ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Inadequate funding levels are a major impediment to effective global biodiversity conservation and are likely associated with recent failures to meet United Nations biodiversity targets. Some countries are more severely underfunded than others and therefore represent urgent financial priorities. However, attempts to identify these highly underfunded countries have been hampered for decades by poor and incomplete data on actual spending, coupled with uncertainty and lack of consensus over the relative size of spending gaps. Here, we assemble a global database of annual conservation spending. We then develop a statistical model that explains 86% of variation in conservation expenditures, and use this to identify countries where funding is robustly below expected levels. The 40 most severely underfunded countries contain 32% of all threatened mammalian diversity and include neighbors in some of the world's most biodiversity-rich areas (Sundaland, Wallacea, and Near Oceania). However, very modest increases in international assistance would achieve a large improvement in the relative adequacy of global conservation finance. Our results could therefore be quickly applied to limit immediate biodiversity losses at relatively little cost.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Targeting global conservation funding to limit
immediate biodiversity declines
Anthony Waldron
, Arne O. Mooers
, Daniel C. Miller
, Nate Nibbelink
, David Redding
, Tyler S. Kuhn
J. Timmons Roberts
, and John L. Gittleman
Odum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602;
Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, CEP
45662-900, Bahia, Brazil;
Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada V6E 1S5;
School of Natural Resources and Environment, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109;
Department of Genetics, Evolution and Enviornment, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom;
Center for Environmental Studies, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
Edited* by Peter H. Raven, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, Missouri, and approved May 13, 2013 (received for review December 14, 2012)
Inadequate funding levels are a major impediment to effective global
biodiversity conservation and are likely associated with recent fail-
ures to meet United Nations biodiversity targets. Some countries are
more severely underfunded than others and therefore represent
urgent nancial priorities. However, attempts to identify these highly
underfunded countries have been hampered for decades by poor and
incomplete data on actual spending, coupled with uncertainty and
lack of consensus over the relative size of spending gaps. Here, we
assemble a global database of annual conservation spending. We
then develop a statistical model that explains 86% of variation in
conservation expenditures, and use this to identify countries where
funding is robustly below expected levels. The 40 most severely
underfunded countries contain 32% of all threatened mammalian
diversity and include neighbors in some of the worlds most biodiver-
sity-rich areas (Sundaland, Wallacea, and Near Oceania). However,
very modest increases in international assistance would achieve
a large improvement in the relative adequacy of global conservation
nance. Our results could therefore be quickly applied to limit imme-
diate biodiversity losses at relatively little cost.
ecological/environmental policy
foreign aid
aced with the recent failure of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) signatories to signicantly reduce rates of
biodiversity loss by 2010 (1), the world conservation community
must urgently decide how to target its next efforts to halt the
current extinction crisis. The CBD parties repeatedly listed lack of
nancial resources as one of the main barriers to meeting CBD
goals in the run-up to the 2010 failure (2). Academic studies have
also documented the global inadequacy of conservation spending
and its relationship to increased rates of species imperilment (3
7). To improve the chances of fullling the new 20112020 stra-
tegic goals (8), and in particular the goal of effecting a rapid and
substantial reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss, the main
funding institutions need to target additional nance (3, 4, 7, 9).
To target the allocation of global conservation nance effec-
tively, assessments of relative underfunding across countries are
essential (1012). The short time period remaining to achieve the
new strategic goals also implies that underfunding assessments are
urgent. However, 20 y after the original Rio agreement, most
countries are still unable to quantify the relative adequacy of their
levels of conservation nance, or use widely differing criteria and
even guesswork to do so (4, 9, 12, 13). Even baseline data on
current conservation spending by country have proved difcult to
collate and are highly incomplete (4, 913). Biodiversity declines
have progressed rapidly (1), and further delays in improving -
nance are likely to lead to even greater global extinction risks, the
opposite of what is needed to make progress on Aichi biodiversity
targets (4, 8, 14). We therefore need tools that can rapidly and
consistently estimate current levels of underfunding by country but
are also robust to current uncertainties in data and knowledge.
Here, we rst assemble the most complete database of global
conservation spending yet published, including country-specic
data for $19.8 billion (bn) annually of major conservation funding
(at current values; SI Appendix), owing from a broad range of
international donors, domestic governments, and other impor-
tant sources (Methods Summary and SI Appendix). We then create
a statistical model that uses current conservation prioritization
factors to explain 86% of the variation in global spending pat-
terns across countries for the period 20012008. Finally, we es-
tablish relative levels of funding adequacy across countries and
highlight countries where biodiversity conservation seems most
severely underfunded, by comparing known current levels of
spending with the models expectation of spending. We also test
the underfunding assessments for sensitivity to the widely rec-
ognized uncertainties in conservation nance data (4, 12, 13),
and to choice of allocation model.
A recent assessment suggested that global funding would need
to increase by at least an order of magnitude to meet CBD bio-
diversity targets (without suggesting how that funding should be
distributed among countries) (3). However, such a large increase
may not be politically achievable in time to meet 2020 targets, in
which case we would need to know how to proportionally allocate
a limited pool of resources (15). Our model is therefore designed
to estimate proportional levels of underfunding, making it appli-
cable to the targeting of any size of change in global conservation
nance resources.
The model is based on four main considerations known to be
important in prioritizing global conservation spending (1012, 16
21): threatened biodiversity, cost, cost effectiveness (the likelihood
of investment success), and the size of the area to be conserved
(Table 1 and Methods Summary). We develop a politically equita-
ble biodiversity measure, the threatened global biodiversity fraction
(GBF) (Fig. 1A and SI Appendix, Fig. S2), that considers countries
responsible for stewarding the fraction of total global biodiversity
found within their borders (22) (SI Appendix,Fig.S3). Raw GBF is
calculated as the sum of all range fractions in each country, using
global Mammaliaa major target of biodiversity funding (23)as
our biodiversity surrogate (SI Appendix
). We developed GBF
rather than use simple species counts (7, 10, 11) because species are
often distributed very unevenly between countries, and yet simple
counts allocate equal responsibility irrespective of proportional
Author contributions: A.W., A.O.M., and D.R. designed research; A.W., D.C.M., and J.T.R.
performed research; N.N. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; A.W., D.C.M., and T.S.K.
analyzed data; and A.W., A.O.M., D.C.M., N.N., D.R., T.S.K., J.T.R., and J.L.G. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conict of interest.
*This Direct Submission article had a prearranged editor.
Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
Data deposition: The full dataset has been deposited with Dryad (doi 10.5061/dryad.p69t1).
To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
This article contains supporting information online at
July 16, 2013
vol. 110
no. 29
distributions. Our nal measure, threatened GBF, weights raw
GBF by risk of extinction (24) (SI Appendix).
The likel ihoo d of investment success (cost effectiveness) at
the country level should be strongly associated with governance
quality (7, 16, 18, 20), so we tested several possible governance
indicators as potential spending drivers (SI Appendix). We also
tested three possible cost measures and, nally, country size and
the extent of protected areas as candidate drivers of conservation
budget allocation decisions (Methods Summary and SI Appendix).
Our model premise is therefore that global biodiversity con-
servation spending patterns represent mu ltiple integrated pro-
fessional views abo ut what const itutes effective conservation
investment, with some variation in allocations due to political
and historica l preferences (4, 20, 25, 26) and, importantly, var-
iation due to lack of information on t he summed global spending
patterns themselves. To identify some of the political and his-
tori cal biases that might be driving departures from the model,
we also tested post hoc for largely donor-driven biases in re-
gion al allocation (26), and for reduced funding to Islamic (pre-
dominantly Muslim) countries, particularly Islamic countries in
the Arab world and central Asia (Afghanistan and neighbors)
(SI Appendix).
Results and Discussion
We estimate that the total annual expenditure on global biodiversity
was approximately $21.5bn for 20012008 (2005 US dollars, non-
market ows; SI Appendix). Of this amount, approximately $17bn
could be traced to country level (2005 US dollars, $19.8bn at current
values). The unknown $4.5bn largely represents government
spending by Mediterranean countries and spending by local com-
munities (Fig. 1B and SI Appendix). However, the nal analysis of
nancial shortfalls was carried out on $16bn, excluding $1bn of
nongovernmental organization (NGO) spending due to inconsistent
geographic coverage (SI Appendix). Traceable NGO ows were
strongly correlated with other donor ows (r = 0.85), suggesting this
omission is unlikely to have biased results (SI Appendix).
A total of $14.5bn of the $16bn analyzed represented domestic
spending, allocated among the four World Bank income catego-
ries (upper, upper-middle, lower-middle, and lower income) in the
proportions 94%, 4%, 2%, and 0.5% (SI Appendix). These data
suggest that domestic spending by developing countries is only
about 10% of previous estimates (27) (SI Appendix). A further
$1bn annual expenditure represented international biodiversity
aid. The major biodiversity aid donors were the Global Environ-
ment Facility (22% of biodiversity aid spending) and the World
Bank (19%; see Dataset S1 and data deposition for all donor ex-
penditure). The largest bilateral donors for biodiversity were the
United States (7.5%) and Germany (5%). The $1bn gure is based
on an explicit categorization of 75,000 aid projects and is again
appreciably lower than the broader biodiversity-related aid
often reported by aid donors (7) (SI Appendix). The remaining
$0.5bn is from other sources including conservation trust funds
(SI Appendix).
For the drivers of spending, our best-tting model explained
86% of the variance in bio diversity conservation investment. We
found that more threatened biodiversity, l arger area requiring
conservati on (both country area and percentage protected area
within country), higher costs, and higher GDP all drove higher
spending (Table 1), exp laining 76% of the variation (deviance)
on their own (SI Appendix). An additional 10% of variation is
explained by two governance indicators: spending increased
nonlinearly in countr ies with better government effectiveness
(better policy formulation and implementation; Table 1 and SI
) (28). Once other variables inclu ding govern-
ment effectiveness were controlled for, spending was higher in
countries that had been more politically unstable in 20012008
(Table 1 and SI Appendix,Fig.S1).
Fig. 1B highlights how far actual spending departed from ex-
pected spending in each country (the residual), and Table 2 shows
the 40 most severely underfunded countries (see SI Appendix,Table
S1, for all countries). Owing to the imprecision of nancial data (4,
Table 1. The best-tting model to explain global conservation
spending across countries
Predictor Slope t* P
Biodiversity 0.29 2.56 0.012
Country size 0.39 3.60 0.00005
Government effectiveness Spline 10.71 <0.000001
Political stability Spline 3.79 0.003
NPL (cost) 0.52 2.53 0.013
% land protected 0.46 5.81 <0.000001
GDP 0.36 2.64 0.010
GDP (quadratic) 0.15 1.95 0.054
Information-theoretic analysis was used but for reader information, we
include t and P values (n = 121, α = 0.05
*F value and approximate p
for splines) and standardized partial β coefcients for comparability. See
Methods Summary for data transformations.
Fig. 1. (A) Levels of threatened global biodiversity (measured as threatened
mammal GBF; see text and SI Appendix) stewarded by each country. Color
coding is in blocks of 0.5 SDs, with white and blue showing very low and low
threatened diversity (<0.25 SD, 0.250.25 SD); yellow, medium diversity; and
the four red colors, high diversity (0.75 SD to >2.3 SD, darker reds indicating
higher values). (B) Underfunding levels from the predictor model (darker col-
ors indicate worse underfunding, in blocks of 20 countries). Somalia was not
analyzed but is probably also highly underfunded (SI Appendix).
Waldron et al. PNAS
July 16, 2013
vol. 110
no. 29
12, 13), a reasonable policy interpretation would be that countries
with bigger negative residuals (shown as darker colors in Fig. 1B)
form a broad group of highly underfunded countries under current
priorities. We do not regard small differences between individual
country rankings as robustly interpretable. Data were still too
sparse to estimate shortfalls for all 198 countries, but we were able
to determine relative spending adequacy for 124, including all of
the worlds top-50 biodiversity nations (measured using our GBF
index) except Japan and Somalia (SI Appendix).
Table 2 also shows raw dollar differences between expected and
observed spending. All countries are likely underfunded in terms of
conservation (3, 4, 7), so the dollar values shown are unlikely to be
sufcient to halt biodiversity decline by 2020 (8) and above-average
spending should in no way be seen as overfunding. However, in
the event that the large amount of extra funding needed to fully
achieve Aichi targets (3, 8) is delayed, deciencies presented here
could be used in a rapid global triage approach (10, 11, 15) as
a proportional guide to the approximate funding improvements
appropriate for each country when resources are limited.
Policymakers should be particularly concerned by highly
underfunded countries that steward high amounts of threatened
biodiversity, so we further extracted all countries found in both
the bottom quartile of relative funding and the top quartile of
threatened biodiversity (measured as threatened mammal GBF).
These were Chile, Malaysia, the Solomon Islands, and Venezuela.
Highly underfunded countries are often neighbors (Fig. 1B),
creating areas where underfunding affects taxa across their entire
ranges. This trend is of particular concern in the geographical
grouping of MalaysiaIndonesiaAustralia, a region that holds
a very large amount of threatened biodiversity (Fig. 1A). There is
also a pattern of underfunding in arid and semiarid lands across
Central Asia, Northern Africa, and the Middle East, suggesting
the possibility of global degradation of these biomes.
Table 2. The most highly underfunded countries for biodiversity conservation
Rank Country
Data error
Model variation
Difference from
expected, $m
1 Iraq 100 100 0.7
2 Djibouti 100 100 0.65
3 Angola 100 100 3.59
4 Kyrgyzstan 100 100 2.06
5 Guyana 100 100 4.74
6 Solomon Islands 99.6 100 0.4
7 Malaysia 98.8 100 53.3
8 Eritrea 99.2 100 0.8
9 Chile 98.8 100 55.44
10 Algeria 100 100 13.34
11 Senegal 98.8 100 20.98
12 Trinidad and Tobago 98.4 100 4.38
13 Vanuatu 97.2 100 0.6
14 Uzbekistan 96 100 1.12
15 Morocco 98.4 100 8.36
16 Slovenia 94.8 100 6.19
17 Finland 93.6 100 69.76
18 Congo 91.6 100 1.35
19 Yemen 95.2 100 1.33
20 Comoros 92 100 0.07
21 Ivory Coast 93.2 100 7.02
22 Mauritania 92.4 100 1.95
23 Bhutan 86 100 4.75
24 Slovakia 83.2 100 9.98
25 Mongolia 90.4 100 4.34
26 Iceland 70.4 96.4 30.36
27 Colombia 85.2 89.3 72.73
28 Venezuela 76 100 25.02
29 Armenia 80.8 100 2.44
30 Moldova 72.4 100 0.34
31 Indonesia 66.4 100 24.14
32 Jordan 62 96.4
33 Azerbaijan 64.4 100 1.24
34 Sudan 63.6 89.3 2.14
35 Botswana 58 96.4 11.41
36 France 64.8 96.4 355.49
37 Sri Lanka 51.6 75 6.08
38 Australia 62 71.4 275.36
39 China 39.6 75 75.31
40 Austria 46.4 89.3 53.08
The 40 most highly underfunded countries are shown, in rank order, along with the percentage of times
that they ranked in the bottom 40 when data were perturbed (column 3) or the model was varied (column 4).
The last column shows the difference between expected and observed spending in $US millions. See SI Ap-
pendix for all countries analyzed.
| Waldron et al.
The positive inuence of political instability on spending was
only detectable when government effectiveness was also included
in the model (otherwise spending tended to be lower in less
stable countries). Instability considerations may therefore only
represent a minor priority adjustment to the general pattern on
investing more in better-governed countries. Indeed, a sizeable
fraction of the countries identied as highly underfunded have
suffered recent (and in some cases ongoing) armed conicts, e.g.,
Iraq, Somalia (SI Appendix), and several countries in central
Asia, North and West Africa, and South East Asia (29), sug-
gesting that a net donor reticence to investing in countries in
conict still exists overall (29). Globally, countries in conict
have high levels of both biodiversity and threat (29, 30). Donor
reticence therefore deserves careful consideration because re-
moval of funding may make a bad situation even worse.
Table 2, perhaps surprisingly, includes some developed coun-
tries, e.g., Finland, France, Iceland, Australia, and Austria. We note
that, toward the end of the study period and in forward-looking
budget plans, many of those countries made very large increases in
their biodiversity funding allocations (SI Appendix), although in the
case of Australia and France such increases are still smaller than the
modeled shortfalls in Table 2. We discuss developed country pat-
terns further in SI Appendix. We also modelled developed and
developing/emerging countries separately. The results were ex-
tremely similar to the all-country analysis presented here, with the
same developing countries being listed as highly underfunded
whether or not developed countries were included in the model
(with the one exception of China; SI Appendix).
When testing for political and historical biases, we found that
predominantly Islamic Arab/central Asian countries had only
49% of the funding that countries in the rest of the world re-
ceived for similar levels of biodiversity, size, cost, and governance
(t = 3.31, P = 0.001; SI Appendix). Donors are the main source
of funding for these countries and so an underfunding pattern
may reect donor bias. The pattern may also help explain the
severe underfunding of arid biomes globally and deserves further
investigation. There was a similar but weaker pattern of reduced
funding with increasing percentage of Muslim population glob-
ally (SI Appendix ). Regional funding differences were detectable,
but were dropped from the model when terms related to the
predominance of Islam were included (SI Appendix).
Decision makers may need to further investigate subnational or
country-specic investment contexts when targeting allocations at
a ner scale (16, 31). They should also be aware that the in-
vestment efciency of current institutional weightings for factors
such as cost effectiveness (governance) remains largely untested in
the scientic literature. Nevertheless, underfunding patterns un-
der the model remain surprisingly consistent even when gover-
nance terms are omitted (e.g., 75% of the countries in Table 2
remain unchanged; SI Appendix). No country-level breakdown was
available for the estimated $2bn spent by local developing-country
communities annually on conservation (32) and no quantitative
sensitivity test of how this might affect the results was possible.
Over the longer term, scientists and policymakers will achieve
better funding, more comprehensive data, and more sophisticated
allocation tools. For example, mathematical efciency algorithms
have been developed, principally suggesting how to allocate re-
sources for the purchase and capitalization of new protected areas,
e.g., by 20302040 (16). Theoretically, it should be possible to develop
a similar but broader algorithm to estimate efcient funding alloca-
tions for all conservation actions globally, including nance needs for
existing protected area maintenance, future land purchases, and the
full range of conservation activities outside protected areas. Never-
theless, such an approach will require comprehensive and accurate
global data, extensive testing of whether the conclusions are sensitive
to the precisely specied priorities and weightings, and global polit-
ical consensus on exact weightings, a currently infeasible combination
of conditions (16, 20, 33). Developing and applying such an algorithm
could therefore take several years.
In the meantime, rapid methods that work robustly within
current uncertainties could signicantly reduce short-term bio-
diversity losses (14) and also reduce the need for future expendi-
tures (4), especially if the methods also reect current institutional
priorities. Our estimates of relative underfunding levels proved
robust to possible data inaccuracies and competing allocation
models (see Methods Summary, Table 2, and SI Appendix, Table
S1, for qualitative robustness). Judicious application of the under-
funding patterns revealed here may therefore reduce short-term
biodiversity losses with appreciably greater efciency than would
current spending patterns.
Short-term biodiversity losses may indeed be substantial if fund-
ing patterns are not improved: the 40 most highly underfunded
countries in our analysis steward 32% of all threatened global bio-
diversity (threatened mammal GBF), including many of the species
that moved into a higher category of extinction risk between 1996
and 2008 (1). However, most of these highly underfunded countries
are developing nations, where only a modest absolute dollar in-
vestment would generate a large correction in relative underfunding
(Table 2 and SI Appendix,TableS1). Our results therefore suggest
that international conservation donors have the opportunity to act
now, in a swift and coordinated fashion, to reduce an immediate
wave of further biodiversity declines at relatively little cost.
Methods Summary
We collated a database of country-level conservation funding ows from
multiple sources including government, donors, trust funds, and self-funding
via user payments, and then calculated average annualized spending 2001
2008 (in constant 2005 US dollars). Formally speaking, global conservation -
nance data represent an unknowable population for statistical modeling (4, 9,
13), and the database represents a very large sample, an order of magnitude
larger and more representative than previous comparable work (10, 11) (SI
Appendix). We created candidate regression models using threatened mam-
mal GBF, country area, percent protected area, gross domestic product (GDP),
the cost measures national price level (NPL), and the conservation action unit
(the recurrent cost of maintaining 100 km
of protected area for 1 y; SI Ap-
pendix), ve possible governance indicators and an Island term, and then used
information-theoretic approaches to test model ts. Diagnostic plots sug-
gested nonlinearities (especially in governance and GDP responses) and non-
normality, so we ln(x + constant)-transformed all variables except NPL and
percent protected area, added several generalized additive mixed models with
cubic splines to the candidate model set, and tested possible quadratic terms.
Residuals were tested for spatial autocorrelation by semivariogram plots and
by adding several possible spatial covariance structures and comparing Akaike
information criterion (AIC) values. There was no strong collinearity and no
spatial autocorrelation in the residuals. Relative funding adequacy was de-
ned as the residuals from the model, scaled by total spending. We repeated
the regression 1,000 times with perturbed spending data, drawing each per-
turbed amount from a random normal distribution with mean of the original
value and 1 SD = 25% of the original value. We also reran the analysis for a ll 26
models that provided a medium to good t(ΔAIC < 10). We tested post hoc for
improvement in t when percentage Muslim population (globally or in Arab/
central Asian countries only) and/or political region were added to the model.
See SI Appendix and Dataset S1 for further details.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank colleagues at Simon Fraser Univer sity and
T. Brooks for methodological discussion and comments and several referees
for comments on previous versions of this manuscript. The work was
supported in part by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
Canada Discovery grant (to A.O.M.), the Odum School of Ecology (A.W. and
J.L.G.), and the MacArthur Foundation through the Advancing Conservation
in a Social Context research initiative (D.C.M. and J.T.R.).
1. Butchart SHM, et al. (2010) Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science
2. Convention on Biological Diversity (2009) CBD Country Reports. Available at www. Accessed September 1, 2012.
Waldron et al. PNAS
July 16, 2013
vol. 110
no. 29
3. McCarthy DP, et al. (2012) Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation tar-
gets: Current spending and unmet needs. Science 338(6109):946949.
4. Balmford A, Gaston KJ, Blyth S, James A, Kapos V (2003) Global variation in terrestrial
conservation costs, conservation benets, and unmet conservation needs. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 100(3):10461050.
5. McKinney ML (2002) Effects of national conservation spending and amount of pro-
tected area on species threat rates. Conserv Biol 16(2):539543.
6. Leader-Williams N, Albon SD (1988) Allocation of resources for conservation. Nature
7. Miller DC, Agrawal A, Timmons Roberts J (2013) Biodiversity, governance, and the
allocation of international aid for conservation. Conserv Lett 6(1):1220.
8. Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) COP Decision X/2. Strategic plan for bio-
diversity 20112020. Available at Accessed May
5, 2011.
9. James A, Gaston KJ, Balmford A (2001) Can we afford to conserve biodiversity? Bio-
science 51(1):4352.
10. Balmford A, Long A (1995) Across-country analyses of biodiversity congruence and
current conservation effort in the tropics. Conserv Biol 9(6):15391547.
11. Halpern BS, et al. (2006) Gaps and mismatches between global conservation priorities
and spending. Conserv Biol 20(1):5664.
12. Bovarnick A, Fernandez-Baca J, Galindo J, Negret H (2010) Financial Sustainability of
Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean: Investment Policy Guidance
(United Nations Development Programme, New York).
13. Lapham NP, Livermore RJ (2003) Striking a Balance: Ensuring Conservations Place on
the International Biodiversity Assistance Agenda (Conservation International Center
for Applied Biodiversity Science and Center for Conservation and Government,
Washington, DC).
14. Martin TG, et al. (2012) Acting fast helps avoid extinction. Conserv Lett 5:274280.
15. Bottrill M, et al. (2009) Finite funds means triage is unavoidable. Trends Ecol Evol
16. Wilson KA, et al. (2011) Prioritizing conservation investments for mammal species
globally. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 366(1578):26702680.
17. Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Soberón J, Salazar I, Fay JP (2005) Global mammal conserva-
tion: What must we manage? Science 309(5734):603607.
18. Eklund J, Arponen A, Visconti P, Cabeza M (2011) Governance factors in the identi-
cation of global conservation priorities for mammals. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol
Sci 366(1578):26612669.
19. Redford KH, et al. (2003) Mapping the conservation landscape. Conserv Biol 17(1):
20. Tierney MJ, et al. (2011) More dollars than sense: Rening our knowledge of de-
velopment nance using AidData. World Dev 39(11):18911906.
21. Hickey V, Pimm SL (2011) How the World Bank funds protected areas. Conserv Lett 4:
22. Kier G, et al. (2009) A global assessment of endemism and species richness across is-
land and mainland regions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(23):93229327.
23. Metrick A, Weitzmann ML (1998) Conicts and choices in biodiversity preservation.
J Econ Perspect 12(3):2134.
24. Redding DW, Mooers (2006) Incorporating evolutionary measures into conser-
vation prioritization. Conserv Biol 20(6):16701678.
25. Lewis TL (2003) Environmental aid: Driven by recipient need or donor interests? Soc
Sci Q 84(1):144161.
26. Hicks RL, Parks BC, Roberts JT, Tierney MJ (2008) Greening Aid? Understanding En-
vironmental Assistance to Developing Countries (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford).
27. Parker C, Cranford M, Oates N, Leggett M (2012) The Little Biodiversity Finance Book
(Global Canopy Programme, Oxford, UK), 3rd Ed.
28. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2010) The Worldwide Governance Indicators:
Methodology and Analytical Issues. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.
5430. Available at Accessed May 5, 2009.
29. Hanson T, et al. (2009) Warfare in biodiversity hotspots. Conserv Biol 23(3):578587.
30. Emerton L, Bishop J, Thomas L (2006) Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas.
A Global Review of Challenges and Options (IUCN, Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge,
31. Cleary D (2006) The questionable effectiveness of science spending by international
conservation organizations in the tropics. Conserv Biol 20(3):733738.
32. Molnar A, Scherr S, Khare A (2004) Who Conserves the Worlds Forests? A New As-
sessment of Conservation and Investment Trends (Forest Trends, Washington, DC).
Available at Accessed April 10, 2012.
33. Mace GM, et al. (2000) Its time to work together and stop duplicating conservation
efforts.... Nature 405(6785):393.
| Waldron et al.
... Regarding geographical bias, the largest number of studies has been carried out by researchers based in developed countries (Waldron et al. 2013, Lindsey et al. 2017. For example, until 2013, 79% of all studies of connectivity were carried out by European and North American researchers, and approximately 28% of studies were done in the USA (Correa-Ayram et al. 2016). ...
... To analyse connectivity, it is essential to collect dispersal data using telemetry collars, genetic samples, or camera traps; however, these approaches require the capture, containment, or monitoring of individuals (Caravaggi et al. 2021) and can be logistically complicated and expensive (Michalski et al. 2007), so researchers in developed countries are more likely to use them (Waldron et al. 2013, Lindsey et al. 2017). North American countries had the highest percentages of studies with telemetry data, genetic samples, and camera traps, while in the countries of Central and South America, the most commons tools and techniques are species presence records derived from camera traps and interviews (Zeller et al. 2011, Paviolo et al. 2016). ...
Habitat connectivity is essential to mitigate the effects of fragmentation by maintaining ecological processes, exchange of individuals, and gene flow among isolated populations. In the last two decades, the importance of habitat connectivity has been highlighted and the number of studies that address this issue has increased. We review and describe the habitat‐connectivity studies for the Carnivora in the Americas to identify taxonomic, geographic, and methodological biases, and we examine the number of publications on habitat connectivity and their relationship with country‐level parameters. We reviewed habitat‐connectivity studies published between 2000 and 2020. We quantified studies by region, country, family, and species. We identified information gaps and analysed each country based on the proportion of land modified by humans, species richness, percentage of carnivoran species that are at risk of extinction, and the percentage of territory that is within Protected Areas. G‐tests were performed to verify if the number of published connectivity studies differed based on these variables. There is an increasing trend in the number of studies; however, this increasing is not proportional among countries, among families, or among carnivoran species. We identified that there is a regional bias, since more than 75% of the studies were carried out in North America, in addition, taxonomic bias indicates that the studies focused on large carnivorans. Regarding the methodological bias, the least‐cost path was the most used approach. There are fewer studies on habitat connectivity in countries with higher fragmentation rates, higher percentages of species that are at risk of extinction and less percentage of land in Protected Areas. The capability of countries to invest in research, the study focused on large charismatic species and the difficulty to obtaining dispersion data are factors that have influenced in the study of habitat connectivity. La conectividad del hábitat es esencial para mitigar los efectos de la fragmentación al mantener los procesos ecológicos, el intercambio de individuos y el flujo de genes entre poblaciones aisladas. En las últimas dos décadas se ha destacado la importancia de la conectividad del hábitat y se ha incrementado el número de estudios que abordan este tema. Revisamos y describimos los estudios de conectividad de hábitat del orden Carnívora en América, para identificar sesgos taxonómicos, geográficos y metodológicos, y examinamos el número de publicaciones sobre conectividad de hábitat y su relación con parámetros a nivel de país. Revisamos los estudios de conectividad del hábitat publicados entre 2000 y 2020. Cuantificamos los estudios por región, país, familia y especie. Identificamos los vacíos de información y analizamos a cada país en función de la proporción de territorio modificado por humanos, la riqueza de especies, el porcentaje de especies de mamíferos carnívoros que están en riesgo de extinción y el porcentaje de territorio que se encuentra dentro de las Áreas Protegidas. Se realizaron pruebas G para verificar si el número de estudios de conectividad publicados difería en función de estas variables. Hay una tendencia creciente en el número de estudios; sin embargo, este aumento no es proporcional entre países, entre familias o entre especies de mamíferos carnívoros. Identificamos que existe un sesgo regional, ya que más del 75% de los estudios se realizaron en Norteamérica, además, el sesgo taxonómico indica que los estudios se enfocaron en los grandes carnívoros. En cuanto al sesgo metodológico, la ruta de menor costo fue el enfoque más utilizado. Hay menor cantidad de estudios sobre conectividad de hábitat en países con mayores tasas de fragmentación, mayor porcentajes de especies en riesgo de extinción y menor porcentaje de territorio en Áreas Protegidas. La capacidad de los países para invertir en investigación, el estudio centrado en especies carismáticas de gran tamaño y la dificultad para obtener datos de dispersión son factores que han influido en el estudio de la conectividad del hábitat. We reviewed studies on habitat connectivity published between 2000 and 2020, and quantified them by region, country, family, and species. We analysed the proportion of land that is modified by humans, species richness, the percentage of carnivoran species that is at risk of extinction (Near Threatened, Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered), and the percentage of land in Protected Areas in each country. There is an increasing trend in the number of studies in the last two decades; however, it is not proportional among countries, families, or among carnivorans species. There is a regional bias, as approximately 70% of the studies were conducted in North America, in addition, taxonomic bias was observed as the studies are focused primarily on jaguar Panthera onca, puma Puma concolor, and black bear Ursus americanus. Regarding the methodological bias, the least‐cost path has been the most used approach. There are fewer studies on habitat connectivity in countries with higher fragmentation rates, higher percentages of threatened species and less land in Protected Areas.
... Following previous researchers, the variables we theorized to influence the budget needs were the local cost base, the degree of human pressure that the PA system has to resist, and economies of scale [180][181][182]186 . Following Waldron et al. 133,187 , we corrected for national differences in this cost base, we used purchasing power parity 188 , multiplying the cost per hectare by the national price index. For pressure, a common metric is the Human Footprint 183,184,189 , which could be regarded as a form of supply-side pressure. ...
... We therefore tested for the predictive power of governance without a prior expectation of the sign of the relationship, and in a separate set of tests, for the predictive power of the GDP per capita (in $PPP). For the governance metric, we used the Government Effectiveness score from World Bank Groups' Worldwide Governance Indicators dataset 191 , since this has been associated with biodiversity finance patterns in the past 187,192 . GDP per capita was taken from World Bank data, using the mean of 2012-2017 to reflect the period over which the majority of the bottom-up cost estimates were made. ...
... While we found that protected areas can actively support human wellbeing, linkages between nature's contributions and well-being have not yet been paradoxically linked to Chilean formal programs for human development. Also, although its economy has continually grown, Chile ranks below the average OECD countries in terms of different dimensions of human well-being, and regarding the nancial efforts to protect biodiversity (OECD, 2017; Waldron et al., 2013). This is more critical for Chilean rural communities because nature's contributions signi cantly support their livelihoods Our results also bring evidence for a set of mechanisms to facilitate a management plan that is interconnected with human well-being. ...
Full-text available
Biodiversity conservation contributes to satisfy the human well-being. Particularly, protected areas reshape the ways in which people interact with ecosystems and each other, producing changes in the opportunities they have to satisfy the different dimensions of their well-being. The pathways linking human well-being and protected areas could be understood as one or more causal mechanisms, which can be structured through nature’s contributions to people -or ecosystem services- (NCP). A semi-structured interview captured the perceptions of stakeholders of four Chilean protected areas to identify the multiple mechanisms regarding how protected areas and well-being are related. Stakeholders expressed a diversity of NCP from protected areas, including material, non-material, and regulating NCP. The frequencies of mentions of the categories of NCP varied significantly among protected areas. The reported NCP varied among stakeholders from different institutions. The stakeholders’ narratives suggested that protected areas satisfy several dimensions of human well-being, which varied across protected areas. Protected areas were declared as contributing to several dimensions of human well-being, not only economically. The narratives showed co-occurrences of the satisfaction of dimensions of human well-being and NCP or activities from protected areas. Narratives suggested a set of multiple mechanisms between protected areas and human well-being at local level. This study emphasizes the need to design adaptive management plans of protected areas based on multiple mechanisms linking biodiversity protection and human well-being. Also, our results could facilitate the alignment of biodiversity conservation and community development agendas.
... Evidence from the Southern Hemisphere and tropical and arid grasslands is notably absent. This reflects, in part, the lack of funding for experimental work in the developing world [100]. However, our exclusion of studies that dealt with partially wooded environments at the landscape scale, such as savannahs and chaparrals, impacted the scope. ...
Full-text available
Over the last 20 years, there has been a surge of interest in the use of reflectance data collected using satellites and aerial vehicles to monitor vegetation diversity. One methodological option to monitor these systems involves developing empirical relationships between spectral heterogeneity in space (spectral variation) and plant or habitat diversity. This approach is commonly termed the ‘Spectral Variation Hypothesis’. Although increasingly used, it is controversial and can be unreliable in some contexts. Here, we review the literature and apply three-level meta-analytical models to assess the test results of the hypothesis across studies using several moderating variables relating to the botanical and spectral sampling strategies and the types of sites evaluated. We focus on the literature relating to grasslands, which are less well studied compared to forests and are likely to require separate treatments due to their dynamic phenology and the taxonomic complexity of their canopies on a small scale. Across studies, the results suggest an overall positive relationship between spectral variation and species diversity (mean correlation coefficient = 0.36). However, high levels of both within-study and between-study heterogeneity were found. Whether data was collected at the leaf or canopy level had the most impact on the mean effect size, with leaf-level studies displaying a stronger relationship compared to canopy-level studies. We highlight the challenges facing the synthesis of these kinds of experiments, the lack of studies carried out in arid or tropical systems and the need for scalable, multitemporal assessments to resolve the controversy in this field.
... Given the scale of the biodiversity loss, conservation science funding is chronically below the levels needed (Malcom et al. 2019). However, even modest increases to international aid would yield significant gains in developing countries (Waldron et al. 2013). ...
Full-text available
Translocations are an important conservation tool that enable the restoration of species and their ecological functions. They are particularly important during the current environmental crisis. We used a combination of text-analysis tools to track the history and evolution of the peer-reviewed scientific literature on animal translocation science. We compared this corpus with research showcased in the IUCNs Global Conservation Translocation Perspectives, a curated collection of non-peer-reviewed reintroduction case studies. We show that the peer-reviewed literature, in its infancy, was dominated by charismatic species. It then grew in two classical threads: management of the species of concern and management of the environment of the species. The peer-reviewed literature exhibits a bias towards large charismatic mammals, and while these data are invaluable, expansion to under-represented groups such as insects and reptiles will be critical to combating biodiversity loss across taxonomic groups. These biases were similar in the Translocation Perspectives, but with some subtle differences. To ensure translocation science can address global issues, we need to overcome barriers that restrict this research to a limited number of countries.
... Only if PAs are whether large enough, well connected, representing diverse habitats or properly managed, they are successful in protecting threatened species compared to other land uses (Gray et al., 2016).Finally, cultural and institutional sources of social injustice exist regarding the management of PAs in the realities of the developing world (Martin et al., 2016), in which societies are most vulnerable to the detrimental effects of global environmental change (Ehrlich et al., 2012). At the same time, many developing countries steward a large share of threatened biodiversity while being highly underfunded for conservation (Waldron et al., 2013). Although different forms of decline in government support for PAs are widely observed worldwide, including high-income European countries (Watson et al., 2014), human pressures inside PAs increase greater in low-developed areas (Geldmann et al., 2019). ...
Full-text available
As Natura 2000 missed challenges of halting biodiversity decline, its' management is being affected by factors of ecological, political, and economic character. To address the shortcomings revealed during the Fitness Check and to facilitate meeting the EU's biodiversity targets, the European Commission developed an "Action Plan for Nature, People and the Economy" prioritizing areas for improvement. However, mixed views still exist on the Nat-ura 2000 governance; it is not certain that Action Plan would address existing drawbacks. The aim of the research was to identify divergent and convergent experts' attitudes towards biodiversity conservation in Europe, with a focus on forward-looking environmental gov-ernance and policy-informing perspective. Participants representing multiple disciplines and professional backgrounds related to planning, governance, or management of Natura 2000 sites provided a comprehensive overview on the topic and address-related challenges. Based on the results of a Delphi survey, we established a framework for illuminating the spaces of disjunction in experts' views towards Natura 2000 conservation. We distinguished three main divergence areas in views towards future network operation: (1) raising public awareness of environmental problems in the network, (2) the role of the European Commission in building political ownership of Natura 2000 sites among landholders, and (3) funding of Natura 2000. Then, based on revealed dichotomies, we return with drawing a roadmap for promoting more consensual outcomes. The results should help enable the practical management of conflicting views and the effective engagement of future biodiversity conservation strategies in Europe and beyond.
... For now, it seems that NFTs are being aimed for conservation investments through fund-raising campaigns, which is essential for conservation. Lack of funding is a significant impediment to biodiversity conservation (Waldron et al. 2013) and global funding for conservation needs to increase by at least an order of magnitude to meet CBD biodiversity targets (McCarthy et al. 2012). Upcoming technologies such as blockchain and NFTs could assist conservation investments. ...
Conservation programs around the world aim to balance social equity, economic efficiency, and conservation outcomes. Tradeoffs among these three objectives necessarily exist but have been quantified in only a handful of systems. Here, we use a multi-objective mathematical optimization model in a large, water-limited river basin to quantify these tradeoffs in a freshwater payment for ecosystem services (PES) program aimed at establishing environmental flows (e-flows). Across a range of budgetary and future climate scenarios, we find that tradeoffs between social equity and conservation outcomes are small. We also show that payment schemes in which incentives are allocated to a single water use sector are much less cost-effective than schemes in which incentives are allocated among multiple sectors. Thus, allocating payments equally among agricultural, municipal, and industrial sectors can be both more equitable and more cost-effective. Overall, our results illustrate how some carefully designed conservation programs may be able to achieve a triple bottom line of social equity, economic efficiency, and conservation effectiveness.
The Earth is rich in biodiversity, rich in valuable flora and fauna. Even so, many destructions are happening through time. Plants, for example, despite their valuable services to mankind, are being ruthlessly destroyed due to development projects and increased dependence. Although many species are threatened by anthropogenic pressure, many are threatened by invasive alien species and climate changes. Thus, many plants are threatened with extinction and are included in the RET group by IUCN. Before taking scientific measures to ensure their conservation and cultivation, it is essential to study their natural distribution and their demographic status. There are a number of strategies adopted by the government and various organizations to protect them. The ex situ and in situ formulas are mostly applicable for RET plant conservation. But there are so many limitations to each of them, and the strategies are specific to plants including in the threatened category. Botanical gardens and seed banks have a major role in this conservation. Keywords: RET plants- Conservation strategies- Ex situ -In situ-Challenges-GSPC-BRAHMS
Full-text available
Objective. This study investigates the trends in the distribution of environmental aid from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), U.S. foundations, and a multilateral donor, the Global Environmental Fund (GEF), to determine whether aid is driven by donor interests or recipient need. Methods. Data from USAID, the Foundation Center, GEF, and other secondary sources are analyzed using logistic and OLS regressions. Results. Traditional donor interests (politics, economics, and security) and donors’ environmental interests (those favoring “global” environmental concerns over local ones) explain which nations receive environmental aid and which do not and how much nations receive. In general, the allocation of environmental aid differs from that of official development assistance. The United States does not demonstrate a middle–income bias; multilateral aid is not more “humanitarian” than bilateral aid. Foundations’ allocation patterns favor traditional donors interests. Conclusions. Environmental aid does not target the nations that are most in need of abating local pollution. Instead, environmental aid donors favor nations with whom they have had prior relations (economic and security), nations that are democratic, and nations with unexploited natural resources. In short, donor interests outweigh recipient need.
Full-text available
The social sciences are often seen as being in opposition to conservation and the practice of conservationists. Yet social scientists have made important contributions to conservation and could make even more contributions if they are willing to use their perceptive, insightful tools as a means of both improving the practice of conservation and sharpening social science’s critique of conservation ideas and practices. I provide two lists: first, a list of the ways in which I think social science work has already improved conservation practice and, second, a set of generalizations made by some social scientists about the practice of conservation that are incorrect or incomplete. I argue that a more careful application of social science tools and approaches could begin an active and informed exploration of the diversity of values, histories, institutions, politics and approaches in conservation. This would facilitate the sharpening of social science’s critique of conservation ideas and practices and, through these, improve the practice of conservation.
Full-text available
Failure to act quickly on evidence of rapid population decline has led to the first mammal extinction in Australia in the last 50 years, the Christmas Island Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus murrayi). The fate of another iconic species, the migratory Orange-bellied Parrot (Neophema chrysogaster), monitored intensively for over 20 years, hangs in the balance. To inform future conservation management and decision making, we investigate the decision process that has led to the plight of both species. Our analysis suggests three globally relevant recommendations for minimizing species extinction worldwide: (1) informed, empowered, and responsive governance and leadership is essential; (2) processes that ensure institutional accountability must be in place, and; (3) decisions must be made whilst there is an opportunity to act. The bottom line is that, unless responsive and accountable institutional processes are in place, decisions will be delayed and extinction will occur.
Full-text available
Theory dictates that conservation areas should be as large as possible. When money for their protection is inadequate, different considerations come into play.
There is little systematic knowledge about the magnitude and allocation of international funding flows to support biodiversity conservation in the developing world. Using the newly released AidData compilation, we present a comprehensive assessment of official donor assistance for biodiversity during 1980–2008. We find that biodiversity aid increased markedly in the early 1990s, but that estimates of current aid are likely overstated and donor commitments at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit have not been met. Aid has been well targeted, however, in that the allocation of biodiversity aid is positively associated with the number of threatened species in recipient countries after controlling for country size, national population, and wealth. Biodiversity aid is also positively associated with indicators of good governance. Our results provide an empirical measure of progress toward international conservation funding targets, a baseline against which future flows can be compared, and information necessary to assess the effectiveness of biodiversity aid.
World governments have committed to halting human-induced extinctions and safeguarding important sites for biodiversity by 2020, but the financial costs of meeting these targets are largely unknown. We estimate the cost of reducing the extinction risk of all globally threatened bird species (by ≥1 International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List category) to be U.S. $0.875 to $1.23 billion annually over the next decade, of which 12% is currently funded. Incorporating threatened nonavian species increases this total to U.S. $3.41 to $4.76 billion annually. We estimate that protecting and effectively managing all terrestrial sites of global avian conservation significance (11,731 Important Bird Areas) would cost U.S. $65.1 billion annually. Adding sites for other taxa increases this to U.S. $76.1 billion annually. Meeting these targets will require conservation funding to increase by at least an order of magnitude.
Red-list data from non-island nations show that a greater proportion of protected area is correlated with significantly lower percentages of threatened birds, mammals and plants, and especially overharvested birds and mammals, once the effects of endemism, human population size, and other confounding variables are removed. Proportion, number and size of areas protected are among the reserve traits correlated with reduced threat. Per-capita conservation spending strongly correlates with per-capita income and with proportion of area protected, number of reserves, and proportion of partially protected area. Although most reserve traits are positively correlated among themselves, median reserve size is significantly inversely correlated with other reserve traits and with conservation spending, indicating that wealthier nations have more numerous but smaller and less protected reserves than poorer nations. These findings represent correlation rather than causation, but they do support studies at finer scales which suggest that even poorly protected “paper parks” are better than no parks at all for the reduction of threat among species.
The World Bank is the largest international funder of biodiversity conservation. It invests in protected areas to conserve species and spaces, protect ecosystems, and provide food, shelter, and other ecosystem services to local communities. It spends on average, $275 million annually supporting parks in developing countries. We examined their protected areas investment portfolio from 1988 to 2008 to understand how they allocate these funds. We found that more money is allocated to countries with progressively larger GDPs. Many, but not all, of these investments correlate with consensus opinions of high biodiversity priorities. But the World Bank's investments are not proportional; poorer countries receive relatively more funds than richer ones, regardless of biodiversity importance. We suggest that these investments focus on supporting parks that provide benefits to local communities, particularly in poorer nations, rather than on biodiversity priorities in a vacuum. This mirrors their mission to work for a world without poverty.