Usefulness of two bioeconomic frameworks for evaluation of community-initiated species conservation projects
Christopher Jones A B and Les McNamara A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Landcare Research, PO Box 69040, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand.
B Corresponding author. Email: jonesc@landcareresearch.co.nz
Wildlife Research 41(2) 106-116 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR14008
Submitted: 10 January 2014 Accepted: 30 April 2014 Published: 30 May 2014
Abstract
Context: Community-based conservation managers and their funding providers must apportion limited resources to potential projects that provide varying biodiversity benefits. Funding applicants must demonstrate that proposed projects are likely to provide positive conservation returns on investments.
Aims: We investigated the practical usefulness of two bioeconomic frameworks, the Project Prioritisation Protocol and the Investment Framework for Environmental Resources (INFFER) in guiding community-based conservation funding decisions and the benefits and challenges to community groups in evaluating projects using the tools.
Methods: We evaluated four species-based community-led conservation projects in New Zealand using the tools, and assessed the quality, relevance and potential impact of the frameworks to community conservation, including users’ perceptions of their usefulness.
Key results: Benefit–cost metrics from both tools indicated that all four projects would provide a low return on investment. However, both tools were highly sensitive to key assumptions about the values of conservation assets (species) being managed and the values of predicted differences made by projects. Both tools scored well against criteria used to assess their technical ‘quality’. INFFER had greater flexibility for use in different situations, but its use by community groups may be constrained by the time demands of completing a full project evaluation. Both tools can help users define problems and formulate innovative solutions through assessment of success and risk factors and the identification of project efficiencies.
Conclusions: Although both tools provide quantitative, transparent processes for the relative evaluation and ranking of competing projects, their sensitivities to species and/or asset valuation and benefit estimates mean that users should not accept scores and project rankings uncritically. For community groups, evaluation frameworks are likely to be useful to document costs, conservation benefits and risk factors accurately and transparently, and can encourage applicants to develop more robust approaches to project management, including the development of specific and measurable management objectives.
Implications: Adoption of more transparent and standardised assessment of funding applications by agencies, despite some of the drawbacks of currently available tools, would facilitate more transparent prioritisation of competing funding bids and would encourage community groups to develop a more robust approach to project design and management.
Additional keywords: benefit–cost ratio, conservation funding, evaluation, Investment Framework for Environmental Resources, New Zealand, Project Prioritisation Protocol.
References
Ando, A., Camm, J., Polasky, S., and Solow, A. (1998). Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279, 2126–2128.| Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaK1cXitFGrur8%3D&md5=89c56ac906d85cad32f62aed59e48cbbCAS | 9516117PubMed |
Auditor-General of Australia (2008). Regional delivery model for the Natural Heritage Trust and the national action plan for salinity and water quality. Report No. 21 2007–08, Performance Audit. Australian National Audit Office, Canberra.
Ban, N. C., Mills, M., Tam, J., Hicks, C. C., Klain, S., Stoeckl, N., Bottrill, M. C., Levine, J., Pressey, R. L., Satterfield, T., and Chan, K. M. A. (2013). A social–ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social considerations. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11, 194–202.
| A social–ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social considerations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bell, K. S. (2003). ‘Assessing the Benefits for Conservation of Volunteer Involvement in Conservation Activities.’ Science for Conservation 223. (Department of Conservation: Wellington, New Zealand.)
Biggs, D., Abel, N., Knight, A. T., Leitch, A., Langston, A., and Ban, N. C. (2011). The implementation crisis in conservation planning: could ‘mental models’ help? Conservation Letters 4, 169–183.
| The implementation crisis in conservation planning: could ‘mental models’ help?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bryan, B. A. (2010). Development and application of a model for robust, cost-effective investment in natural capital and ecosystem services. Biological Conservation 143, 1737–1750.
| Development and application of a model for robust, cost-effective investment in natural capital and ecosystem services.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Busch, J., and Cullen, R. (2009). Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of yellow-eyed penguin recovery. Ecological Economics 68, 762–776.
| Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of yellow-eyed penguin recovery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Campbell, L. M., and Smith, C. (2006). What makes them pay? Values of volunteer tourists working for sea turtle conservation. Environmental Management 38, 84–98.
| What makes them pay? Values of volunteer tourists working for sea turtle conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16738822PubMed |
Campbell-Hunt, D. M., Freeman, C., and Dickinson, K. J. M. (2010). Community-based entrepreneurship and wildlife sanctuaries: case studies from New Zealand. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 2, 4–21.
| Community-based entrepreneurship and wildlife sanctuaries: case studies from New Zealand.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CESD (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development) (2008). March status report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Auditor-General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Cousins, J. B., and Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation 1998, 5–23.
| Framing participatory evaluation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cullen, R. (2013). Biodiversity protection prioritisation: a 25-year review. Wildlife Research 40, 108–116.
| Biodiversity protection prioritisation: a 25-year review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fernandes, L., Day, J., Lewis, A., Slegers, S., Kerrigan, B., Breen, D., Cameron, D., Jago, B., Hall, J., Lowe, D., Innes, J., Tanzer, J., Chadwick, V., Thompson, L., Gorman, K., Simmons, M., Barnett, B., Sampson, K., Death, G., Mapstone, B., Marsh, H., Possingham, H., Ball, I., Ward, T., Dobbs, K., Aumend, J., Slater, D., and Stapleton, K. (2005). Establishing representative no-take areas in the Great Barrier Reef: large-scale implementation of theory on marine protected areas. Conservation Biology 19, 1733–1744.
| Establishing representative no-take areas in the Great Barrier Reef: large-scale implementation of theory on marine protected areas.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fieberg, J., and Ellner, S. P. (2000). When is it meaningful to estimate an extinction probability? Ecology 81, 2040–2047.
| When is it meaningful to estimate an extinction probability?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Game, E. T., Kareiva, P., and Possingham, H. P. (2013). Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting. Conservation Biology 27, 480–485.
| Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23565990PubMed |
Hajkowicz, S., Higgins, A., Miller, C., and Marinoni, O. (2008). Targeting conservation payments to achieve multiple outcomes. Biological Conservation 141, 2368–2375.
| Targeting conservation payments to achieve multiple outcomes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hardie-Boys, N. (2010). ‘Valuing Community Group Contributions to Conservation.’ Science for Conservation 299. (Department of Conservation: Wellington, New Zealand.)
Hughey, K. F., 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 |
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 | 19183202PubMed |
Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M., Rouget, M., Balmford, A., Lombard, A. T., and Campbell, B. M. (2008). Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conservation Biology 22, 610–617.
| Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18477033PubMed |
Liu, S., Hurley, M., Lowell, K. E., Siddique, A. B. M., Diggle, A., and Cook, D. C. (2011). An integrated decision-support approach in prioritizing risks of non-indigenous species in the face of high uncertainty. Ecological Economics 70, 1924–1930.
| An integrated decision-support approach in prioritizing risks of non-indigenous species in the face of high uncertainty.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ludwig, D. (1999). Is it meaningful to estimate a probability of extinction? Ecology 80, 298–310.
| Is it meaningful to estimate a probability of extinction?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Margules, C. R., and Pressey, R. L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243–253.
| Systematic conservation planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3cXjsFyjsLg%3D&md5=d8c7aa5239577921602c65644e6d1bbaCAS | 10821285PubMed |
McCarthy, M. A., Possingham, H. P., Day, J. R., and Tyre, A. J. (2001). Testing the accuracy of population viability analysis. Conservation Biology 15, 1030–1038.
| Testing the accuracy of population viability analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McNamara, L., Cornish, P. S., and Jacobs, B. (2009). Improving the relevance and impact of water quality modelling for decision-making, In ‘18th World IMACS Congress and MODSIM09 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation’, 13–17 July 2009, Cairns, Qld, Australia. (Eds R. S. Anderssen, R. D. Braddock and L. T. H. Newham.) pp. 3851–3857. (Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand and International Association for Mathematics and Computers in Simulation.)
Metrick, A., and Weitzman, M. L. (1998). Conflicts and choices in biodiversity preservation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 12, 21–34.
| Conflicts and choices in biodiversity preservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moilanen, A. (2007). Landscape zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biological Conservation 134, 571–579.
| Landscape zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moon, K., Marshall, N., and Cocklin, C. (2012). Personal circumstances and social characteristics as determinants of landholder participation in biodiversity conservation programs. Journal of Environmental Management 113, 292–300.
| Personal circumstances and social characteristics as determinants of landholder participation in biodiversity conservation programs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23064247PubMed |
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P. J., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T. H., and Rouget, M. (2006). Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21, 681–687.
| Integrating economic costs into conservation planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nijkamp, P., Vindigni, G., and Nunes, P. (2008). Economic valuation of biodiversity: a comparative study. Ecological Economics 67, 217–231.
| Economic valuation of biodiversity: a comparative study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nunes, P. A., and van den Bergh, J. C. (2001). Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense? Ecological Economics 39, 203–222.
| Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
NZOAG (New Zealand Office of the Auditor-General) (2013). Department of Conservation: prioritising and partnering to manage biodiversity. Performance audit report. New Zealand Office of the Auditor General, Wellington, New Zealand. Available at http://www.oag.govt.nz/2012/biodiversity. [Verified 18 June 2013]
Pannell, D. J., Roberts, A. M., Park, G., Alexander, J., Curatolo, A., and Marsh, S. (2012). Integrated assessment of public investment in land-use change to protect environmental assets in Australia. Land Use Policy 29, 377–387.
| Integrated assessment of public investment in land-use change to protect environmental assets in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pannell, D. J., Roberts, A. M., Park, G., and Alexander, J. (2013). Designing a practical and rigorous framework for comprehensive evaluation and prioritisation of environmental projects. Wildlife Research 40, 126–133.
| Designing a practical and rigorous framework for comprehensive evaluation and prioritisation of environmental projects.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Perry, N. (2010). The ecological importance of species and the Noah’s Ark problem. Ecological Economics 69, 478–485.
| The ecological importance of species and the Noah’s Ark problem.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Possingham, H. P., Ball, I. R., and Andelman, S. (2000). Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. In ‘Quantitative Methods for Conservation Biology’. (Eds S. Ferson and M. Burgman.) pp. 291–305. (Springer-Verlag: New York.)
Possingham, H. P., Andelman, S. J., Noon, B. R., Trombulak, S., and Pulliam, H. R. (2001). Making smart conservation decisions. In ‘Conservation Biology: Research Priorities for the Next Decade’. (Eds M. E. Soulé and G. H. Orians.) pp. 225–244. (Island Press: Washington, DC.)
Pressey, R. L., Watts, M. E., Barrett, T. W., and Ridges, M. J. (2009). The C-plan conservation planning system: origins, applications, and possible futures. In ‘Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools’. (Eds A. Moilanen, K. A. Wilson and H. Possingham.) pp. 211–234. (Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.)
Roberts, A. M., and Pannell, D. J. (2009). Piloting a systematic framework for public investment in regional natural resource management: dryland salinity in Australia. Land Use Policy 26, 1001–1010.
| Piloting a systematic framework for public investment in regional natural resource management: dryland salinity in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Roughley, A. (2009). ‘Developing and Using Program Logic in Natural Resource Management: User Guide.’ (Australian Government Land and Coasts: Canberra.)
Seymour, E., Pannell, D., Roberts, A., Marsh, S., and Wilkinson, R. (2008). Decision-making by regional bodies for natural resource management in Australia: current processes and capacity gaps. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 15, 211–221.
| Decision-making by regional bodies for natural resource management in Australia: current processes and capacity gaps.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Soderquist, T. (2011). What we don’t know and haven’t learned about cost–benefit prioritisation of rock-wallaby management. Australian Mammalogy 33, 202–213.
| What we don’t know and haven’t learned about cost–benefit prioritisation of rock-wallaby management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
The Heinz Center (2009). ‘Measuring the Results of Wildlife Conservation Activities.’ (The Heinz Center: Washington, DC.)
Weitzman, M. L. (1998). The Noah’s ark problem. Econometrica 66, 1279–1298.
| The Noah’s ark problem.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Whitten, S. M., Reeson, A., Windle, J., and Rolfe, J. (2013). Designing conservation tenders to support landholder participation: a framework and case study assessment. Ecosystem Services 6, 82–92.
| Designing conservation tenders to support landholder participation: a framework and case study assessment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wilson, H. (1998). Living in Raoul country: the changing flora and vegetation of Banks Peninsula. In ‘Ettienne Raoul and Canterbury Botany 1840–1996’. (Ed. C. J. Burrows.) pp. 101–121. (Canterbury Botanical Society and Manuka Press: Christchurch, New Zealand.)
Wilson, K. A., Cabeza, M., and Klein, C. J. (2009). Fundamental concepts of spatial conservation prioritization. In ‘Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools’. (Eds A. Moilanen, K. A. Wilson and H. P. Possingham.) pp. 16–27. (Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.)
Young, J. C., Jordan, A. R., Searle, K., Butler, A. S., Chapman, D., Simmons, P., and Watt, A. D. (2013). Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation? Biological Conservation 158, 359–370.
| Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2001). Action learning and action research: paradigm, praxis and programs. In ‘Effective Change Management through Action Research and Action Learning: Concepts, Perspectives, Processes and Applications’. (Eds S. Sankara, B. Dick and R. Passfield.) pp. 1–20. (Southern Cross University Press: Lismore, NSW.)
