Dataset Information

Protecting biodiversity when money matters: maximizing return on investment.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Conventional wisdom identifies biodiversity hotspots as priorities for conservation investment because they capture dense concentrations of species. However, density of species does not necessarily imply conservation 'efficiency'. Here we explicitly consider conservation efficiency in terms of species protected per dollar invested.

Methodology/principal findings

We apply a dynamic return on investment approach to a global biome and compare it with three alternate priority setting approaches and a random allocation of funding. After twenty years of acquiring habitat, the return on investment approach protects between 32% and 69% more species compared to the other priority setting approaches. To correct for potential inefficiencies of protecting the same species multiple times we account for the complementarity of species, protecting up to three times more distinct vertebrate species than alternate approaches.

Conclusions/significance

Incorporating costs in a return on investment framework expands priorities to include areas not traditionally highlighted as priorities based on conventional irreplaceability and vulnerability approaches.

SUBMITTER: Underwood EC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2212107 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Protecting biodiversity when money matters: maximizing return on investment.

Underwood Emma C EC Shaw M Rebecca MR Wilson Kerrie A KA Kareiva Peter P Klausmeyer Kirk R KR McBride Marissa F MF Bode Michael M Morrison Scott A SA Hoekstra Jonathan M JM Possingham Hugh P HP

PloS one 20080130 1

<h4>Background</h4>Conventional wisdom identifies biodiversity hotspots as priorities for conservation investment because they capture dense concentrations of species. However, density of species does not necessarily imply conservation 'efficiency'. Here we explicitly consider conservation efficiency in terms of species protected per dollar invested.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>We apply a dynamic return on investment approach to a global biome and compare it with three alternate priori ...[more]

PMID: 18231601

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHD) remains endemic in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) despite its virtual elimination in high-income countries. RHD Action was launched to amplify global efforts to control RHD in 2015 by World Heart Federation and Reach, with demonstration projects in Uganda and Tanzania, and support from Medtronic Foundation. The Small Grants Programme focuses on three domains: People and Communities, Medicines and Technologies, and Systems and Services. It is designed to support patient and community groups in promoting awareness, advocacy, and to build health workers' capacity to prevent and treat RHD in LMICs. Our study evaluates the impact and effectiveness of the RHD Action Small Grants Programme. Methods: We conducted a mixed method study that involved both quantitative and qualitative surveys, through phone interviews and online surveys amongst the grant beneficiaries, to assess the impact and effectiveness of the small grant programme. An invitation to complete an online survey, using a Google Forms format, was issued to Small Grant Project Directors and Co-Directors that received funding for projects between 2017 and 2019. The online survey requested basic project information using tick boxes, Likert scales, and short answer open-ended questions about successes and challenges faced by recipients. The questionnaire also addressed recipients' experience with the RHD Action Small Grants process - applying for the grant, nature and quality of support received to carry out project, the reporting process, and any media coverage provided. For the phone interviews, responses to the short-answer questions were used as the basis for follow up phone interviews. The discussions were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed for new and recurring themes emerging from the in-depth discussions. Initiated in 2017, RHD Action has funded 21 proposals from a pool of 60 submissions. Recipient countries include Zambia, Uganda (2), Namibia, Kenya, Malawi (2), Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria (3), Rwanda (2), Mozambique, and Cameroon (2) as well as Fiji (2), the Philippines and Nepal. Five recipients were funded in 2017, eight in 2018 and eight in 2019. Project directors are primarily junior doctors and project managers supervised by senior mentors. In most cases, this is their first funding award. These projects have demonstrated tangible impact and have provided content for first manuscript and abstract submissions and presentations at professional conferences. Grant reports are presented as website stories showcasing the achievements of small local efforts with meaningful impact. For RHD Action, there is large return on a modest monetary investment resulting in a very visible, viable global RHD networking platform for enthusiastic community and provider activists.

Project description:IntroductionOver 50% of people affected by cancer report unmet support needs. To address unmet information and psychological needs, non-government organisations such as Cancer Councils (Australia) have developed state-based telephone cancer information and support services. Due to competing demands, evidence of the value of these services is needed to ensure that future investment makes the best use of scarce resources. This research aims to determine the costs and broader economic and social value of a telephone support service, to inform future funding and service provision.Methods and analysisA codesigned, evaluative social return on investment analysis (SROI) will be conducted to estimate and compare the costs and monetised benefits of Cancer Council Victoria's (CCV) telephone support line, 13 11 20, over 1-year and 3-year benefit periods. Nine studies will empirically estimate the parameters to inform the SROI and calculate the ratio (economic and social value to value invested): step 1 mapping outcomes (in-depth analysis of CCV's 13 11 20 recorded call data; focus groups and interviews); step 2 providing evidence of outcomes (comparative survey of people affected by cancer who do and do not call CCV's 13 11 20; general public survey); step 3 valuing the outcomes (financial proxies, value games); step 4 establishing the impact (Delphi); step 5 calculating the net benefit and step 6 service improvement (discrete choice experiment (DCE), 'what if' analysis). Qualitative (focus groups, interviews) and quantitative studies (natural language processing, cross-sectional studies, Delphi) and economic techniques (willingness-to-pay, financial proxies, value games, DCE) will be applied.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval for each of the studies will be sought independently as the project progresses. So far, ethics approval has been granted for the first two studies. As each study analysis is completed, results will be disseminated through presentation, conferences, publications and reports to the partner organisations.

Dataset Information

Protecting biodiversity when money matters: maximizing return on investment.

Background

Methodology/principal findings

Conclusions/significance

Publications

Protecting biodiversity when money matters: maximizing return on investment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets