Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
15 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Argument 3: You can cost-benifit strategy using value. |
13 |
|
|
There are almost always trade offs in conservation. Situations that benefit all stakeholders are rare |
14a |
|
|
In a review of 97 articles on human-human conflict in conservation, 65% had livelihood associated conflict. |
14b |
|
|
Local people were paying the price for conservation |
14c |
|
|
Good news is that you can model where conservation is likely to be financially viable under different scenarios. |
15 |
|
|
Where cost-benifits are mapped, viability varies with area and strategy |
15b |
|
|
This is a reserve (mbaracayu biosphere reserve) in eastern Paraguay |
16a |
|
|
That box is a protected area The blue lines are potential corridors between the two forests. |
16b |
|
|
Only one if these potential corridors is actually financially viable and will benefit the local economy. |
16c |
|
|
Valuation could be raised by biodiversity because of the resilience provided, So in theory you could cost benefit beyond the human benefits to plan efficient projects |
17 |
|
|
I've talked a lot about financial viability in the past few slides, but why us this important? |
18 |
|
|
In 50% of peer reviewed articles on individual conservation attempts, lack of funding was given as a reason for failure. |
19 |
|
|
Almost half of 59 articles listed economic and political reasons for failure |
19b |
|
|
More than a third failed because they were not economicly viable, I.e people did things that would give them more money. |
19c |
|
|
We make conservation financially viable and we remove a major reason for failure |
19d |
