Effective conservation management interventions must combat threats and deliver benefits at costs that can be achieved within limited budgets. Considerable effort has focused on measuring the potential benefits of conservation interventions, but explicit quantification of the financial costs of implementation is rare. Even when costs have been quantified, haphazard and inconsistent reporting means published values are difficult to interpret. This reporting deficiency hinders progress toward a collective understanding of the financial costs of management interventions across projects and thus limits the ability to identify efficient solutions to conservation problems or attract adequate funding. We devised a standardized approach to describing financial costs reported for conservation interventions. The standards call for researchers and practitioners to describe the objective and outcome, context and methods, and scale of costed interventions, and to state which categories of costs are included and the currency and date for reported costs. These standards aim to provide enough contextual information that readers and future users can interpret the cost data appropriately. We suggest these standards be adopted by major conservation organizations, conservation science institutions, and journals so that cost reporting is comparable among studies. This would support shared learning and enhance the ability to identify and perform cost-effective conservation.

Explicit articulation of values and objectives is critical

No abstract

Achieving global targets for restoring native vegetation cover requires restoration projects to identify and work toward common management objectives. This is made challenging by the different values held by concerned stakeholders, which are not often accounted for. Additionally, restoration is time‐dependent and yet there is often little explicit acknowledgment of the time frames required to achieve outcomes. Here, we argue that explicitly incorporating value and time considerations into stated objectives would help to achieve restoration goals. We reviewed the peer‐reviewed literature on restoration of terrestrial vegetation and found that while there is guidance on how to identify and account for stakeholder values and time considerations, there is little evidence these are being incorporated into decision‐making processes. In this article, we explore how a combination of stakeholder surveys and workshops can be used within a structured decision‐making framework to facilitate the integration of diverse stakeholder values and time frame considerations to set restoration objectives. We demonstrate this approach with a case of restoration decision‐making at a regional scale (southeast Queensland, Australia) with a view to this experience supporting similar restoration projects elsewhere.