Protecting biodiversity when money matters: maximizing return on investment.
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.


RESULTS
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
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.
Underwood
Emma C
EC
Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California Davis, Davis, California, USA. eunderwoodrussell@ucdavis.edu
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
D000818:Animals; D002017:Budgets; D003247:Conservation of Natural Resources; D013045:Species Specificity