registrieren | anmelden | FAQ      [?] 
CiteULike is a free online bibliography manager. Register and you can start organising your references online.
Recent | Unread | Search | Authors | Tags | Export

Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs

by: Andrew Balmford, Kevin J Gaston, Simon Blyth, Alex James, Val Kapos
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 100, No. 3. (4 February 2003), pp. 1046-1050.


View FullText article


X Reviews [Write a review of this article]

There are no reviews of this article

X Find related articles from these CiteULike users

X Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

X Abstract

Our ability to identify cost-efficient priorities for conserving biological diversity is limited by the scarcity of data on conservation costs, particularly at fine scales. Here we address this issue using data for 139 terrestrial programs worldwide. We find that the annual costs of effective field-based conservation vary enormously, across seven orders of magnitude, from <$0.1 to >$1,000,000 per km2. This variation can be closely predicted from positive associations between costs per unit area and an array of indices of local development. Corresponding measures of conservation benefit are limited but show opposing global trends, being higher in less developed parts of the world. The benefit-to-cost ratio of conservation is thus far greater in less developed regions, yet these are where the shortfall in current conservation spending is most marked. Substantially increased investment in tropical conservation is therefore urgently required if opportunities for cost-effective action are not to be missed.


X BibTeX record

X RIS record



RIS BibTeX
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic (which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments. It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions. The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.