Dataset Information

How much does it cost to save a species from extinction? Costs and rewards of conserving the Lear's macaw.

ABSTRACT: Although the limited resources available to save species from extinction necessitate the optimization of conservation actions, little is known about their costs and effectiveness. We developed a costs-rewards framework that integrates information on which sectors of society contribute to funding conservation, how much is contributed, how funds are distributed among conservation targets and how these investments drive not only conservation rewards but also the economic and ecosystem services that benefit society. We applied this framework to the Lear's macaw (Anodorhynchus leari), a species discovered in the wild in 1978 with only 60 individuals. Funds invested over the last 25 years reached US$3.66 million. The contribution of governments, non-governmental organizations and private funders varied over time, as did the funding targets. Funds were proportionally invested to mitigate the main causes of mortality, while no funds were devoted to protecting foraging habitats. Conservation rewards were satisfactory, with the cost and time needed to downlist the species from critically endangered to endangered being similar to those invested in other bird species. However, economic rewards (through ecotourism and handicrafts linked to the conservation of the species) were low and require promotion, while ecosystem services provided by Lear's macaws have yet to be quantified.

SUBMITTER: Barbosa AEA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6689625 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How much does it cost to save a species from extinction? Costs and rewards of conserving the Lear's macaw.

Barbosa Antonio E A AEA Tella José L JL

Royal Society open science 20190710 7

Although the limited resources available to save species from extinction necessitate the optimization of conservation actions, little is known about their costs and effectiveness. We developed a costs-rewards framework that integrates information on which sectors of society contribute to funding conservation, how much is contributed, how funds are distributed among conservation targets and how these investments drive not only conservation rewards but also the economic and ecosystem services that ...[more]

PMID: 31417724

Similar Datasets

Project description:Many governments have recently gone on record promising large-scale expansions of protected areas to meet global commitments such as the Convention on Biological Diversity. As systems of protected areas are expanded to be more comprehensive, they are more likely to be implemented if planners have realistic budget estimates so that appropriate funding can be requested. Estimating financial budgets a priori must acknowledge the inherent uncertainties and assumptions associated with key parameters, so planners should recognize these uncertainties by estimating ranges of potential costs. We explore the challenge of budgeting a priori for protected area expansion in the face of uncertainty, specifically considering the future expansion of protected areas in Queensland, Australia. The government has committed to adding ?12 million ha to the reserve system, bringing the total area protected to 20 million ha by 2020. We used Marxan to estimate the costs of potential reserve designs with data on actual land value, market value, transaction costs, and land tenure. With scenarios, we explored three sources of budget variability: size of biodiversity objectives; subdivision of properties; and legal acquisition routes varying with tenure. Depending on the assumptions made, our budget estimates ranged from $214 million to $2.9 billion. Estimates were most sensitive to assumptions made about legal acquisition routes for leasehold land. Unexpected costs (costs encountered by planners when real-world costs deviate from assumed costs) responded non-linearly to inability to subdivide and percentage purchase of private land. A financially conservative approach--one that safeguards against large cost increases while allowing for potential financial windfalls--would involve less optimistic assumptions about acquisition and subdivision to allow Marxan to avoid expensive properties where possible while meeting conservation objectives. We demonstrate how a rigorous analysis can inform discussions about the expansion of systems of protected areas, including the identification of factors that influence budget variability.

Project description:IntroductionLymphatic filariasis (LF), a neglected tropical disease (NTD) preventable through mass drug administration (MDA), is one of six diseases deemed possibly eradicable. Previously we developed one LF elimination scenario, which assumes MDA scale-up to continue in all countries that have previously undertaken MDA. In contrast, our three previously developed eradication scenarios assume all LF endemic countries will undertake MDA at an average (eradication I), fast (eradication II), or instantaneous (eradication III) rate of scale-up. In this analysis we use a micro-costing model to project the financial and economic costs of each of these scenarios in order to provide evidence to decision makers about the investment required to eliminate and eradicate LF.Methodology/key findingsCosting was undertaken from a health system perspective, with all results expressed in 2012 US dollars (USD). A discount rate of 3% was applied to calculate the net present value of future costs. Prospective NTD budgets from LF endemic countries were reviewed to preliminarily determine activities and resources necessary to undertake a program to eliminate LF at a country level. In consultation with LF program experts, activities and resources were further reviewed and a refined list of activities and necessary resources, along with their associated quantities and costs, were determined and grouped into the following activities: advocacy and communication, capacity strengthening, coordination and strengthening partnerships, data management, ongoing surveillance, monitoring and supervision, drug delivery, and administration. The costs of mapping and undertaking transmission assessment surveys and the value of donated drugs and volunteer time were also accounted for. Using previously developed scenarios and deterministic estimates of MDA duration, the financial and economic costs of interrupting LF transmission under varying rates of MDA scale-up were then modelled using a micro-costing approach. The elimination scenario, which includes countries that previously undertook MDA, is estimated to cost 929 million USD (95% Credible Interval: 884m-972m). Proceeding to eradication is anticipated to require a higher financial investment, estimated at 1.24 billion USD (1.17bn-1.30bn) in the eradication III scenario (immediate scale-up), with eradication II (intensified scale-up) projected at 1.27 billion USD (1.21bn-1.33bn), and eradication I (slow scale-up) estimated at 1.29 billion USD (1.23bn-1.34bn). The economic costs of the eradication III scenario are estimated at approximately 7.57 billion USD (7.12bn-7.94bn), while the elimination scenario is projected to have an economic cost of 5.21 billion USD (4.91bn-5.45bn). Countries in the AFRO region will require the greatest investment to reach elimination or eradication, but also stand to gain the most in cost savings. Across all scenarios, capacity strengthening and advocacy and communication represent the greatest financial costs, whereas mapping, post-MDA surveillance, and administration comprise the least.Conclusions/significanceThough challenging to implement, our results indicate that financial and economic savings are greatest under the eradication III scenario. Thus, if eradication for LF is the objective, accelerated scale-up is projected to be the best investment.

Project description:Background:Urbanization is one of the main causes of biodiversity loss worldwide. Wildlife responses to urbanization, however, are greatly variable and, paradoxically, some threatened species may achieve much larger populations in urban than in natural habitats. Urban conservation hotspots may therefore help some species avoid regional or even global extinctions, but not conserve their often overlooked ecological functions in the wild. We aim to draw attention to this issue using two species of globally threatened parrots occurring in the Dominican Republic: the Hispaniolan amazon (Amazona ventralis) and the Hispaniolan parakeet (Psittacara chloropterus). Methods:We conducted a large-scale roadside survey in June 2017 across the country to estimate the relative abundance of parrots in natural habitats, rural habitats, and cities. We combined this with informal interviews with local people to collect information on past and current human impacts on parrot populations. We also looked for foraging parrots to assess their potential role as seed dispersers, an ecological function that has been overlooked until very recently. Results:Relative abundances of both parrot species were negligible in rural areas and very low in natural habitats. They were generally between one and two orders of magnitude lower than that of congeneric species inhabiting other Neotropical ecosystems. Relative abundances were six times higher in cities than in natural habitats in the case of the Hispaniolan parakeet and three times higher in the case of the Hispaniolan amazon. People indicated hunting for a source food and to mitigate crop damage as causes of parrot population declines, and a vigorous illegal trade for parrots (131 individuals recorded, 75% of them poached very recently), mostly obtained from protected areas where the last small wild populations remain. We observed parrots foraging on 19 plant species from 11 families, dispersing the fruits of 14 species by carrying them in their beaks and consuming them in distant perching trees. They discarded undamaged mature seeds, with the potential to germinate, in 99.5% of cases (n = 306), and minimum dispersal distances ranged from 8 to 155 m (median = 37 m). Discussion:The loss of ecological functions provided by some species when they disappear from natural habitats and only persist in cities may have long-term, unexpected effects on ecosystems. Our example demonstrates how two cities may soon be the last refuges for two endemic parrots if overharvesting continues, in which case their overlooked role as seed dispersers would be completely lost in nature. The functional extinction of these species could strongly affect vegetation communities in an island environment where seed-dispersal species are naturally scarce. While conservation plans must include urban populations of threatened species, greater efforts are needed to restore their populations in natural habitats to conserve ecological functions.

Dataset Information

How much does it cost to save a species from extinction? Costs and rewards of conserving the Lear's macaw.

Publications

How much does it cost to save a species from extinction? Costs and rewards of conserving the Lear's macaw.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets