Search

Government funding accounts for a large proportion of conservation and environmental improvements, and is often the result of citizen votes on state ballot measures. A key concern surrounding public investments in the environment is whether that funding serves lower-income communities, which are often the communities of greatest need. We applied three statistical methods to analyze the spatial distribution of conservation funding derived from Californias Proposition 84, which distributed nearly $4 billion across California between 2006 and 2015. First, we used hurdle models to ask if income, population density, urban coverage, or pollution could explain receipt of grants or magnitude of funding. Second, we compared the income levels of funded and unfunded communities for each chapter of the proposition. Finally, we examine two sections of the proposition that were intended to fund parks around the state and compare the attributes of funded and unfunded communities. Proposition 84 offers lessons for environmental legislation and future research. While there were general tendencies for more funding to flow to poor areas and areas with pollution problems, the language in Proposition 84 as a whole was vague with respect to the funding of disadvantaged areas, and as a result the targeting of these areas overall was at best modest. However, when enabling legislation (AB 31) defined specific metrics of disadvantage that had to be met by communities to receive funds from some sections of Proposition 84, the funds did flow much more selectively to poorer communities. This suggests that future ballot measures should be very explicit in their language if they want to promote equity in conservation investments, and that future research should investigate the extent to which technical workshops and outreach could further increase the number of funded grant proposals from low-income communities.

Government funding accounts for a large proportion of conservation and environmental improvements, and is often the result of citizen votes on state ballot measures. A key concern surrounding public investments in the environment is whether that funding serves lower-income communities, which are often the communities of greatest need. We applied three statistical methods to analyze the spatial distribution of conservation funding derived from California's Proposition 84, which distributed nearly $4 billion across California between 2006 and 2015. First, we used hurdle models to ask if income, population density, urban coverage, or pollution could explain receipt of grants or magnitude of funding. Second, we compared the income levels of funded and unfunded communities for each chapter of the proposition. Finally, we examine two sections of the proposition that were intended to fund parks around the state and compare the attributes of funded and unfunded communities. Proposition 84 offers lessons for environmental legislation and future research. While there were general tendencies for more funding to flow to poor areas and areas with pollution problems, the language in Proposition 84 as a whole was vague with respect to the funding of disadvantaged areas, and as a result the targeting of these areas overall was at best modest. However, when enabling legislation (AB 31) defined specific "metrics of disadvantage" that had to be met by communities to receive funds from some sections of Proposition 84, the funds did flow much more selectively to poorer communities. This suggests that future ballot measures should be very explicit in their language if they want to promote equity in conservation investments, and that future research should investigate the extent to which technical workshops and outreach could further increase the number of funded grant proposals from low-income communities.

Urban growth reduces open space in and around cities, impacting biodiversity and ecosystem services. Using land-cover and population data, we examined land consumption and open space loss between 1990 and 2000 for all 274 metropolitan areas in the contiguous United States. Nationally, 1.4 million ha of open space was lost, and the amount lost in a given city was correlated with population growth (r(272) = 0.85, P

Although the message of "global climate change" is catalyzing international action, it is local and regional changes that directly affect people and ecosystems and are of immediate concern to scientists, managers, and policy makers. A major barrier preventing informed climate-change adaptation planning is the difficulty accessing, analyzing, and interpreting climate-change information. To address this problem, we developed a powerful, yet easy to use, web-based tool called Climate Wizard (http://ClimateWizard.org) that provides non-climate specialists with simple analyses and innovative graphical depictions for conveying how climate has and is projected to change within specific geographic areas throughout the world.To demonstrate the Climate Wizard, we explored historic trends and future departures (anomalies) in temperature and precipitation globally, and within specific latitudinal zones and countries. We found the greatest temperature increases during 1951-2002 occurred in northern hemisphere countries (especially during January-April), but the latitude of greatest temperature change varied throughout the year, sinusoidally ranging from approximately 50 degrees N during February-March to 10 degrees N during August-September. Precipitation decreases occurred most commonly in countries between 0-20 degrees N, and increases mostly occurred outside of this latitudinal region. Similarly, a quantile ensemble analysis based on projections from 16 General Circulation Models (GCMs) for 2070-2099 identified the median projected change within countries, which showed both latitudinal and regional patterns in projected temperature and precipitation change.The results of these analyses are consistent with those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but at the same time, they provide examples of how Climate Wizard can be used to explore regionally- and temporally-specific analyses of climate change. Moreover, Climate Wizard is not a static product, but rather a data analysis framework designed to be used for climate change impact and adaption planning, which can be expanded to include other information, such as downscaled future projections of hydrology, soil moisture, wildfire, vegetation, marine conditions, disease, and agricultural productivity.

We hypothesized that willingness to financially support conservation depends on one's experience with nature. In order to test this hypothesis, we used a novel time-lagged correlation analysis to look at times series data concerning nature participation, and evaluate its relationship with future conservation support (measured as contributions to conservation NGOs). Our results suggest that the type and timing of nature experience may determine future conservation investment. Time spent hiking or backpacking is correlated with increased conservation contributions 11-12 years later. On the other hand, contributions are negatively correlated with past time spent on activities such as public lands visitation or fishing. Our results suggest that each hiker or backpacker translates to $200-$300 annually in future NGO contributions. We project that the recent decline in popularity of hiking and backpacking will negatively impact conservation NGO contributions from approximately 2010-2011 through at least 2018.

BACKGROUND: The numerous studies examining where efforts to conserve biodiversity should be targeted are not matched by comparable research efforts addressing how conservation investments should be structured and what balance of conservation approaches works best in what contexts. An obvious starting point is to examine the past allocation of effort among conservation approaches and how this has evolved. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We examine the past allocation of conservation investment between conservation easements and fee simple acquisitions using the largest land trust in operation, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), as a case study. We analyse the balance of investments across the whole of the US and in individual states when measured in terms of the area protected and upfront cost of protecting land. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Across the US as a whole, the proportion of conservation investment allocated to easements is growing exponentially. Already 70% of the area of land protected in a given year, and half of all the financial investment in land conservation, is allocated to easements. The growth rate of conservation easements varies by a factor of two across states when measured in terms of the area protected and by a factor of three in terms of financial expenditure. Yet, we were unable to find consistent predictors that explained this variation. Our results underscore the urgency of implementing best practice guidelines for designing easements and of initiating a wider discussion of what balance of conservation approaches is desirable.

BackgroundConventional wisdom identifies biodiversity hotspots as priorities for conservation investment because they capture dense concentrations of species. However, density of species does not necessarily imply conservation 'efficiency'. Here we explicitly consider conservation efficiency in terms of species protected per dollar invested.Methodology/principal findingsWe apply a dynamic return on investment approach to a global biome and compare it with three alternate priority setting approaches and a random allocation of funding. After twenty years of acquiring habitat, the return on investment approach protects between 32% and 69% more species compared to the other priority setting approaches. To correct for potential inefficiencies of protecting the same species multiple times we account for the complementarity of species, protecting up to three times more distinct vertebrate species than alternate approaches.Conclusions/significanceIncorporating costs in a return on investment framework expands priorities to include areas not traditionally highlighted as priorities based on conventional irreplaceability and vulnerability approaches.

Urban growth reduces open space in and around cities, impacting biodiversity and ecosystem services. Using land-cover and population data, we examined land consumption and open space loss between 1990 and 2000 for all 274 metropolitan areas in the contiguous United States. Nationally, 1.4 million ha of open space was lost, and the amount lost in a given city was correlated with population growth (r(272) = 0.85, P<0.001). In 2000, cities varied in per capita land consumption by an order of magnitude, from 459 m(2)/person in New York to 5393 m(2)/person in Grand Forks, ND. The per capita land consumption (m(2)/person) of most cities decreased on average over the decade from 1,564 to 1,454 m(2)/person, but there was substantial regional variation and some cities even increased. Cities with greater conservation funding or more reform-minded zoning tended to decrease in per capita land consumption more than other cities. The majority of developed area in cities is in low-density neighborhoods housing a small proportion of urban residents, with Gini coefficients that quantify this developed land inequality averaging 0.63. Our results suggest conservation funding and reform-minded zoning decrease per capita open space loss.

Background: Although the message of "global climate change" is catalyzing international action, it is local and regional changes that directly affect people and ecosystems and are of immediate concern to scientists, managers, and policy makers. A major barrier preventing informed climate-change adaptation planning is the difficulty accessing, analyzing, and interpreting climate-change information. To address this problem, we developed a powerful, yet easy to use, web-based tool called Climate Wizard (http://ClimateWizard.org) that provides non-climate specialists with simple analyses and innovative graphical depictions for conveying how climate has and is projected to change within specific geographic areas throughout the world., Methodology/principal Findings: To demonstrate the Climate Wizard, we explored historic trends and future departures (anomalies) in temperature and precipitation globally, and within specific latitudinal zones and countries. We found the greatest temperature increases during 1951-2002 occurred in northern hemisphere countries (especially during January-April), but the latitude of greatest temperature change varied throughout the year, sinusoidally ranging from approximately 50 degrees N during February-March to 10 degrees N during August-September. Precipitation decreases occurred most commonly in countries between 0-20 degrees N, and increases mostly occurred outside of this latitudinal region. Similarly, a quantile ensemble analysis based on projections from 16 General Circulation Models (GCMs) for 2070-2099 identified the median projected change within countries, which showed both latitudinal and regional patterns in projected temperature and precipitation change., Conclusions/significance: The results of these analyses are consistent with those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but at the same time, they provide examples of how Climate Wizard can be used to explore regionally- and temporally-specific analyses of climate change. Moreover, Climate Wizard is not a static product, but rather a data analysis framework designed to be used for climate change impact and adaption planning, which can be expanded to include other information, such as downscaled future projections of hydrology, soil moisture, wildfire, vegetation, marine conditions, disease, and agricultural productivity.

We hypothesized that willingness to financially support conservation depends on one's experience with nature. In order to test this hypothesis, we used a novel time-lagged correlation analysis to look at times series data concerning nature participation, and evaluate its relationship with future conservation support (measured as contributions to conservation NGOs). Our results suggest that the type and timing of nature experience may determine future conservation investment. Time spent hiking or backpacking is correlated with increased conservation contributions 11-12 years later. On the other hand, contributions are negatively correlated with past time spent on activities such as public lands visitation or fishing. Our results suggest that each hiker or backpacker translates to $200-$300 annually in future NGO contributions. We project that the recent decline in popularity of hiking and backpacking will negatively impact conservation NGO contributions from approximately 2010-2011 through at least 2018.

Background: The numerous studies examining where efforts to conserve biodiversity should be targeted are not matched by comparable research efforts addressing how conservation investments should be structured and what balance of conservation approaches works best in what contexts. An obvious starting point is to examine the past allocation of effort among conservation approaches and how this has evolved., Methodology/principal Findings: We examine the past allocation of conservation investment between conservation easements and fee simple acquisitions using the largest land trust in operation, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), as a case study. We analyse the balance of investments across the whole of the US and in individual states when measured in terms of the area protected and upfront cost of protecting land., Conclusions/significance: Across the US as a whole, the proportion of conservation investment allocated to easements is growing exponentially. Already 70% of the area of land protected in a given year, and half of all the financial investment in land conservation, is allocated to easements. The growth rate of conservation easements varies by a factor of two across states when measured in terms of the area protected and by a factor of three in terms of financial expenditure. Yet, we were unable to find consistent predictors that explained this variation. Our results underscore the urgency of implementing best practice guidelines for designing easements and of initiating a wider discussion of what balance of conservation approaches is desirable.

Background: Conventional wisdom identifies biodiversity hotspots as priorities for conservation investment because they capture dense concentrations of species. However, density of species does not necessarily imply conservation 'efficiency'. Here we explicitly consider conservation efficiency in terms of species protected per dollar invested., Methodology/principal Findings: We apply a dynamic return on investment approach to a global biome and compare it with three alternate priority setting approaches and a random allocation of funding. After twenty years of acquiring habitat, the return on investment approach protects between 32% and 69% more species compared to the other priority setting approaches. To correct for potential inefficiencies of protecting the same species multiple times we account for the complementarity of species, protecting up to three times more distinct vertebrate species than alternate approaches., Conclusions/significance: Incorporating costs in a return on investment framework expands priorities to include areas not traditionally highlighted as priorities based on conventional irreplaceability and vulnerability approaches.