The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs
Open accessAbstract
Our ability to identify cost-efficient priorities for conserving biological diversity is limited by the scarcity of data on conservation costs, particularly at fine scales. Here we address this issue using data for 139 terrestrial programs worldwide. We find that the annual costs of effective field-based conservation vary enormously, across seven orders of magnitude, from <$0.1 to >$1,000,000 per km 2 . This variation can be closely predicted from positive associations between costs per unit area and an array of indices of local development. Corresponding measures of conservation benefit are limited but show opposing global trends, being higher in less developed parts of the world. The benefit-to-cost ratio of conservation is thus far greater in less developed regions, yet these are where the shortfall in current conservation spending is most marked. Substantially increased investment in tropical conservation is therefore urgently required if opportunities for cost-effective action are not to be missed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35002501 · Cited by 31,710
Cited by
An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm
Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Joshi, A., Vynne, C., Burgess, N. D., Wikramanayake, E., Hahn, N., Palminteri, S., Hedao, P., Noss, R., et al. (2017) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/bix014 · Cited by 2,460
Integrating economic costs into conservation planning
NAIDOO, R., BALMFORD, A., FERRARO, P., POLASKY, S., RICKETTS, T., & ROUGET, M. (2006) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.10.003 · Cited by 892
Self-citationAccelerated Human Population Growth at Protected Area Edges
Wittemyer, G., Elsen, P., Bean, W. T., Burton, A. C. O., & Brashares, J. S. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1158900 · Cited by 731
McCarthy, D. P., Donald, P. F., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Buchanan, G. M., Balmford, A., Green, J. M. H., Bennun, L. A., Burgess, N. D., Fishpool, L. D. C., Garnett, S. T., et al. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1229803 · Cited by 680
“While the shortfalls in higher-income countries are substantial, the greatest gains per dollar will be in lower-income countries (23).”
BackgroundSelf-citationLarge mammal population declines in Africa’s protected areas
Craigie, I. D., Baillie, J. E. M., Balmford, A., Carbone, C., Collen, B., Green, R. E., & Hutton, J. M. (2010) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.06.007 · Cited by 685
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Balmford, A., Gaston, K. J., Blyth, S., James, A., & Kapos, V.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2003-01-27
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1046-1050
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2052440083
- Cited by
- 450
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0236945100
- The paper
- Balmford, A., Gaston, K. J., Blyth, S., James, A., & Kapos, V. (2003). Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0236945100
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
