Search for: All records

Given declines in biodiversity and ecosystem services, funding to support conservation must be invested effectively. However, funds for conservation often come with geographic restrictions on where they can be spent. We introduce a method to demonstrate to supporters of conservation how much more could be achieved if they were to allow greater flexibility over conservation funding. Specifically, we calculated conservation exchange rates that summarized gains in conservation outcomes available if funding originating in one location could be invested elsewhere. We illustrate our approach by considering nongovernmental organization funding and major federal programs within the US and a range of conservation objectives focused on biodiversity and ecosystem services. We show that large improvements in biodiversity and ecosystem service provision are available if geographic constraints on conservation funding were loosened. Finally, we demonstrate how conservation exchange rates can be used to spotlight promising opportunities for relaxing geographic funding restrictions.

New land protection is expensive, and many conservation NGOs rely on loans to help fund land acquisition in the short term. Conservation loans are offered by a range of philanthropic organizations that often allow much more flexible terms than traditional loans. Thus, conservation loans may behave differently from other types of loan. There are costs and benefits to relying on loan financing to fund land protection that organizations need to consider, but few data are available to inform such evaluations. Here, we focus on estimating the financial cost of these loans, by analyzing loans used to support land protection projects that were provided through an internal revolving fund at a large U.S. conservation NGO. We estimate loan financing cost through accrued interest and test deal‐level characteristics for their ability to explain or predict loan interest. We find that loan performance can be highly uncertain and costs can be substantial in relation to the total purchase price. An improved ability to estimate the overall cost of conservation loans upfront may determine just which conservation projects are prioritized for investment and avoid costly misallocations of conservation resources.

Global cropland expansion over the last century caused widespread habitat loss and degradation. Establishment of protected areas aims to counteract the loss of habitats and to slow species extinctions. However, many protected areas also include high levels of habitat disturbance and conversion for uses such as cropland. Understanding where and why this occurs may realign conservation priorities and inform protected area policy in light of competing priorities such as food security. Here, we use our global synthesis cropland dataset to quantify cropland in protected areas globally and assess their relationship to conservation aims and socio-environmental context. We estimate that cropland occupies 1.4 million km²or 6% of global protected area. Cropland occurs across all protected area management types, with 22% occurring in strictly protected areas. Cropland inside protected areas is more prevalent in countries with higher population density, lower income inequality, and with higher agricultural suitability of protected lands. While this phenomenon is dominant in midnorthern latitudes, areas of cropland in protected areas of the tropics and subtropics may present greater trade-offs due to higher levels of both biodiversity and food insecurity. Although area-based targets are prominent in biodiversity goal-setting, our results show that they can mask persistent anthropogenic land uses detrimental to native ecosystem conservation. To ensure the long-term efficacy of protected areas, post-2020 goal setting must link aims for biodiversity and human health and improve monitoring of conservation outcomes in cropland-impacted protected areas.

Managing social‐ecological systems (SES) requires balancing the need to tailor actions to local heterogeneity and the need to work over large areas to accommodate the extent of SES. This balance is particularly challenging for policy since the level of government where the policy is being developed determines the extent and resolution of action.

Read the freePlain Language Summaryfor this article on the Journal blog.

Finding ways to increase financial support is critical to conservation efforts. We used conservation fundraising data, unprecedented in their resolution, to reveal spatial patterns in philanthropic giving to a major land protection organization in the United States. We also quantified the relationship between the amount of effort devoted to fundraising and donations received. Around 40% of the variation in the propensity to give and overall value of gifts was explained by sociodemographic and other predictors. For example, education level had greater predictive capacity than income, political views, and other factors often considered important. Fundraising effort was strongly predictive of the amount donated in an area. Our model estimated a doubling of funds raised with a 5‐fold increase of effort. Conservation organizations could use our statistical framework to inform efforts aimed at increasing philanthropic giving by identifying locations with large model residuals. An example application of our framework showed an almost 40% increase (US$200 million) in fundraising revenue for the case‐study conservation organization.