Land market feedbacks can undermine biodiversity conservation

  1. Paul R. Armsworth*,,
  2. Gretchen C. Daily*,
  3. Peter Kareiva, and
  4. James N. Sanchirico§
  1. *Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
  2. The Nature Conservancy, 4722 Latona Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98105; and
  3. §Resources for the Future, 1616 P Street NW, Washington, DC 20036
  1. Edited by F. Stuart Chapin III, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK, and approved January 30, 2006 (received for review June 23, 2005)

Abstract

The full or partial purchase of land has become a cornerstone of efforts to conserve biodiversity in countries with strong private property rights. Methods used to target areas for acquisition typically ignore land market dynamics. We show how conservation purchases affect land prices and generate feedbacks that can undermine conservation goals, either by displacing development toward biologically valuable areas or by accelerating its pace. The impact of these market feedbacks on the effectiveness of conservation depends on the ecological value of land outside nature reserves. Traditional, noneconomic approaches to site prioritization should perform adequately in places where land outside reserves supports little biodiversity. However, these approaches will perform poorly in locations where the countryside surrounding reserves is important for species’ persistence. Conservation investments can sometimes even be counterproductive, condemning more species than they save. Conservation is most likely to be compromised in the absence of accurate information on species distributions, which provides a strong argument for improving inventories of biodiversity. Accounting for land market dynamics in conservation planning is crucial for making smart investment decisions.

Footnotes

  • To whom correspondence should be sent at the present address:
    Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdom.
    E-mail: p.armsworth{at}sheffield.ac.uk
  • See Commentary on page 5245.

  • Author contributions: P.R.A., G.C.D., P.K., and J.N.S. designed research, performed research, analyzed data, and wrote the paper.

  • Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared.

  • This paper was submitted directly (Track II) to the PNAS office.

« Previous | Next Article »Table of Contents
From the Cover