Limits...
Governance factors in the identification of global conservation priorities for mammals.

Eklund J, Arponen A, Visconti P, Cabeza M - Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. (2011)

Bottom Line: But many of these countries have poor governance, which may result in ineffective conservation or in larger costs than initially expected.We use data on Control of Corruption (Worldwide Governance Indicators project) as an indicator of governance effectiveness, and gross domestic product per capita as an indicator of cost.Overall, the analysis supports the concentration of conservation efforts in most of the regions generally considered of high priority, but stresses the need for different conservation approaches in different continents owing to spatial patterns of governance and economic development.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Metapopulation Research Group, Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, , PO Box 65, 00014 Helsinki, Finland.

ABSTRACT
Global conservation priorities have often been identified based on the combination of species richness and threat information. With the development of the field of systematic conservation planning, more attention has been given to conservation costs. This leads to prioritizing developing countries, where costs are generally low and biodiversity is high. But many of these countries have poor governance, which may result in ineffective conservation or in larger costs than initially expected. We explore how the consideration of governance affects the selection of global conservation priorities for the world's mammals in a complementarity-based conservation prioritization. We use data on Control of Corruption (Worldwide Governance Indicators project) as an indicator of governance effectiveness, and gross domestic product per capita as an indicator of cost. We show that, while core areas with high levels of endemism are always selected as important regardless of governance and cost values, there are clear regional differences in selected sites when biodiversity, cost or governance are taken into account separately. Overall, the analysis supports the concentration of conservation efforts in most of the regions generally considered of high priority, but stresses the need for different conservation approaches in different continents owing to spatial patterns of governance and economic development.

Show MeSH
Distribution of GDP values (a) and governance scores (b) for all cells in top 10% fractions achieved with each of the eight scenarios. Mean and 95th percentiles across all nations in the dataset are shown as reference (solid line and dashed line, respectively). The units on x-axes are given both as the scaled values used in our calculations (below) and as the original GDP and Control of Corruption indicator values (above the panels).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3140735&req=5

RSTB20110114F2: Distribution of GDP values (a) and governance scores (b) for all cells in top 10% fractions achieved with each of the eight scenarios. Mean and 95th percentiles across all nations in the dataset are shown as reference (solid line and dashed line, respectively). The units on x-axes are given both as the scaled values used in our calculations (below) and as the original GDP and Control of Corruption indicator values (above the panels).

Mentions: Each scenario aimed at maximizing a particular objective, which included only biodiversity, or a combination of biodiversity and cost–governance constraints. The strongest penalties for governance resulted in more costly solutions, measured as the mean GDP per capita of selected units, but in the scenarios with intermediate weightings for cost and governance the overall cost of the solution was low (figure 2a), and similar to the cost of the solution when using biodiversity only. Solutions based on scenarios where GDP per capita has a high contribution resulted in the largest overall corruption level within the top priorities. These levels of corruption were much higher than the average corruption level across all nations (figure 2b). Those scenarios accounting for governance in the planning achieved substantial reductions in overall corruption levels. In turn, the intermediate Economic cost–Governance scenarios (0.5 weighting) had a cost distribution similar to the biodiversity-only solution, and provided an improvement in corruption levels compared with the biodiversity-only solution without incurring much increase in GDP per capita values.Figure 2.


Governance factors in the identification of global conservation priorities for mammals.

Eklund J, Arponen A, Visconti P, Cabeza M - Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. (2011)

Distribution of GDP values (a) and governance scores (b) for all cells in top 10% fractions achieved with each of the eight scenarios. Mean and 95th percentiles across all nations in the dataset are shown as reference (solid line and dashed line, respectively). The units on x-axes are given both as the scaled values used in our calculations (below) and as the original GDP and Control of Corruption indicator values (above the panels).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3140735&req=5

RSTB20110114F2: Distribution of GDP values (a) and governance scores (b) for all cells in top 10% fractions achieved with each of the eight scenarios. Mean and 95th percentiles across all nations in the dataset are shown as reference (solid line and dashed line, respectively). The units on x-axes are given both as the scaled values used in our calculations (below) and as the original GDP and Control of Corruption indicator values (above the panels).
Mentions: Each scenario aimed at maximizing a particular objective, which included only biodiversity, or a combination of biodiversity and cost–governance constraints. The strongest penalties for governance resulted in more costly solutions, measured as the mean GDP per capita of selected units, but in the scenarios with intermediate weightings for cost and governance the overall cost of the solution was low (figure 2a), and similar to the cost of the solution when using biodiversity only. Solutions based on scenarios where GDP per capita has a high contribution resulted in the largest overall corruption level within the top priorities. These levels of corruption were much higher than the average corruption level across all nations (figure 2b). Those scenarios accounting for governance in the planning achieved substantial reductions in overall corruption levels. In turn, the intermediate Economic cost–Governance scenarios (0.5 weighting) had a cost distribution similar to the biodiversity-only solution, and provided an improvement in corruption levels compared with the biodiversity-only solution without incurring much increase in GDP per capita values.Figure 2.

Bottom Line: But many of these countries have poor governance, which may result in ineffective conservation or in larger costs than initially expected.We use data on Control of Corruption (Worldwide Governance Indicators project) as an indicator of governance effectiveness, and gross domestic product per capita as an indicator of cost.Overall, the analysis supports the concentration of conservation efforts in most of the regions generally considered of high priority, but stresses the need for different conservation approaches in different continents owing to spatial patterns of governance and economic development.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Metapopulation Research Group, Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, , PO Box 65, 00014 Helsinki, Finland.

ABSTRACT
Global conservation priorities have often been identified based on the combination of species richness and threat information. With the development of the field of systematic conservation planning, more attention has been given to conservation costs. This leads to prioritizing developing countries, where costs are generally low and biodiversity is high. But many of these countries have poor governance, which may result in ineffective conservation or in larger costs than initially expected. We explore how the consideration of governance affects the selection of global conservation priorities for the world's mammals in a complementarity-based conservation prioritization. We use data on Control of Corruption (Worldwide Governance Indicators project) as an indicator of governance effectiveness, and gross domestic product per capita as an indicator of cost. We show that, while core areas with high levels of endemism are always selected as important regardless of governance and cost values, there are clear regional differences in selected sites when biodiversity, cost or governance are taken into account separately. Overall, the analysis supports the concentration of conservation efforts in most of the regions generally considered of high priority, but stresses the need for different conservation approaches in different continents owing to spatial patterns of governance and economic development.

Show MeSH