Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWhite, T.B.
dc.contributor.authorPetrovan, S.O.
dc.contributor.authorChristie, A.P.
dc.contributor.authorMartin, P.A.
dc.contributor.authorSutherland, W.J.
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-27T14:34:20Z
dc.date.available2023-06-27T14:34:20Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationBioScience: 72 (5): 461-471 (2022)es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/61702
dc.description.abstractWildlife conservation is severely limited by funding. Therefore, to maximize biodiversity outcomes, assessing financial costs of interventions is as important as assessing effectiveness. We reviewed the reporting of costs in studies testing the effectiveness of conservation interventions: 13.3% of the studies provided numeric costs, and 8.8% reported total costs. Even fewer studies broke down these totals into constituent costs, making it difficult to assess the relevance of costs to different contexts. Cost reporting differed between continents and the taxa or habitats targeted by interventions, with higher cost reporting in parts of the Global South. A further analysis of data focused on mammals identified that interventions related to agriculture, invasive species, transport, and residential development reported costs more frequently. We identify opportunities for conservationists to improve future practice through encouraging systematic reporting and collation of intervention costs, using economic evaluation tools, and increasing understanding and skills in finance and economics. © The Author(s) 2022.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipMany thanks to Roberto Correo for constructive feed- back on the manuscript, to Anthony Waldron for help- ful discussions, and to members of the Conservation Evidence project team—particularly, Rebecca Smith, for help collating lists of papers for the study. The David and Claudia Harding Foundation, MAVA, the A. G. Leventis Foundation, and Arcadia provided funding. APC is funded by a Henslow Research Fellowship with Downing College, Cambridge and the Cambridge Philosophical Society. The work was completed as part of TBW’s PhD, funded by the Balfour Studentship, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, in Cambridge, England.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherBioSciencees_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/es/*
dc.subjectcost-effectivenesses_ES
dc.subjectdecision-makinges_ES
dc.subjecteffectivenesses_ES
dc.subjectefficiencyes_ES
dc.subjectevidence-based conservationes_ES
dc.titleWhat is the Price of Conservation? A Review of the Status Quo and Recommendations for Improving Cost Reportinges_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.holder© The Author(s) 2022.es_ES
dc.rights.holderAtribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 España*
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac007es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/biosci/biac007


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© The Author(s) 2022.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © The Author(s) 2022.