The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Land market feedbacks can undermine biodiversity conservation
Abstract
The full or partial purchase of land has become a cornerstone of efforts to conserve biodiversity in countries with strong private property rights. Methods used to target areas for acquisition typically ignore land market dynamics. We show how conservation purchases affect land prices and generate feedbacks that can undermine conservation goals, either by displacing development toward biologically valuable areas or by accelerating its pace. The impact of these market feedbacks on the effectiveness of conservation depends on the ecological value of land outside nature reserves. Traditional, noneconomic approaches to site prioritization should perform adequately in places where land outside reserves supports little biodiversity. However, these approaches will perform poorly in locations where the countryside surrounding reserves is important for species’ persistence. Conservation investments can sometimes even be counterproductive, condemning more species than they save. Conservation is most likely to be compromised in the absence of accurate information on species distributions, which provides a strong argument for improving inventories of biodiversity. Accounting for land market dynamics in conservation planning is crucial for making smart investment decisions.
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
Cited by
Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity
Lambin, E. F., & Meyfroidt, P. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1100480108 · Cited by 3,160
The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability
Turner, B. L., Lambin, E. F., & Reenberg, A. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0704119104 · Cited by 2,216
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
Global mammal distributions, biodiversity hotspots, and conservation
Ceballos, G., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0609334103 · Cited by 489
Optimal Conservation Outcomes Require Both Restoration and Protection
Possingham, H. P., Bode, M., & Klein, C. J. (2015) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002052 · Cited by 274
Metadata
- Authors
- Armsworth, P. R., Daily, G. C., Kareiva, P., & Sanchirico, J. N.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2006-04-04
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 5403-5408
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2158122482
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Land market feedbacks can undermine biodiversity conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0505278103
- The paper
- Armsworth, P. R., Daily, G. C., Kareiva, P., & Sanchirico, J. N. (2006). Land market feedbacks can undermine biodiversity conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0505278103
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.