Gaps and mismatches between global conservation priorities and spending

被引:98
作者
Halpern, BS
Pyke, CR
Fox, HE
Haney, JC
Schlaepfer, MA
Zaradic, P
机构
[1] Natl Ctr Ecol Anal & Synth, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 USA
[2] Univ Calif Santa Cruz, Ctr Ocean Hlth, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA
[3] Univ Hawaii, Inst Marine Biol, Kaneohe, HI 96744 USA
[4] World Wildlife Fund, Conservat Sci Program, Washington, DC 20037 USA
[5] Conservat Policy Program, Washington, DC 20036 USA
[6] Univ Texas, Dept Integrat Biol, Austin, TX 78712 USA
[7] Stroud Water Res Ctr, Avondale, PA 19311 USA
关键词
conservation investment; conservation NGOs; conservation priority areas; priority models;
D O I
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00258.x
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Several international conservation organizations have recently produced global priority maps to guide conservation activities and spending in their own and other conservation organizations. Surprisingly, it is not possible to directly evaluate the relationship between priorities and spending within a given organization because none of the organizations with global priority models tracks how they spend their money relative to their priorities. We were able, however, to evaluate the spending patterns of five other large biodiversity conservation organizations without their own published global priority models and investigate the potential influence of priority models on this spending. On average, countries with priority areas received greater conservation investment; global prioritization systems, however, explained between only 2 and 32% of the US$1.5 billion spent in 2002, depending on whether the United States was removed from analyses and whether conservation spending was adjusted by the per capita gross domestic product within each country. We also found little overlap in the spending patterns of the five conservation organizations evaluated, suggesting that informal coordination or segregation of effort may be occurring. Our results also highlight a number of potential gaps and mismatches in how limited conservation funds are spent and provide the first audit of global conservation spending patterns. More explicit presentation of conservation priorities by organizations currently without priority models and better tracking of spending by those with published priorities are clearly needed to help make future conservation activities as efficient as possible.
引用
收藏
页码:56 / 64
页数:9
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]   Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation [J].
Ando, A ;
Camm, J ;
Polasky, S ;
Solow, A .
SCIENCE, 1998, 279 (5359) :2126-2128
[2]   Integrating costs of conservation into international priority setting [J].
Balmford, A ;
Gaston, KJ ;
Rodrigues, ASL ;
James, A .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2000, 14 (03) :597-605
[3]   Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs [J].
Balmford, A ;
Gaston, KJ ;
Blyth, S ;
James, A ;
Kapos, V .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2003, 100 (03) :1046-1050
[4]  
*BI, 2004, IMP BIRD AREAS
[5]  
CHRISTENSEN J, 2003, CONSERVATION PRACTIC, V4, P3
[6]  
CHRISTENSEN J, 2002, FISCAL ACCOUNTABILIT
[7]   Assigning priority to environmental policy interventions in a heterogeneous world [J].
Ferraro, PJ .
JOURNAL OF POLICY ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT, 2003, 22 (01) :27-43
[8]  
James A, 2001, BIOSCIENCE, V51, P43, DOI 10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0043:CWATCB]2.0.CO
[9]  
2
[10]   Balancing the Earth's accounts [J].
James, AN ;
Gaston, KJ ;
Balmford, A .
NATURE, 1999, 401 (6751) :323-324