A comparison of global conservation prioritization models with spatial spending patterns of conservation Nongovernmental Organizations
Holmes, G.; Scholfield, K.; Brockington, D. (2012). A comparison of global conservation prioritization models with spatial spending patterns of conservation Nongovernmental Organizations. Conserv. Biol. 26(4): 602-609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01879.x
In: Conservation Biology. Wiley: Boston, Mass.. ISSN 0888-8892; e-ISSN 1523-1739, more
|  |
| Keywords |
|
| Author keywords |
Africa; conservation spending; high biodiversity wilderness areas;hotspots; NGOs; prioritization modeling; Africa; areas de importanciapara la conservacion; areas silvestres con alta biodiversidad; gasto enconservacion; modelos de priorizacion; ONGs |
| Authors | | Top |
- Holmes, G.
- Scholfield, K.
- Brockington, D.
|
|
|
| Abstract |
In recent decades, various conservation organizations have developed models to prioritize locations for conservation. Through a survey of the spending patterns of 281 conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), we examined the relation between 2 such models and spatial patterns of spending by conservation NGOs in 44 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. We tested whether, at the country level, the proportion of a country designated as a conservation priority was correlated with where NGOs spent money. For one model (the combination of Conservation International's hotspots and High Biodiversity Wilderness Areas, which are areas of high endemism with high or low levels of vegetation loss respectively), there was no relation between the proportion of a country designated as a priority and levels of NGO spending, including by the NGO associated with the model. In the second model (Global 200), the proportion of a country designated as a priority and the amount of money spent by NGOs were significantly and positively related. Less money was spent in countries in northern and western sub-Saharan Africa than countries in southern and eastern Africa, relative to the proportion of the country designated as a conservation priority. We suggest that on the basis of our results some NGOs consider increasing their spending on the areas designated as of conservation priority which are currently relatively underfunded, although there are economic, political, cultural, historical, biological, and practical reasons why current spending patterns may not align with priority sites. |
|
