Publication:
Matches and mismatches between conservation investments and biodiversity values in the European Union

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Date
2017
relationships.isAuthorOfPublication
relationships.isSecondaryAuthorOf
relationships.isDirectorOf
Authors
Sánchez Fernández, David ; Abellán, Pedro ; Aragón, Pedro ; Varela, Sara ; Cabeza, Mar
item.page.secondaryauthor
item.page.director
Publisher
Wiley
publication.page.editor
publication.page.department
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12977
item.page.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Description
©2017. This document is the Published version of a Published Work that appeared in final form in Conservation Biology. To access the final edited and published work see https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12977
Abstract
Recently, the European Commission adopted a new strategy to halt the loss of biodiversity. Member states are expected to favor a more effective collection and redistribution of European Union (EU) funds under the current Multiannual Financial Framework for 2014–2020. Because of the large spatial variation in the distribution of biodiversity and conservation needs at the continental scale, EU instruments should ensure that countries with higher biodiversity values get more funds and resources for the conservation than other countries. Using linear regressions, we assessed the association between conservation investments and biodiversity values across member states, accounting for a variety of conservation investment indicators, taxonomic groups (including groups of plants, vertebrates, and invertebrates), and indicators of biodiversity value. In general, we found clear overall associations between conservation investments and biodiversity variables. However, some countries received more or less investment than would be expected based on biodiversity values in those countries. We also found that the extensive use of birds as unique indicators of conservation effectiveness may lead to biased decisions. Our results can inform future decisions regarding funding allocation and thus improve distribution of EU conservation funds.
Citation
Conservation Biology, Volume 32, No. 1, 109–115
item.page.embargo
Collections