Abstract
AbstractPrioritizing 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.
Highlights
Conservation does not have enough resources to achieve all its goals
The abstracts of the remaining 1,423 studies were read, and a further 929 studies were excluded at this stage, largely because no costeffectiveness analysis had been conducted within the study
Our results suggest that the conservation costeffectiveness evidence base may be growing but remains small relative to the number needed to aid prioritization of management interventions
Summary
Conservation does not have enough resources to achieve all its goals. Recognition of this has prompted multiple calls for conservation to optimize its impact within resource constraints by prioritizing efficient interventions (Balmford et al 2000; Ferraro & Pattanayak 2006; Wilson et al 2006; Wilson et al 2011; Butchart et al 2015). Within the hypothetical example of species population recovery interventions presented, intervention “A” is more effective than intervention “B” or “C”. Intervention “A” is more costly per unit of outcome (percentage (%) recovery in the population of the species) than “B” and “C“ and so is less cost-effective. With a limited budget of $100, a conservation manager could invest their entire budget into intervention “A” and achieve 50% of their goal (i.e., 50% effectiveness). By investing half the budget in interventions' “B” and “C,” they would achieve a greater percentage of their goal (i.e., 60% effectiveness). Conservationists regularly make choices about which interventions to pursue. When these choices are informed by knowledge of effectiveness, but not cost, less costeffective interventions may be chosen
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
