TY - JOUR
T1 - Conservation cost-effectiveness
T2 - a review of the evidence base
AU - Pienkowski, Thomas
AU - Cook, Carly
AU - Verma, Megha
AU - Carrasco, L. Roman
N1 - Funding Information:
This project was funded by a Tier 2 grant from the Ministry of Education of Singapore MOE2015‐T2‐2‐121, which supported the salary of Thomas Pienkowski and Luis Roman Carrasco. Thomas Pienkowski was also supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (grant number NE/L002612/1) at the University of Oxford. Carly Cook is supported by an Australian Research Council ‐ Discovery Early Career Researcher Award fellowship. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Funding Information:
Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, Australian Research Council, Grant/Award Number: Discovery Early Career Researcher Award fellowship; Ministry of Education of Singapore, Grant/Award Number: Tier 2 grant (MOE2015‐T2‐2‐121); Natural Environment Research Council, Grant/Award Number: NE/L002612/1 Funding information
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors. Conservation Science and Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology
PY - 2021/5
Y1 - 2021/5
N2 - Prioritizing conservation interventions based on their cost-effectiveness may enhance global conservation impact. To do this prioritization, conservation decision-makers need evidence of what works where and how much it costs. Yet, the size, representativeness, and strength of the cost-effectiveness evidence base are unknown. We reviewed conservation cost-effectiveness studies, exploring the representation of different types of conservation interventions, habitats and locations, and the methods used. Studies were included if they were published in conservation science or related fields before 2017; were peer-reviewed; reported costs and conservation-effectiveness or ratios; and were based on empirical data. From an initial search of 13,184 articles, 91 were considered eligible. We found that the number of cost-effectiveness studies were growing but remain small. Many common conservation interventions were poorly represented, and there were large geographical biases, with few studies in the world's more biodiverse regions. This sparse and patchy evidence may result from challenges faced when conducting cost-effectiveness analysis. However, some of these challenges are not unique to cost-effectiveness studies, and others could be overcome through the use of standardized reporting methods. The reward for overcoming these challenges, and strengthening the evidence base, could be a significant and much-needed improvement in global conservation.
AB - Prioritizing conservation interventions based on their cost-effectiveness may enhance global conservation impact. To do this prioritization, conservation decision-makers need evidence of what works where and how much it costs. Yet, the size, representativeness, and strength of the cost-effectiveness evidence base are unknown. We reviewed conservation cost-effectiveness studies, exploring the representation of different types of conservation interventions, habitats and locations, and the methods used. Studies were included if they were published in conservation science or related fields before 2017; were peer-reviewed; reported costs and conservation-effectiveness or ratios; and were based on empirical data. From an initial search of 13,184 articles, 91 were considered eligible. We found that the number of cost-effectiveness studies were growing but remain small. Many common conservation interventions were poorly represented, and there were large geographical biases, with few studies in the world's more biodiverse regions. This sparse and patchy evidence may result from challenges faced when conducting cost-effectiveness analysis. However, some of these challenges are not unique to cost-effectiveness studies, and others could be overcome through the use of standardized reporting methods. The reward for overcoming these challenges, and strengthening the evidence base, could be a significant and much-needed improvement in global conservation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85111542368&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/csp2.357
DO - 10.1111/csp2.357
M3 - Review Article
AN - SCOPUS:85111542368
SN - 2578-4854
VL - 3
JO - Conservation Science and Practice
JF - Conservation Science and Practice
IS - 5
M1 - e357
ER -