Determining the economic costs and benefits of conservation actions: A decision support framework

Abstract

The need for conservation action to be cost-effective is widely accepted, resulting in increased interest and effort to assess effectiveness. Assessing the financial and economic costs of conservation is equally important for assessing cost-effectiveness, yet their measurement and assessment are repeatedly identified as lacking. The healthcare sector, in contrast, has made substantial progress in identifying and including costs in decision-making. Here, we consider what conservation can learn from this experience. We present a three-step framework for identifying and recording the relevant economic costs and benefits of conservation interventions where the user (1) describes the costing context, (2) determines which types of cost and benefit to include, and (3) obtains values for these costs and benefits alongside metadata necessary for others to interpret the data. This framework is designed to help estimate economic costs but can also be used flexibly to record the direct costs of interventions (i.e., financial costs) and calculate financial and economic benefits. Although recording data on economic costs and benefits is deceptively complex, this framework facilitates improved recording, and indicates how collating this data could enhance the assessment of cost-effectiveness across conservation contexts using a range of decision-making tools.

Toward a Brighter Future: Enhanced Sustainable Methods for Preventing Algal Blooms and Improving Water Quality

“…Operationally, these methods require conditions that support the growth and activity of beneficial organisms, with low energy demands and minimal environmental disruption [119,120]. Costs for biological treatments are generally low, with benefits including biodiversity support and natural pollutant breakdown, though effectiveness can vary, and methods may require longer timescales and specific conditions to achieve optimal results [121][122][123][124].…”

Context matters when rewilding for climate change

“…Examination of the cost–benefit restrictions should ensure that excessive rewilding costs do not erode its comparative advantage over alternative nature‐based or mitigation approaches (e.g. Naidoo et al., 2006; Reed et al., 2013; White et al., 2022). There should also be transparency in which valuations will take priority when the estimation of these tradeoffs do not yield clear solutions (Armsworth et al., 2017).…”

Principles for using evidence to improve biodiversity impact mitigation by business

“…stakeholder values), the feasibility of implementing actions in specific contexts, and of other environmental and social outcomes (Treweek & Thompson, 1997). For example, careful consideration should be given to the economic costs and benefits of different actions, including costs that are avoided as a result of mitigation and the distribution of costs and benefits between stakeholders (Iacona et al, 2018; White et al, 2022).…”