Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 63, Issue 6, pp 777–788 | Cite as

Effects of Protected Area Size on Conservation Return on Investment

  • Seong-Hoon ChoEmail author
  • Kristen Thiel
  • Paul R. Armsworth
  • Bijay P. Sharma
Article
  • 118 Downloads

Abstract

The objective of this research is to examine how protected area size influences the conservation benefit and acquisition cost of creating a protected area, how the resulting effects influence the predicted rate of return on investment (ROI), and how those relationships change prioritization decision-making for selecting protected areas compared with decisions based only on conservation benefit and decisions based only on acquisition cost. The objective is accomplished in an econometric framework by analyzing the parcel-level acquisition cost and conservation benefit measured by the change in potential fragmentation patterns on the landscape resulting from protection. We focus on areas acquired by The Nature Conservancy in central and southern Appalachia, United States. As an indicator of the change in landscape fragmentation, we use a fragmentation statistic known as effective mesh size. Although the effect of protected parcel size on predicted ROI is inelastic, greater conservation effectiveness is obtained with larger protected parcels than with smaller ones on average. Protected parcel size influences parcels’ rankings for protection more (less) when only the predicted change in effective mesh size of protected area (only the predicted acquisition cost per area) is used for prioritizing parcels than when the ranking of parcels is determined by the predicted ROI. These findings imply that, although protected parcel size is important, failure to prioritize using ROI could result in an inappropriate level of emphasis being given to protected parcel size than is warranted.

Keywords

Protected area Conservation return on investment Effective mesh size Acquisition cost Economies of scale with area size 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) with funding (Award 1211142) through the project entitled, “CNH-Ex: The Influence of the Size of Protected Areas on Their Ecological and Economic Effectiveness” and the Multistate Project (W4133) from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture through the project entitled, “Costs and Benefits of Natural Resources on Public and Private Lands: Management, Economic Valuation, and Integrated Decision-Making.” We extend our sincere gratitude to Bradley Wilson for his ArcGIS advice and guidance. Data sources and preparation protocols for the geophysical, socioeconomic characteristics, and distance-related variables followed Kim et al. (2014). Collection protocols for landscape data for calculating effective mesh size were created by Heather Jackson (unpublished results). Data to create target species richness were obtained from Sutton and Armsworth (2014).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

267_2019_1164_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
Supplementary Material.

References

  1. Adams VM, Pressey RL, Naidoo R (2010) Opportunity costs: who really pays for conservation? Biol Conserv 143(2):439–448Google Scholar
  2. Albers HJ (2010) Spatial modeling of extraction and enforcement in developing country protected areas. Resour Energy Econ 32(2):165–179Google Scholar
  3. Andam K, Ferraro P, Sims K, Healy A, Holland M (2010) Protected areas reduced poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(22):9996–10001Google Scholar
  4. Ando A, Camm J, Polasky S, Solow A (1998) Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279(5359):2126–2128Google Scholar
  5. Armsworth PR (2014) Inclusion of costs in conservation planning depends on limited datasets and hopeful assumptions. Ann NY Acad Sci 1322(1):61–76Google Scholar
  6. Armsworth PR, Cantu-Salazar L, Parnell M, Davies ZG, Stoneman R (2011) Management costs for small protected areas and economies of scale in habitat conservation. Biol Conserv 144(1):423–429Google Scholar
  7. Armsworth PR, Jackson H, Cho S et al. (2018) Factoring economic costs into conservation planning may not improve agreement over which areas should be priorities for protection. Nat Commun. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02399-y
  8. Ausden M, Hirons GJM (2002) Grassland nature reserves for breeding wading birds in England and the implications for the ESA agri-environment scheme. Biol Conserv 106(2):279–291Google Scholar
  9. Boyd J, Epanchin-Niell R, Siikamaki J (2015) Conservation planning: a review of return on investment analysis. Rev Environ Econ Pol 9(1):23–42Google Scholar
  10. Brashares JS, Arcese P, Sam MK (2001) Human demography and reserve size predict wildlife extinction in West Africa. Proc R Soc Lond B 268(1484):2473–2478Google Scholar
  11. Buchanan GM, Donald PF, Butchart SH (2011) Identifying priority areas for conservation: a global assessment for forest-dependent birds. PLoS ONE 6(12):e29080Google Scholar
  12. Carwardine J, Wilson KA, Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Naidoo R, Iwamura T, Hajkowicz SA, Possingham HP (2008a) Cost-effective priorities for global mammal conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(32):11446Google Scholar
  13. Carwardine J, Wilson KA, Watts M, Etter A, Klein CJ, Possingham HP (2008b) Avoiding costly conservation mistakes: the importance of defining actions and costs in spatial priority setting. PLoS ONE 3(7):2586SGoogle Scholar
  14. Caughley G (1994) Directions in conservation biology. J Anim Ecol 63(2):215–244Google Scholar
  15. Chatterjee S, Hadi AS (2015) Regression analysis by example. Wiley, Hoboken, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  16. Cho S, Bowker JM, Park WM (2006) Measuring the contribution of water and green space amenities to housing values: an application and comparison of spatially weighted hedonic models. J Agric Resour Econ 31:485–507Google Scholar
  17. Cho S, Poudyal NC, Roberts RK (2008) Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space. Ecol Econ 66(2):403–416Google Scholar
  18. Cho S, Clark CD, Park WM, Kim SG (2009) Spatial and temporal variation in the housing market values of lot size and open space. Land Econ 85:51–73Google Scholar
  19. Cho S, Kim T, Larson ER, Armsworth PR (2017) Economies of scale in forestland acquisition costs for nature conservation. Forest Policy Econ 75:73–82Google Scholar
  20. Davies ZG, Kareiva P, Armsworth PR (2010) Temporal patterns in the size of conservation land transactions. Conserv Lett 3:29–37Google Scholar
  21. DeLong CA, Brittingham MC (2009) Wildlife-habitat relationships. The Pennsylvania State University. https://extension.psu.edu/wildlife-habitat-relationships
  22. Diamond D (1975) The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves. Biol Conserv 7(2):129–1136Google Scholar
  23. Di Minin E, Toivonen T (2015) Global protected area expansion: creating more than paper parks. BioScience 65(7):637–638Google Scholar
  24. Dobson A, Bradshaw AD, Baker AJM (1997) Hopes for the future: restoration ecology and conservation biology. Science 277:515–522Google Scholar
  25. Eagles PF, McCool SF, Haynes CD, Phillips A (2002) Sustainable tourism in protected areas: guidelines for planning and management. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xv + 183ppGoogle Scholar
  26. Earnhart D (2006) Using contingent-pricing analysis to value open space and its duration at residential locations. Land Econ 82(1):17–35Google Scholar
  27. ESRI (2011) Data maps for ArcGIS 10, ArcGIS Resources. http://www.esri.com
  28. ESRI ArcGIS Help 10.1. (2012) Spatial analyst toolsets, ArcGIS Resources. http://www.esri.com
  29. Ferraro PJ (2003) Conservation contracting in heterogeneous landscapes: an application to watershed protection with threshold constraints. Agric Resour Econ Rev 32(1):53–64Google Scholar
  30. Geoghegan J (2002) The value of open spaces in residential land use. Land Use Policy 19(1):91–98Google Scholar
  31. Irwin EG (2002) The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Econ 78(4):465–480Google Scholar
  32. Jackson HB, Fahrig L (2015) Are ecologists conducting research at the optimal scale? Global Ecol Biogeogr 24:52–63Google Scholar
  33. Jaeger J (2000) Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landscape Ecol 15(2):115–130Google Scholar
  34. Joppa LN, Pfaff A (2009) Global protected area impacts. Proc R Soc 278:1633–1638Google Scholar
  35. Kim T, Cho S, Larson ER, Armsworth PR (2014) Protected area acquisition costs show economies of scale with area. Ecol Econ 107(1):122–132Google Scholar
  36. Kirkpatrick JB (1983) An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature reserves: an example from Tasmania. Biol Conserv 25:127–134Google Scholar
  37. Lerner J, Mackey J, Casey F (2007) What’s in Noah’s wallet? land conservation spending in the United States. BioScience 57(5):419–423Google Scholar
  38. Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE, Vasconcelos HL et al. (2002) Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: a 22‐year investigation. Conserv Biol 16(3):605–618Google Scholar
  39. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATSv4: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and continuous maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://www.umassedu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
  40. Messer KD (2006) The conservation benefits of cost-effective land acquisition: a case study in Maryland. J Environ Manage 79(3):305–315Google Scholar
  41. Moser B, Jaeger JAG, Tappeiner U et al. (2007) Modification of the effective mesh for measuring landscape fragmentation to solve the boundary problem Landscape Ecol 2007(22):447  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-9023-0
  42. Murdoch W, Polasky S, Wilson KA, Possingham HP, Karieva P, Shaw R (2007) Maximizing return on investment in conservation. Biol Conserv 139(3):375–388Google Scholar
  43. Murdoch W, Ranganathan J, Polasky S, Regetz J (2010) Using return on investment to maximize conservation effectiveness in Argentine grasslands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(49):855–862Google Scholar
  44. Naidoo R, Iwamura T (2007) Global-scale mapping of economic benefits from agricultural lands: implications for conservation priorities. Biol Conserv 140(1):40–49Google Scholar
  45. Naidoo R, Ricketts T (2006) Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Biol 4(1):2153–2164Google Scholar
  46. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro P, Polasky S, Ricketts T, Rouget M (2006) Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol Evol 21(12):681–687Google Scholar
  47. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA JPL) (2011) ASTER global digital elevation map announcement. http://asterwebjpl.nasa.gov/gdem.asp
  48. Parks SA, Harcourt AH (2002) Reserve size, local human density, and mammalian extinctions in US protected areas. Conserv Biol 16(3):800–808Google Scholar
  49. Polasky S, Camm JD, Garber-Yonts B (2001) Selecting biological reserve cost-effectively: an application to terrestrial vertebrate conservation in Oregon. Land Econ 77(1):68–78Google Scholar
  50. Robert A (2009) The effects of spatially correlated perturbations and habitat configuration on metapopulation persistence. Oikos 118(10):1590–1600Google Scholar
  51. Robinson EJ, Albers HJ, Williams JC (2011) Sizing reserves within a landscape: the roles of villagers’ reactions and the ecological-socioeconomic setting. Land Econ 87(2):233–249Google Scholar
  52. Shafer CL (1995) Values and shortcomings of small reserves. BioScience 45(2):80–88Google Scholar
  53. Sims K (2010) Conservation and development: evidence from Thai protected areas. J EnvironEcon Manage 62(1):94–114Google Scholar
  54. Snyder SA, Kilgore MA, Hudson R, Donnay J (2007) Determinants of forest land prices in Northern Minnesota: a hedonic pricing approach. Forest Sci 53(1):25–36Google Scholar
  55. Soule ME (1987) Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Stewart RR, Possingham HP (2005) Efficiency, costs and trade-offs in marine reserve system design. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 10(3):203–213Google Scholar
  57. Strange N, Rahbek C, Jepsen JK, Lund MP (2006) Using farmland prices to evaluate cost-efficiency of national versus regional reserve selection in Denmark. Biol Conserv 128(4):455–466Google Scholar
  58. Sutton N, Armsworth PR (2014) The grain of spatially referenced economic cost and biodiversity benefit data and the effectiveness of a cost targeting strategy. Conserv Biol 28(6):1451–1461Google Scholar
  59. US Census Bureau (2000) Census 2000 summary file 3 (SF 3). Generated by Dr. Tae-young Kim, using American FactFinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov
  60. US Census Bureau (2007) TIGER/Line Shapefile. American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, 2007–2011. http://census.gov/geo/maps-data/tiger-data.html
  61. United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2012) Gap analysis program (GAP). Protected Areas Database of the United States (PADUS), version 1.3Google Scholar
  62. Venter O, Fuller RA, Segan DB et al. (2014) Targeting global protected area expansion for imperiled biodiversity. PLoS Biol 12(6):e1001891Google Scholar
  63. Wilson KA, McBride MF, Bode M, Possingham HP (2006) Prioritizing global conservation efforts. Nature 440(7082):337Google Scholar
  64. Wilson KA, Carwardine J, Possingham HP (2009) Setting conservation priorities. Ann NY Acad Sci 1162:237–264Google Scholar
  65. Withey JC, Lawler JJ, Polasky S et al. (2012) Maximizing return on conservation investment in the conterminous USA. Ecol Lett 15(11):1249–1256Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seong-Hoon Cho
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kristen Thiel
    • 2
  • Paul R. Armsworth
    • 3
  • Bijay P. Sharma
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsThe University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.United States Census BureauWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyThe University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations