et al. Env. Dev. Econ. (2005)
Management costs
• Global surveys of protected area managers (terrestrial & marine)
• Modelled cost of Pa management based on GNP, PPP, and PA area
A. Balmford and colleagues, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 2003,2005
Management costs• Used in a variety of conservation planning
applications, eg. Africa-wide
Moore et al. Biol. Cons. (2004)
Opportunity costs• Global: Opp. costs based on returns to
agriculture (crops and livestock)
Naidoo & Iwamura Biol. Cons. (in press)
Opportunity costs• Mbaracayu, Paraguay: for forests, based on
agricultural net rents integrated with conversion probabilities
U.S. dollarsU.S. dollarsU.S. dollars
Naidoo & Adamowicz Cons. Biol. (2006)
Opportunity costs
• Marine examples:– Foregone sales value
of fish and shellfish off Welsh coast (Richardson et al. Cons. Biol. 2006)
– Foregone revenue from harvest of rock lobster in South Australia (Stewart and Possingham Env. Model. Ass. 2005)
III. Including costs in planning
• General result that including spatial distribution of costs up-front in conservation planning can greatly increase efficiency of resulting plans
III. Including costs in planning
• General result that including spatial distribution of costs up-front in conservation planning can greatly increase efficiency of resulting plans
Costs in planning• Global: Plans that consider costs represent endemic species at 10 to
33 % of the opportunity cost of plans that do not (ecoregion-level)
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40% Total Costs
% E
nd
emic
sp
p.
Cost-efficient
Cost minimization
Endemics-only
Hotspots
Global 200
ABCa
b
Naidoo & Iwamura Biol. Cons. (in press)
• Continental: Plans that consider costs represent 2/3rds more vertebrate species for the same opportunity cost compared to plans that do not (ecoregion-level) in Africa
Costs in planning
Moore et al. Biol. Cons. (2004)
• Sub-national: Plans that consider costs represent the same # of vertebrate species at roughly 10% of the opportunity costs of plans that do not in Oregon, USA
Costs in planning
Polasky et al. Land Econ. (2001)
• Landscape: Plans that consider costs have provide environmental benefits for 16-67% of total cost compared to plans that focus only on benefits (New York state, USA)
Costs in planning
Ferraro J. Pol. Analy. Man. (2003)
$11,384,552= remaining forests
Val
ue
(U.S
. $)
cost benefit
Naidoo & RickettsPLoS 2006
$11,384,552
$4,670,904
Val
ue
(U.S
. $)
cost benefit
= wild meat > land value + timber
Naidoo & RickettsPLoS 2006
$11,384,552
Val
ue
(U.S
. $)
cost benefit
= wild meat + timber > land value + pharm.
$8,806,601Naidoo & RickettsPLoS 2006
$11,384,552
Val
ue
(U.S
. $)
cost benefit
= wild meat + timber > land value + pharm. + existence
$13,506,473
Naidoo & RickettsPLoS 2006
Val
ue
(U.S
. $)
cost benefit
= wild meat + timber + pharm. > land value + existence + carbon (5$/T)
$11,384,552
$207,143,557
Naidoo & RickettsPLoS 2006
IV. Conclusions
• Just as biodiversity is unevenly distributed in space, so are costs
• Plans that consider spatial distr. of costs at the outset deliver more biodiversity for less cost
