Costs are not necessarily correlated with threats in conservation landscapes

Edmond Sacre,Robert L Pressey,Michael Bode

doi:10.1111/conl.12663

Edmond Sacre, Robert L Pressey + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12663

Copy DOI

Abstract

AbstractThe priority of an area for conservation is determined by three primary factors: its biodiversity value, the level of threat it is facing, and its cost. Although much attention has been paid to the spatial relationship between biodiversity value and threats, and between biodiversity value and costs, little is known about how costs and threats are spatially correlated. The orthodox assumption in conservation science is that costs and threats are positively correlated. Here, we adapt a classic economic theory of land use to explain how conservation scientists came to expect a positive correlation between costs and threats. We then use high‐resolution, ground‐truthed datasets of land sales and habitat clearance to show that this assumption is false in the state of Queensland, Australia. Our results provide an empirical counterargument to a widespread assumption in conservation science, and illustrate why spatial prioritization needs to include independent measures of costs and threats.

Highlights

In systematic conservation planning, three primary factors combine to determine the relative priority of a particular location: its biodiversity value, the degree of threats to biodiversity, and the costs of conservation action
To explore the theoretical relationship between acquisition costs and rates of habitat loss, we adapted von Thünen’s (1826) classic “isolated state” model, which describes how different economic activities arrange themselves in space, and how these patterns affect the cost of land
We examined the spatial codistribution of surrogates for conservation acquisition costs, and rates of habitat loss, on land parcels in Queensland, Australia (Figure 1)

Summary

Introduction

Three primary factors combine to determine the relative priority of a particular location: its biodiversity value, the degree of threats to biodiversity, and the costs of conservation action. It is frequently assumed that conservation costs are positively correlated with threats (Table S1).

Methods

Results

Conclusion