Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group
- Michael Bode*,†,‡,
- Kerrie A. Wilson*,
- Thomas M. Brooks§,¶,
- Will R. Turner§,
- Russell A. Mittermeier§,
- Marissa F. McBride*,‖,
- Emma C. Underwood**, and
- Hugh P. Possingham*,†
- *The Ecology Center, School of Integrative Biology and
- †Department of Mathematics, University of Queensland, St. Lucia 4072, Australia;
- §Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202;
- ¶World Forestry Center, University of the Philippines, P.O. Box 35024, Los Bassos 4031, Philippines;
- ‖Australian Center of Excellence for Risk Analysis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3010, Australia; and
- **Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
-
Edited by Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, and approved February 26, 2008 (received for review November 14, 2007)
Abstract
Priorities for conservation investment at a global scale that are based on a single taxon have been criticized because geographic richness patterns vary taxonomically. However, these concerns focused only on biodiversity patterns and did not consider the importance of socioeconomic factors, which must also be included if conservation funding is to be allocated efficiently. In this article, we create efficient global funding schedules that use information about conservation costs, predicted habitat loss rates, and the endemicity of seven different taxonomic groups. We discover that these funding allocation schedules are less sensitive to variation in taxon assessed than to variation in cost and threat. Two-thirds of funding is allocated to the same regions regardless of the taxon, compared with only one-fifth if threat and cost are not included in allocation decisions. Hence, if socioeconomic factors are considered, we can be more confident about global-scale decisions guided by single taxonomic groups.
Footnotes
- ‡To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: mbode{at}unimelb.edu.au
-
Author contributions: M.B., K.A.W., T.M.B., W.R.T., and H.P.P. designed research; M.B., K.A.W., and T.M.B. performed research; M.B., W.R.T., and H.P.P. analyzed data; and M.B., K.A.W., T.M.B., W.R.T., R.A.M., M.F.M., E.C.U., and H.P.P. wrote the paper.
-
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
-
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
-
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0710705105/DCSupplemental.
- © 2008 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA
