Constraints of philanthropy on determining the distribution of biodiversity conservation funding

Abstract

Caught between ongoing habitat destruction and funding shortfalls, conservation organizations are using systematic planning approaches to identify places that offer the highest biodiversity return per dollar invested. However, available tools do not account for the landscape of funding for conservation or quantify the constraints this landscape imposes on conservation outcomes. Using state-level data on philanthropic giving to and investments in land conservation by a large nonprofit organization, we applied linear regression to evaluate whether the spatial distribution of conservation philanthropy better explained expenditures on conservation than maps of biodiversity priorities, which were derived from a planning process internal to the organization and return on investment (ROI) analyses based on data on species richness, land costs, and existing protected areas. Philanthropic fund raising accounted for considerably more spatial variation in conservation spending (r(2) = 0.64) than either of the 2 systematic conservation planning approaches (r(2) = 0.08-0.21). We used results of one of the ROI analyses to evaluate whether increases in flexibility to reallocate funding across space provides conservation gains. Small but plausible "tax" increments of 1-10% on states redistributed to the optimal funding allocation from the ROI analysis could result in gains in endemic species protected of 8.5-80.2%. When such increases in spatial flexibility are not possible, conservation organizations should seek to cultivate increased support for conservation in priority locations. We used lagged correlations of giving to and spending by the organization to evaluate whether investments in habitat protection stimulate future giving to conservation. The most common outcome at the state level was that conservation spending quarters correlated significantly and positively with lagged fund raising quarters. In effect, periods of high fund raising for biodiversity followed (rather than preceded) periods of high expenditure on land conservation projects, identifying one mechanism conservation organizations could explore to seed greater activity in priority locations. Our results demonstrate how limitations on the ability of conservation organizations to reallocate their funding across space can impede organizational effectiveness and elucidate ways conservation planning tools could be more useful if they quantified and incorporated these constraints.

How do we restore New Zealand's biological heritage by 2050?

“…Some forms of philanthropy involve sustainable funding through endowments, while others provide finite funding. There is always a risk that the aspirations of philanthropic funders do not meet national conservation priorities (Larson et al 2016), perhaps reflecting the wishes of the funder. There is also the perceived or real risk that philanthropic investors will use their influence to impose future obligations on central government funding.…”

Sources and dynamics of international funding for waterfowl conservation in the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

“…Another study has shown that investments are better explained by species richness than land cost (Fishburn et al 2013). Areas where conservation efforts are invested are strongly correlated with amounts of funds raised locally, despite large predicted gains from reallocating a portion of this funding across space (Larson et al 2016). By contrast, donations to TNC were highest around major metropolitan areas where there are fewer opportunities to spend the money locally (Fovargue et al 2019).…”

Funding for nature conservation: a study of public finance networks at World Wide Fund for nature (WWF)

“…Broadly speaking, academic literature on funding for conservation oscillates between focussing on efficiency on the one hand (Armsworth et al 2012;Bennett et al 2015;Bos et al 2015;Larson et al 2016;Miller et al 2013) and taking a critical stance on conservation networks on the other hand (Büscher et al 2014;Corson 2010;Kay 2018). The efficiency-focussed literature is primarily concerned with optimising funding, for example by looking into the efficiency of conservation organisations, the workings of financial mechanisms or the institutional and local contexts within which conservation occurs.…”