Biological and operational determinants of the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation programs
Helen F. Laycock A , Dominic Moran B , David G. Raffaelli A and Piran C. L. White A CA Environment Department, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, United Kingdom.
B Scottish Agricultural College, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, Midlothian, EH9 3JG, United Kingdom.
C Corresponding author. Email: piran.white@york.ac.uk
Wildlife Research 40(2) 142-152 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR12073
Submitted: 11 April 2012 Accepted: 18 September 2012 Published: 25 October 2012
Abstract
Context: Comprehensive evaluation of biodiversity conservation programs is essential for informing their development as well as the design of future programs. Such evaluations should not be limited to whether targets have been met, but should also assess the cost and efficiency of meeting targets, and any factors contributing to success or failure.
Aims: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of individual-species conservation programs, and the biological and operational factors affecting these. We used the species action plans (SAPs) within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan as our case study.
Methods: We used cost–effectiveness analysis, cost–utility analysis and threat-reduction assessment to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of individual SAPs. Then we used statistical models to investigate the relative importance of biological and operational factors affecting cost, effectiveness and efficiency.
Key results: Conservation plan success was affected by both biological and operational factors. Invertebrate plans tended to be less effective, whereas vertebrate plans were less efficient. Plans for widely distributed species with longer generation times tended to be less efficient. Of the three different evaluation approaches, cost-effectiveness analysis offered the best combination of ease of data collection and accuracy of data content.
Conclusions: The most successful SAPs concerned species with short generation times and narrow distributions. Operationally, the most successful SAPs were concise and focussed and showed clear lines of responsibility for implementation.
Implications: Techniques such as cost–effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and threat reduction assessment should be used to inform decisions on maximising the rate of return on conservation investments, although broader ecological implications and socio-cultural benefits should also be considered. The success of conservation plans is influenced by both biological and operational factors. Because biological factors cannot be controlled or altered, where species exhibit characteristics that are likely to make their conservation less effective or efficient, it is critical that operational factors are optimised. High-quality data are necessary to underpin prioritisation decisions, and monitoring to deliver reliable data on both the benefits and costs of conservation should form a core component of conservation programs.
Additional keywords: evaluation, interdisciplinary, prioritisation, species action plans, UK Biodiversity Action Plan.
References
Anon. (1995). ‘Biodiversity: the UK Steering Group Report. Vol. 1. Meeting the Rio Challenge.’ (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: London.)Arponen, A., Cabeza, M., Eklund, J., Kujala, H., and Lehtomaki, J. (2010). Costs of integrating economics and conservation planning. Conservation Biology 24, 1198–1204.
| Costs of integrating economics and conservation planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Balmford, A., Gaston, K. J., Rodrigues, A. S. L., and James, A. (2000). Integrating costs of conservation into international priority setting. Conservation Biology 14, 597–605.
| Integrating costs of conservation into international priority setting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Boersma, P. D., Kareiva, P., Fagan, W. F., Clark, J. A., and Hoekstra, J. M. (2001). How good are endangered species recovery plans? Bioscience 51, 643–649.
| How good are endangered species recovery plans?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bottrill, M. C., Walsh, J. C., Watson, J. E. M., Joseph, L., Ortega-Argueta, A., and Possingham, H. P. (2011). Does recovery planning improve the status of threatened species? Biological Conservation 144, 1595–1601.
| Does recovery planning improve the status of threatened species?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brown, A. E. (2000). Conservation objectives and targets for freshwater sites. Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management 14, 240–245.
| Conservation objectives and targets for freshwater sites.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3cXnvF2msLw%3D&md5=90783b49be39b3c46715a599db37eabfCAS |
Bulte, E., and van Kooten, G. C. (2000). Economic science, endangered species, and biodiversity loss. Conservation Biology 14, 113–119.
| Economic science, endangered species, and biodiversity loss.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Clark, J. A., Hoekstra, J. M., Boersma, P. D., and Kareiva, P. (2002). Improving US Endangered Species Act recovery plans: key findings and recommendations of the SCB recovery plan project. Conservation Biology 16, 1510–1519.
| Improving US Endangered Species Act recovery plans: key findings and recommendations of the SCB recovery plan project.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cullen, R., Fairburn, G., and Hughey, K. (1999). COPY: a new technique for evaluation of biodiversity protection projects. Pacific Conservation Biology 5, 115–123.
Cullen, R., Fairburn, G. A., and Hughey, K. F. D. (2001). Measuring the productivity of threatened-species programs. Ecological Economics 39, 53–66.
| Measuring the productivity of threatened-species programs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cullen, R., Moran, E., and Hughey, K. F. D. (2005). Measuring the success and cost effectiveness of New Zealand multiple-species projects to the conservation of threatened species. Ecological Economics 53, 311–323.
| Measuring the success and cost effectiveness of New Zealand multiple-species projects to the conservation of threatened species.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Eklund, J., Arponen, A., Visconti, P., and Cabeza, M. (2011). Governance factors in the identification of global conservation priorities for mammals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 366, 2661–2669.
| Governance factors in the identification of global conservation priorities for mammals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fairburn, G. A., Hughey, K. F. D., and Cullen, R. (2004). Cost effectiveness of endangered species management: the kokako (Callaeas cinerea) in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 28, 83–91.
Ferraro, P. J., and Pattanayak, S. K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology 4, e105.
| Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gerber, L. R., and Schultz, C. B. (2001). Authorship and the use of biological information in endangered species recovery plans. Conservation Biology 15, 1308–1314.
| Authorship and the use of biological information in endangered species recovery plans.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Haddock, J., Tzanopoulos, J., Mitchley, J., and Fraser, R. (2007). A method for evaluating alternative landscape management scenarios in relation to the biodiversity conservation of habitats. Ecological Economics 61, 277–283.
| A method for evaluating alternative landscape management scenarios in relation to the biodiversity conservation of habitats.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hanley, N., Whitby, M., and Simpson, I. (1999). Assessing the success of agri-environmental policy in the UK. Land Use Policy 16, 67–80.
| Assessing the success of agri-environmental policy in the UK.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hatch, L., Uriarte, M., Fink, D., Aldrich-Wolfe, L., Allen, R. G., Webb, C., Zamudio, K., and Power, A. (2002). Jurisdiction over endangered species’ habitat: the impacts of people and property on recovery planning. Ecological Applications 12, 690–700.
| Jurisdiction over endangered species’ habitat: the impacts of people and property on recovery planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hendriks, A. J. (2007). The power of size: a meta-analysis reveals consistency of allometric regressions. Ecological Modelling 205, 196–208.
| The power of size: a meta-analysis reveals consistency of allometric regressions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Her Majesty’s Treasury (2003). ‘The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government.’ (The Stationery Office: Norwich, UK.)
Holling, C. S. (1992). Cross-scale morphology, geometry and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecological Monographs 62, 447–502.
| Cross-scale morphology, geometry and dynamics of ecosystems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hughey, K. F. D., Cullen, R., and Moran, E. (2003). Integrating economics into priority setting and evaluation in conservation management. Conservation Biology 17, 93–103.
| Integrating economics into priority setting and evaluation in conservation management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
JNCC (2006). ‘UK Biodiversity Action Plan.’ (Joint Nature Conservation Committee: Peterborough.) Available at http://www.ukbap.org.uk/ [verified July 2007].
Joseph, L. N., Maloney, R. F., and Possingham, H. P. (2009). Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conservation Biology 23, 328–338.
| Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kleiman, D. G., Reading, R. P., Miller, B. J., Clark, T. W., Scott, J. M., Robinson, J., Wallace, R. L., Cabin, R. J., and Felleman, F. (2000). Improving the evaluation of conservation programs. Conservation Biology 14, 356–365.
| Improving the evaluation of conservation programs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Klein, C. J., Ban, N. C., Halpern, B. S., Beger, M., Game, E. T., Grantham, H. S., Green, A., Klein, T. J., Kininmonth, S., Treml, E., Wilson, K., and Possingham, H. (2010). Prioritizing land and sea conservation investments to protect coral reefs. PLoS ONE 5, e12431.
| Prioritizing land and sea conservation investments to protect coral reefs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Laycock, H., Moran, D., Smart, J., Raffaelli, D., and White, P. (2009). Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of conservation: the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Biological Conservation 142, 3120–3127.
| Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of conservation: the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Laycock, H., Moran, D., Smart, J., Raffaelli, D., and White, P. (2011). Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation spending. Ecological Economics 70, 1789–1796.
| Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation spending.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Male, T. D., and Bean, M. J. (2005). Measuring progress in US endangered species conservation. Ecology Letters 8, 986–992.
| Measuring progress in US endangered species conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Miller, J. K., Scott, J. M., Miller, C. R., and Waits, L. P. (2002). The Endangered Species Act: dollars and sense? Bioscience 52, 163–168.
| The Endangered Species Act: dollars and sense?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Salafsky, N., and Margoluis, R. (1999). Threat reduction assessment: a practical and cost-effective approach to evaluating conservation and development projects. Conservation Biology 13, 830–841.
| Threat reduction assessment: a practical and cost-effective approach to evaluating conservation and development projects.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sebastián-González, E., Antonio Sanchez-Zapata, J., Botella, F., Figuerola, J., Hiraldo, F., and Wintle, B. (2011). Linking cost efficiency evaluation with population viability analysis to prioritize wetland bird conservation actions. Biological Conservation 144, 2354–2361.
| Linking cost efficiency evaluation with population viability analysis to prioritize wetland bird conservation actions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sewall, B. J., Freestone, A., Moutui, M. F. E., Tolibou, N., Said, I., Toumani, S. M., Attoumane, D., and Iboura, C. M. (2011). Reorientating systematic conservation assessment foe effective conservation planning. Conservation Biology 25, 688–696.
| Reorientating systematic conservation assessment foe effective conservation planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Taylor, M. F., Suckling, K. F., and Rachlinski, J. J. (2005). The effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: a quantitative analysis. Bioscience 55, 360–367.
| The effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: a quantitative analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thomas, J. A., Telfer, M. G., Roy, D. B., Preston, C. D., Greenwood, J. J. D., Asher, J., Fox, R., Clarke, R. T., and Lawton, J. H. (2004). Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303, 1879–1881.
| Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds and plants and the global extinction crisis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXitFehurY%3D&md5=9309de4368937629563785398bf08301CAS |
UK Biodiversity Group (2001). ‘Sustaining the Variety of Life: 5 Years of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.’ (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: London.)
UK Biodiversity Partnership (2006). ‘The UK Biodiversity Action Plan: Highlights from the 2005 Reporting Round.’ (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: London.)
UK Biodiversity Partnership (2007). ‘Conserving Biodiversity – The UK Approach.’ (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: London.)
West, B. T., Welch, K. B., and Gatecki, A. (2006). ‘Linear Mixed Models: a Practical Guide Using Statistical Software.’ (Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL.)
Wilson, K. A., Evans, M. C., Di Marco, M., Green, D. C., Boitani, L., Possingham, H. P., Chiozza, F., and Rondinini, C. (2011). Prioritizing conservation investments for mammal species globally. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 366, 2670–2680.
| Prioritizing conservation investments for mammal species globally.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
