Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLaycock, Helen
dc.contributor.authorMoran, Dominic
dc.contributor.authorSmart, James
dc.contributor.authorRaffaelli, David
dc.contributor.authorWhite, Piran
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T16:10:25Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T16:10:25Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.date.modified2013-03-24T22:14:50Z
dc.identifier.issn0006-3207
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.biocon.2009.08.010
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/49709
dc.description.abstractEcological and economic evaluation should be a key component of biodiversity conservation programmes since it underpins the efficient allocation of resources. However, most such programmes are not currently assessed in terms of the rate of return on investment that they provide. The UK Government launched the UK Biodiversity Action Plan in 1994. We collected data from those responsible for monitoring this programme, then used a form of cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate its effectiveness and efficiency at meeting the targets of individual Species Action Plans. In this context, effectiveness refers to the goal of maximising total conservation gains, whereas efficiency refers to maximising conservation gain per unit cost. We define the latter as a basic economic objective for conservation resource allocation. We find that the distribution of spending across plans was highly biased towards vertebrates and there was no correlation between cost and effectiveness. Non-vertebrate plans tended to be more efficient than vertebrate plans. However, following a species utility-based weighting, this tendency was less pronounced and a significant positive correlation between cost and effectiveness emerged. Nevertheless, this evidence suggests that the efficiency of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan could be improved by correcting the imbalance in spending between vertebrate and non-vertebrate plans. This study highlights the importance of effective monitoring and reporting in determining the utility of biodiversity conservation programmes. It demonstrates how explicit cost-effectiveness analysis can be used to evaluate such programmes, and shows that it could also be adapted to accommodate other forms of ecological and social value.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.description.publicationstatusYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.publisher.placeNetherlands
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationN
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom3120
dc.relation.ispartofpageto3127
dc.relation.ispartofissue12
dc.relation.ispartofjournalBiological Conservation
dc.relation.ispartofvolume142
dc.rights.retentionY
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEnvironmental sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchBiological sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchAgricultural, veterinary and food sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEnvironment and resource economics
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode41
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode31
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode30
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode380105
dc.titleEvaluating the cost-effectiveness of conservation: The UK Biodiversity Action Plan
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
gro.date.issued2009
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorSmart, Jim C.


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record