Benefits of the ballot box for species conservation

被引:29
作者
Kroetz, Kailin [1 ]
Sanchirico, James N. [2 ,3 ]
Armsworth, Paul R. [4 ]
Banzhaf, H. Spencer [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Davis, Dept Agr & Resource Econ, Davis, CA 95616 USA
[2] Univ Calif Davis, Dept Environm Sci & Policy, Davis, CA 95616 USA
[3] Resources Future Inc, Washington, DC 20036 USA
[4] Univ Tennessee, Dept Ecol & Evolutionary Biol, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA
[5] Georgia State Univ, Andrew Young Sch Policy Studies, Dept Econ, Atlanta, GA 30303 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Biodiversity; conservation; conservation movement; endangered species; integer programming; open space; referenda; reserve site selection; OPEN-SPACE CONSERVATION; MAXIMIZING RETURN; RESERVE SELECTION; LAND CONSERVATION; REFERENDA; COSTS; INVESTMENT; NEEDS; APPEARANCE; ALGORITHMS;
D O I
10.1111/ele.12230
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Recent estimates reaffirm that conservation funds are insufficient to meet biodiversity conservation goals. Organisations focused on biodiversity conservation therefore need to capitalise on investments that societies make in environmental protection that provide ancillary benefits to biodiversity. Here, we undertake the first assessment of the potential ancillary benefits from the ballot box in the United States, where citizens vote on referenda to conserve lands for reasons that may not include biodiversity directly but that indirectly might enhance biodiversity conservation. Our results suggest that referenda occur in counties with significantly greater biodiversity than counties chosen at random. We also demonstrate that large potential gains for conservation are possible if the past and likely future outcomes of these ballot box measures are directly incorporated into national-scale conservation planning efforts. The possible synergies between ballot box measures and other biodiversity conservation efforts offer an under-utilised resource for supporting conservation.
引用
收藏
页码:294 / 302
页数:9
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]   The geography of vulnerability: incorporating species geography and human development patterns into conservation planning [J].
Abbitt, RJF ;
Scott, JM ;
Wilcove, DS .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2000, 96 (02) :169-175
[2]   Spatial-econometric analysis of attraction and repulsion of private conservation by public reserves [J].
Albers, Heidi J. ;
Ando, Amy W. ;
Chen, Xiaoxuan .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 2008, 56 (01) :33-49
[3]   Patterns of multi-agent land conservation: Crowding in/out, agglomeration, and policy [J].
Albers, Heidi J. ;
Ando, Amy W. ;
Batz, Michael .
RESOURCE AND ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2008, 30 (04) :492-508
[4]   Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation [J].
Ando, A ;
Camm, J ;
Polasky, S ;
Solow, A .
SCIENCE, 1998, 279 (5359) :2126-2128
[5]   The Size, Concentration, and Growth of Biodiversity-Conservation Nonprofits [J].
Armsworth, Paul R. ;
Fishburn, Isla S. ;
Davies, Zoe G. ;
Gilbert, Jennifer ;
Leaver, Natasha ;
Gaston, Kevin J. .
BIOSCIENCE, 2012, 62 (03) :271-281
[6]   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
[7]   Success and Design of Local Referenda for Land Conservation [J].
Banzhaf, H. Spencer ;
Oates, Wallace E. ;
Sanchirico, James N. .
JOURNAL OF POLICY ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT, 2010, 29 (04) :769-798
[8]   Conservation Planning with Multiple Organizations and Objectives [J].
Bode, Michael ;
Probert, Will ;
Turner, Will R. ;
Wilson, Kerrie A. ;
Venter, Oscar .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2011, 25 (02) :295-304
[9]   A note on optimal algorithms for reserve site selection [J].
Camm, JD ;
Polasky, S ;
Solow, A ;
Csuti, B .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 1996, 78 (03) :353-355
[10]  
Chang K., 2011, 2010 National Land Trust Census Report