The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mapping the Economic Costs and Benefits of Conservation
Open accessAbstract
Resources for biodiversity conservation are severely limited, requiring strategic investment. Understanding both the economic benefits and costs of conserving ecosystems will help to allocate scarce dollars most efficiently. However, although cost-benefit analyses are common in many areas of policy, they are not typically used in conservation planning. We conducted a spatial evaluation of the costs and benefits of conservation for a landscape in the Atlantic forests of Paraguay. We considered five ecosystem services (i.e., sustainable bushmeat harvest, sustainable timber harvest, bioprospecting for pharmaceutical products, existence value, and carbon storage in aboveground biomass) and compared them to estimates of the opportunity costs of conservation. We found a high degree of spatial variability in both costs and benefits over this relatively small (approximately 3,000 km(2)) landscape. Benefits exceeded costs in some areas, with carbon storage dominating the ecosystem service values and swamping opportunity costs. Other benefits associated with conservation were more modest and exceeded costs only in protected areas and indigenous reserves. We used this cost-benefit information to show that one potential corridor between two large forest patches had net benefits that were three times greater than two otherwise similar alternatives. Spatial cost-benefit analysis can powerfully inform conservation planning, even though the availability of relevant data may be limited, as was the case in our study area. It can help us understand the synergies between biodiversity conservation and economic development when the two are indeed aligned and to clearly understand the trade-offs when they are not.
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
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis
Assessment, M. E. (2005) · Island Press · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18167309 · Cited by 10,665
Cited by
Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D., Chan, K. M., Daily, G. C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., et al. (2009) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/080023 · Cited by 2,389
Self-citationEcosystem services and dis-services to agriculture
Zhang, W., Ricketts, T. H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., & Swinton, S. M. (2007) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024 · Cited by 1,590
Self-citationLandscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns?
Ricketts, T. H., Regetz, J., Steffan‐Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S. A., Kremen, C., Bogdanski, A., Gemmill‐Herren, B., Greenleaf, S. S., Klein, A. M., Mayfield, M. M., et al. (2008) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01157.x · Cited by 1,379
Self-citationGlobal mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R. E., Lehner, B., Malcolm, T. R., & Ricketts, T. H. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0707823105 · Cited by 1,048
Self-citationBringing Ecosystem Services into Economic Decision-Making: Land Use in the United Kingdom
Bateman, I. J., Harwood, A. R., Mace, G. M., Watson, R. T., Abson, D. J., Andrews, B., Binner, A., Crowe, A., Day, B. H., Dugdale, S., et al. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1234379 · Cited by 1,031
Metadata
- Authors
- Naidoo, R., & Ricketts, T. H.
- Venue
- PLoS Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2006-10-31
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- e360
- ISSN
- 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-7885
- OpenAlex
- W2123810646
- Cited by
- 489
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Mapping the Economic Costs and Benefits of Conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040360
- The paper
- Naidoo, R., & Ricketts, T. H. (2006). Mapping the Economic Costs and Benefits of Conservation. PLoS Biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040360
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.