Improving private land conservation with outcome-based biodiversity payments

Mcdonald, Jane A., Helmstedt, Kate J., Bode, Michael, Callow, Ian, Mcdonald-Madden, Eve and Possingham, Hugh P. (2018) Improving private land conservation with outcome-based biodiversity payments. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55 3: 1476-1485. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13071


Author Mcdonald, Jane A.
Helmstedt, Kate J.
Bode, Michael
Callow, Ian
Mcdonald-Madden, Eve
Possingham, Hugh P.
Title Improving private land conservation with outcome-based biodiversity payments
Journal name Journal of Applied Ecology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1365-2664
0021-8901
Publication date 2018-02-21
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/1365-2664.13071
Open Access Status DOI
Volume 55
Issue 3
Start page 1476
End page 1485
Total pages 10
Place of publication West Sussex, United Kingdom
Publisher Blackwell Publishing
Language eng
Subject 2303 Ecology
Abstract Payments to private landholders for providing biodiversity land can improve conservation outside protected areas. Input-based payments are widely used despite evidence they are often ineffective at improving biodiversity outcomes. Meanwhile, little has been done to assess how to use outcome-based payments to maximize biodiversity, despite growing academic interest. We compare different outcome-based allocation methods to assess which returns the greatest benefits for biodiversity. We predicted the likely landholder actions in response to outcome-based payments. We incorporated strategic interactions between landholders under four different funding allocation methods: the commonly applied "set-price" allocation method; capacity-based payments; proportional payment; and payment for change. We compared biodiversity outcomes (percentage change in abundance of a species of conservation interest), return on investment and cost-effectiveness of each method. The set-price allocation method, despite its common usage, is the least cost-effective method that we test. Regardless of cost, it only results in better biodiversity outcomes than other methods under a very narrow range of conditions (high initial target species abundance and low profitability). The profitability of the property, and to a lesser degree initial population size, will influence which allocation method will perform best. Most perform well when the initial population of the species of conservation interest is very small and profitability negligible. Only one method-based on change in population-performs well across all scenarios. This method outperforms the others particularly when the property has a higher profitability and low initial numbers of animals. Policy implications. Pursuing conservation on private land using outcome-based payments for biodiversity can result in varied levels of success depending on the allocation methods used to support payment decisions. Allocation method choice should be based on a transparent analysis that incorporates both the dynamics of the ecological system and interactions between individual landholders. This analysis can guide adoption of funding allocation methods that greatly increase biodiversity outcomes.
Keyword Allocation
Biodiversity
Conservation
Funding
Game theory
Incentive scheme
Landholders
Outcome-based payments
Payment policy
Private land
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: HERDC Pre-Audit
School of Biological Sciences Publications
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Thu, 05 Apr 2018, 23:58:50 EST