Finance for nature: A global estimate of public biodiversity investments

Seidl, Andrew; Mulungu, Kelvin; Arlaud, Marco; Heuvel, Onno van den; Riva, Massimiliano

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101216

Cited by 24 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite upward trends in spending on biodiversity (Seidl et al, 2020) and the increasing availability of low-cost, open-source tools (e.g., Hill et al, 2018), our results indicate that sustainable financing remains a primary constraint to effective engagement with conservation technology by both developers and end users. Although insufficient funding is a pervasive and frequently discussed constraint across the conservation sector, the growing involvement of corporate technology companies in conservation technology (e.g., Microsoft, Google, Arm) can shift financing dynamics substantially in this context.…”

Section: Critical Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 80%

A global community‐sourced assessment of the state of conservation technology

Speaker

O'Donnell

Wittemyer

et al. 2022

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation technology holds the potential to vastly increase conservationists’ ability to understand and address critical environmental challenges, but systemic constraints appear to hamper its development and adoption. Understanding of these constraints and opportunities for advancement remains limited. We conducted a global online survey of 248 conservation technology users and developers to identify perceptions of existing tools’ current performance and potential impact, user and developer constraints, and key opportunities for growth. We also conducted focus groups with 45 leading experts to triangulate findings. The technologies with the highest perceived potential were machine learning and computer vision, eDNA and genomics, and networked sensors. A total of 95%, 94%, and 92% respondents, respectively, rated them as very helpful or game changers. The most pressing challenges affecting the field as a whole were competition for limited funding, duplication of efforts, and inadequate capacity building. A total of 76%, 67%, and 55% respondents, respectively, identified these as primary concerns. The key opportunities for growth identified in focus groups were increasing collaboration and information sharing, improving the interoperability of tools, and enhancing capacity for data analyses at scale. Some constraints appeared to disproportionately affect marginalized groups. Respondents in countries with developing economies were more likely to report being constrained by upfront costs, maintenance costs, and development funding (p = 0.048, odds ratio [OR] = 2.78; p = 0.005, OR = 4.23; p = 0.024, OR = 4.26), and female respondents were more likely to report being constrained by development funding and perceived technical skills (p = 0.027, OR = 3.98; p = 0.048, OR = 2.33). To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to formally capture the perspectives and needs of the global conservation technology community, providing foundational data that can serve as a benchmark to measure progress. We see tremendous potential for this community to further the vision they define, in which collaboration trumps competition; solutions are open, accessible, and interoperable; and user‐friendly processing tools empower the rapid translation of data into conservation action. Article impact statement: Addressing financing, coordination, and capacity‐building constraints is critical to the development and adoption of conservation technology.

show abstract

Section: Critical Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 80%

A global community‐sourced assessment of the state of conservation technology

Speaker

O'Donnell

Wittemyer

et al. 2022

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers have divergent opinions about which jurisdictional level is the most influential [25,157]. The evidence found here may seem quite apparent if we consider that the protection and the conservation of nature and biodiversity issues are predominantly of national interest [158,159]. However, at the same time, the effectiveness of actions taken to address species and ecosystem degradation requires collaboration across governance levels [20,160] and, in particular, the involvement of local actors who were found to be underrepresented in the analysed network [161].…”

Section: (Q2) What Is the Degree Of Homophily And Heterophily Of The ...mentioning

confidence: 76%

Intermediary Organizations in Nature Conservation Initiatives: The Case of the EU-Funded LIFE Programme

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was aimed to identify intermediary organizations active in nature conservation initiatives by adopting a multi-level (ML) and network governance (NG) framework and using social network analysis (SNA). We identified 256 coordinating beneficiaries and 1090 associated beneficiaries connected through 8310 project relations and financed through the EU-funded LIFE Programme from 2014 to 2020. Our results evidence a central component of the network where organizations from Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom play a central role. In contrast, peripheral components return a framework of partnerships mainly constituted by actors of the same country (68%). Moreover, the characterization by type of actor confirms the widespread implementation of a multi-level governance approach in LIFE-Nature (NAT) projects, evidencing the significant presence of non-governmental organizations and foundations, mainly at a national level, in nature conservation initiatives. Our findings reveal that the intermediary capacity of key actors should be further reinforced, particularly toward the promotion of transnational cooperation and cross-sector alliances, by encouraging the involvement of stakeholders operating at the ground level (i.e., provincial and municipal levels).

show abstract

“…Their loss from 1997 to 2011 was worth of $4.3–20.2 trillion per year 143 . Only 0.19–0.25% of global GDP is yearly invested to sustain biodiversity 145 . This discrepancy makes no sense ecologically or economically.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immunological resilience and biodiversity for prevention of allergic diseases and asthma

Haahtela

Alenius

Lehtimäki

et al. 2021

Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increase of allergic conditions has occurred at the same pace with the Great Acceleration, which stands for the rapid growth rate of human activities upon earth from 1950s. Changes of environment and lifestyle along with escalating urbanization are acknowledged as the main underlying causes. Secondary (tertiary) prevention for better disease control has advanced considerably with innovations for oral immunotherapy and effective treatment of inflammation with corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and biological medications. Patients are less disabled than before. However, primary prevention has remained a dilemma. Factors predicting allergy and asthma risk have proven complex: Risk factors increase the risk, while protective factors counteract them. Interaction of human body with environmental biodiversity with micro-organisms and biogenic compounds as well as the central role of epigenetic adaptation in immune homeostasis have given new insight. Allergic diseases are good indicators of the twisted relation to environment. In various non-communicable diseases, the protective mode of the immune system indicates low-grade inflammation without apparent cause. Giving microbes, pro-and prebiotics, has shown some promise in prevention and treatment. The real-world public health programme in Finland (2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017)(2018) emphasized nature relatedness and protective factors for immunological resilience, instead of avoidance. The nationwide action mitigated the allergy burden, but in the lack of controls, primary preventive effect remains to be proven. The first results of controlled biodiversity interventions are promising. In the fast urbanizing world, new approaches are called for allergy prevention, which also has a major cost saving potential.

show abstract

Finance for nature: A global estimate of public biodiversity investments

Cited by 24 publications

References 17 publications

A global community‐sourced assessment of the state of conservation technology

A global community‐sourced assessment of the state of conservation technology

Intermediary Organizations in Nature Conservation Initiatives: The Case of the EU-Funded LIFE Programme

Immunological resilience and biodiversity for prevention of allergic diseases and asthma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About