Temporal patterns in the size of conservation land transactions

Regional Conservation, Research, and Education: Ways Forward

There are currently over 8 billion people on Earth, a figure which grows by approximately 67 million annually; https://www [...]

Effects of Protected Area Size on Conservation Return on Investment

The objective of this research is to examine how protected area size influences the conservation benefit and acquisition cost of creating a protected area, how the resulting effects influence the predicted rate of return on investment (ROI), and how those relationships change prioritization decision-making for selecting protected areas compared with decisions based only on conservation benefit and decisions based only on acquisition cost. The objective is accomplished in an econometric framework by analyzing the parcel-level acquisition cost and conservation benefit measured by the change in potential fragmentation patterns on the landscape resulting from protection. We focus on areas acquired by The Nature Conservancy in central and southern Appalachia, United States. As an indicator of the change in landscape fragmentation, we use a fragmentation statistic known as effective mesh size. Although the effect of protected parcel size on predicted ROI is inelastic, greater conservation effectiveness is obtained with larger protected parcels than with smaller ones on average. Protected parcel size influences parcels' rankings for protection more (less) when only the predicted change in effective mesh size of protected area (only the predicted acquisition cost per area) is used for prioritizing parcels than when the ranking of parcels is determined by the predicted ROI. These findings imply that, although protected parcel size is important, failure to prioritize using ROI could result in an inappropriate level of emphasis being given to protected parcel size than is warranted.

A landscape of conservation philanthropy for U.S. land trusts

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.

The value of flexibility in conservation financing

Land-acquisition strategies employed by conservation organizations vary in their flexibility. Conservation-planning theory largely fails to reflect this by presenting models that are either extremely inflexible-parcel acquisitions are irreversible and budgets are fixed-or extremely flexible-previously acquired parcels can readily be sold. This latter approach, the selling of protected areas, is infeasible or problematic in many situations. We considered the value to conservation organizations of increasing the flexibility of their land-acquisition strategies through their approach to financing deals. Specifically, we modeled 2 acquisition-financing methods commonly used by conservation organizations: borrowing and budget carry-over. Using simulated data, we compared results from these models with those from an inflexible fixed-budget model and an extremely flexible selling model in which previous acquisitions could be sold to fund new acquisitions. We then examined 3 case studies of how conservation organizations use borrowing and budget carry-over in practice. Model comparisons showed that borrowing and budget carry-over always returned considerably higher rewards than the fixed-budget model. How they performed relative to the selling model depended on the relative conservation value of past acquisitions. Both the models and case studies showed that incorporating flexibility through borrowing or budget carry-over gives conservation organizations the ability to purchase parcels of higher conservation value than when budgets are fixed without the problems associated with the selling of protected areas.

Social and spatial relationships driving landowner attitudes towards aquatic conservation in a Piedmont-Blue Ridge landscape

More than half of land in the U.S. is privately owned and covers most of known endangered species habitat. An understanding of private landowners' attitudes towards conservation may help to bridge the science-practice gap in regards to conservation initiatives. Aquatic biodiversity is particularly imperiled; in the United States headwaters and isolated wetlands receive little protection through regulations, becoming a focus of conservation planning. In an effort to assess how landowners view such efforts, a 27-question mixed methods survey was mailed to 409 landowners in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont ecoregions of South Carolina with wetland areas and where land was owned by a family or individual, not a corporation. We received 70 completed surveys and analyzed the results using an encapsulated mixed methods approach that analyzed both scaled and qualitative questions. The combined results gave a more contextual understanding of conservation on private lands in the study area. In this article we present a history of private land conservation and surveying landowners in understanding conservation potential. This demonstrates a need for a more comprehensive method needed in conservation planning. We then show our use of an integrated methodology, using quantitative and qualitative questions, to measure landowners' interest in conserving land. Through classification and spatial analysis, our study demonstrated that aquatic areas and wildlife are valued by and show influence on landowners' decisions. We also found that distance from protected area has a positive correlation to the willingness to protect aquatic areas. Landowners showed concern for threats of pollution from runoff and siltation. Disinterest in conservation seemed prevalent throughout many of the respondents' answers. These results suggest a relation to geographic distance and that the attitudes are more related near each other and specific places in the landscape. We conclude that any successful implementation of aquatic conservation initiatives must include focused outreach and communicating the benefits for society and landowners for building capacity for landscape-scale cooperation.

Effects of cost metric on cost-effectiveness of protected-area network design in urban landscapes

A common goal in conservation planning is to acquire areas that are critical to realizing biodiversity goals in the most cost-effective manner. The way monetary acquisition costs are represented in such planning is an understudied but vital component to realizing cost efficiencies. We sought to design a protected-area network within a forested urban region that would protect 17 birds of conservation concern. We compared the total costs and spatial structure of the optimal protected-area networks produced using three acquisition-cost surrogates (area, agricultural land value, and tax-assessed land value). Using the tax-assessed land values there was a 73% and 78% cost savings relative to networks derived using area or agricultural land value, respectively. This cost reduction was due to the considerable heterogeneity in acquisition costs revealed in tax-assessed land values, especially for small land parcels, and the corresponding ability of the optimization algorithm to identify lower-cost parcels for inclusion that had equal value to our target species. Tax-assessed land values also reflected the strong spatial differences in acquisition costs (US$0.33/m(2)-$55/m(2)) and thus allowed the algorithm to avoid inclusion of high-cost parcels when possible. Our results add to a nascent but growing literature that suggests conservation planners must consider the cost surrogate they use when designing protected-area networks. We suggest that choosing cost surrogates that capture spatial- and size-dependent heterogeneity in acquisition costs may be relevant to establishing protected areas in urbanizing ecosystems.

Constraints of philanthropy on determining the distribution of biodiversity conservation funding

Caught between ongoing habitat destruction and funding shortfalls, conservation organizations are using systematic planning approaches to identify places that offer the highest biodiversity return per dollar invested. However, available tools do not account for the landscape of funding for conservation or quantify the constraints this landscape imposes on conservation outcomes. Using state-level data on philanthropic giving to and investments in land conservation by a large nonprofit organization, we applied linear regression to evaluate whether the spatial distribution of conservation philanthropy better explained expenditures on conservation than maps of biodiversity priorities, which were derived from a planning process internal to the organization and return on investment (ROI) analyses based on data on species richness, land costs, and existing protected areas. Philanthropic fund raising accounted for considerably more spatial variation in conservation spending (r(2) = 0.64) than either of the 2 systematic conservation planning approaches (r(2) = 0.08-0.21). We used results of one of the ROI analyses to evaluate whether increases in flexibility to reallocate funding across space provides conservation gains. Small but plausible "tax" increments of 1-10% on states redistributed to the optimal funding allocation from the ROI analysis could result in gains in endemic species protected of 8.5-80.2%. When such increases in spatial flexibility are not possible, conservation organizations should seek to cultivate increased support for conservation in priority locations. We used lagged correlations of giving to and spending by the organization to evaluate whether investments in habitat protection stimulate future giving to conservation. The most common outcome at the state level was that conservation spending quarters correlated significantly and positively with lagged fund raising quarters. In effect, periods of high fund raising for biodiversity followed (rather than preceded) periods of high expenditure on land conservation projects, identifying one mechanism conservation organizations could explore to seed greater activity in priority locations. Our results demonstrate how limitations on the ability of conservation organizations to reallocate their funding across space can impede organizational effectiveness and elucidate ways conservation planning tools could be more useful if they quantified and incorporated these constraints.

A lack of response of the financial behaviors of biodiversity conservation nonprofits to changing economic conditions

The effectiveness of conservation organizations is determined in part by how they adapt to changing conditions. Over the previous decade, economic conditions in the United States (US) showed marked variation including a period of rapid growth followed by a major recession. We examine how biodiversity conservation nonprofits in the US responded to these changes through their financial behaviors, focusing on a sample of 90 biodiversity conservation nonprofits and the largest individual organization (The Nature Conservancy; TNC). For the 90 sampled organizations, an analysis of financial ratios derived from tax return data revealed little response to economic conditions. Similarly, more detailed examination of conservation expenditures and land acquisition practices of TNC revealed only one significant relationship with economic conditions: TNC accepted a greater proportion of conservation easements as donated in more difficult economic conditions. Our results suggest that the financial behaviors of US biodiversity conservation nonprofits are unresponsive to economic conditions.

Inclusion of costs in conservation planning depends on limited datasets and hopeful assumptions

Many conservation organizations use spatial prioritization to help identify locations in which to work. Increasingly, prioritizations seek to account for spatial heterogeneity in the costs of conservation, motivated in part by claims of large efficiency savings when these costs are included. I critically review the cost estimates on which such claims are based, focusing on acquisition and management costs associated with terrestrial protected areas. If researchers are to evaluate how including costs affects conservation planning outcomes, estimation methods need to preserve the covariation between and relative variation within costs and benefits of conservation activities. However, widely used methods for estimating costs and incorporating them into prioritizations may not meet these standards. For example, among relevant studies, there is surprisingly little attention given to the costs that conservation organizations actually face. Instead, there is a heavy reliance on untested proxies for conservation costs. Analytical shortcuts are also common. Now that debate is moving beyond whether to account for costs in conservation planning, it is time to evaluate just how we can include them to greatest effect.