Get access
Advertisement

Biological vs. social, economic and political priority-setting in conservation

Authors

  • Casey O'Connor,

    1. Environmental Studies Institute, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Michelle Marvier,

    1. Environmental Studies Institute, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA
    2. Department of Biology, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Peter Kareiva

    1. Environmental Studies Institute, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA
    2. The Nature Conservancy, 217 Pine Street, Suite 1100, Seattle, WA 98101, USA
    Search for more papers by this author

*E-mail: mmarvier@scu.edu

Abstract

The most influential conservation priority-setting approaches emphasize biodiversity and threats when deciding where to focus investment. However, socio-economic and political attributes of nations influence the effectiveness of conservation actions. A combination of biological and sociological variables in the context of a ‘return on investment’ framework for establishing conservation priorities was explored. While there was some overlap between megadiversity nations and return on investment priorities, only a few countries emerged as high priorities irrespective of which factors were included in the analysis. Conversely, some countries that ranked highly as priorities for conservation when focusing solely on biological metrics, did not rank highly when governance, population pressure, economic costs and conservation needs were considered (e.g. Colombia, Ecuador, Indonesia and Venezuela). No priority-setting scheme is a priori superior to alternative approaches. However, the analyses suggest that attention to governance and return on investment may alter biocentric assessments of ideal conservation investments.

Get access to the full text of this article

Ancillary