IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0160640.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Cost of Global Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge

Author

Listed:
  • Diego Juffe-Bignoli
  • Thomas M Brooks
  • Stuart H M Butchart
  • Richard B Jenkins
  • Kaia Boe
  • Michael Hoffmann
  • Ariadne Angulo
  • Steve Bachman
  • Monika Böhm
  • Neil Brummitt
  • Kent E Carpenter
  • Pat J Comer
  • Neil Cox
  • Annabelle Cuttelod
  • William R T Darwall
  • Moreno Di Marco
  • Lincoln D C Fishpool
  • Bárbara Goettsch
  • Melanie Heath
  • Craig Hilton-Taylor
  • Jon Hutton
  • Tim Johnson
  • Ackbar Joolia
  • David A Keith
  • Penny F Langhammer
  • Jennifer Luedtke
  • Eimear Nic Lughadha
  • Maiko Lutz
  • Ian May
  • Rebecca M Miller
  • María A Oliveira-Miranda
  • Mike Parr
  • Caroline M Pollock
  • Gina Ralph
  • Jon Paul Rodríguez
  • Carlo Rondinini
  • Jane Smart
  • Simon Stuart
  • Andy Symes
  • Andrew W Tordoff
  • Stephen Woodley
  • Bruce Young
  • Naomi Kingston

Abstract

Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by standards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge products for biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decision makers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largely undocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintaining four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary data collected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160 million (range: US$116–204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278–308 person-years) valued at US$ 14 million (range US$12–16 million), were invested in these four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financing was provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnel costs. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowledge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were not possible to estimate for 2013) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2–6.7 million). We estimated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines of data coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual maintenance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those to maintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodiversity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensive and accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustainable long-term financing for them is critical.

Suggested Citation

  • Diego Juffe-Bignoli & Thomas M Brooks & Stuart H M Butchart & Richard B Jenkins & Kaia Boe & Michael Hoffmann & Ariadne Angulo & Steve Bachman & Monika Böhm & Neil Brummitt & Kent E Carpenter & Pat J , 2016. "Assessing the Cost of Global Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-22, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0160640
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160640
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0160640
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0160640&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0160640?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Balmford & Kevin J. Gaston, 1999. "Why biodiversity surveys are good value," Nature, Nature, vol. 398(6724), pages 204-205, March.
    2. David Griggs & Mark Stafford-Smith & Owen Gaffney & Johan Rockström & Marcus C. Öhman & Priya Shyamsundar & Will Steffen & Gisbert Glaser & Norichika Kanie & Ian Noble, 2013. "Sustainable development goals for people and planet," Nature, Nature, vol. 495(7441), pages 305-307, March.
    3. Lester M. Salamon & S. Wojciech Sokolowski & Megan A. Haddock, 2011. "Measuring The Economic Value Of Volunteer Work Globally: Concepts, Estimates, And A Roadmap To The Future," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 82(3), pages 217-252, September.
    4. McCrea-Strub, Ashley & Zeller, Dirk & Rashid Sumaila, Ussif & Nelson, Jay & Balmford, Andrew & Pauly, Daniel, 2011. "Understanding the cost of establishing marine protected areas," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-9, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Denielle Perry & Ian Harrison & Stephannie Fernandes & Sarah Burnham & Alana Nichols, 2021. "Global Analysis of Durable Policies for Free-Flowing River Protections," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-23, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fang Li & Hongxu Ma & Suyan Shen, 2024. "Volunteering in China: How significant is the peer effect?," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 1848-1865, April.
    2. Ingrid Boas & Frank Biermann & Norichika Kanie, 2016. "Cross-sectoral strategies in global sustainability governance: towards a nexus approach," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 449-464, June.
    3. Targetti, Stefano & Viaggi, Davide & Cuming, David & Sarthou, J.P. & Choisis, J.P., "undated". "Assessing the costs of measuring biodiversity: methodological and empirical issues," 120th Seminar, September 2-4, 2010, Chania, Crete 109414, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Martinico-Perez, Marianne Faith G. & Schandl, Heinz & Fishman, Tomer & Tanikawa, Hiroki, 2018. "The Socio-Economic Metabolism of an Emerging Economy: Monitoring Progress of Decoupling of Economic Growth and Environmental Pressures in the Philippines," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 155-166.
    5. Craig Leisher, 2014. "A Comparison of Tablet-Based and Paper-Based Survey Data Collection in Conservation Projects," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-8, May.
    6. Vincenzo Formisano & Bernardino Quattrociocchi & Maria Fedele & Mario Calabrese, 2018. "From Viability to Sustainability: The Contribution of the Viable Systems Approach (VSA)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-17, March.
    7. Zhijiang Li & Decai Tang & Mang Han & Brandon J. Bethel, 2018. "Comprehensive Evaluation of Regional Sustainable Development Based on Data Envelopment Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, October.
    8. Steve O’Hern & Roni Utriainen & Hanne Tiikkaja & Markus Pöllänen & Niina Sihvola, 2021. "Exploratory Analysis of Pedestrian Road Trauma in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-14, June.
    9. Carmen Ruiz-Puente & Daniel Jato-Espino, 2020. "Systemic Analysis of the Contributions of Co-Located Industrial Symbiosis to Achieve Sustainable Development in an Industrial Park in Northern Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-28, July.
    10. Pamela Wicker & Christoph Breuer, 2015. "How the Economic and Financial Situation of the Community Affects Sport Clubs’ Resources: Evidence from Multi-Level Models," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-18, February.
    11. Rositsa T. Ilieva, 2017. "Urban Food Systems Strategies: A Promising Tool for Implementing the SDGs in Practice †," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-35, September.
    12. Giorgio Mion & Angela Broglia & Angelo Bonfanti, 2019. "Do Codes of Ethics Reveal a University’s Commitment to Sustainable Development? Evidence from Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    13. Xiaoli Zhao & Pavel Castka & Cory Searcy, 2020. "ISO Standards: A Platform for Achieving Sustainable Development Goal 2," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-19, November.
    14. Shizuki Fukuda & Michio Murakami & Keigo Noda & Taikan Oki, 2016. "How Achieving the Millennium Development Goals Increases Subjective Well-Being in Developing Nations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-19, February.
    15. Marco Filippo Torchio & Umberto Lucia & Giulia Grisolia, 2020. "Economic and Human Features for Energy and Environmental Indicators: A Tool to Assess Countries’ Progress towards Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-19, November.
    16. Ibujés-Villacís, Juan & Franco-Crespo, Antonio, 2023. "Relationship between Productivity and Efficiency with Sustainable Development Goals: The Case of the Manufacturing Industry in Pichincha, Ecuador [Relación entre productividad y eficiencia con los ," Revista de Métodos Cuantitativos para la Economía y la Empresa = Journal of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, vol. 35(1), pages 34-56, June.
    17. Oier Imaz & Andoni Eizagirre, 2020. "Responsible Innovation for Sustainable Development Goals in Business: An Agenda for Cooperative Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-20, August.
    18. Alexander W. Cappelen & Bjørn-Atle Reme & Erik Ø. Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2016. "Leadership and Incentives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 1944-1953, July.
    19. Martin Dahl, 2018. "Ordoliberal Roots Of Ecological Market Economy," Review of Economic and Business Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, issue 22, pages 115-129, December.
    20. Jean Hugé & Nibedita Mukherjee & Camille Fertel & Jean-Philippe Waaub & Thomas Block & Tom Waas & Nico Koedam & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas, 2015. "Conceptualizing the Effectiveness of Sustainability Assessment in Development Cooperation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-17, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0160640. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.