ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2013
Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
98 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Systematic review of conservation interventions to promote voluntary behavior change.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2023Pooled it
- NGO Partnerships in Using Ecotourism for Conservation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Identifying hotspots of faunal data deficiency to direct urgent research and monitoring.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Global inequality in roadkill burden concentrates collision risk on threatened species in low- and middle-income countries.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Bridging monitoring gaps in global drylands with big data and collaboration.npj biodiversity · 2026Review
- Diagnosing scaling bottlenecks in 10 community conservation initiatives in southern and eastern Africa.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Toward a more effective funding model for conservation.Bioscience · 2026Review
- Challenging 10 misconceptions in conservation physiology.Conservation physiology · 2026Article
- Influence of funding fads and donor interests on international aid for conservation in Madagascar.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Valuing South American sea lions through ecotourism: a case study from a protected natural area in Argentine Patagonia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Habitat Suitability Evaluation of Chinese Red Panda in Daxiangling and Xiaoxiangling Mountains.Biology · 2025Article
- Using differential reinforcement and extinction to increase specificity in cheetah scat detection dogs.Animal cognition · 2025Article
- Limited and biased global conservation funding means most threatened species remain unsupported.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Cryptic species conservation: a review.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025Review
- The scope of empowerment for conservation and communities.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Review
- Article
- From burnout to engagement: enhancing the wellbeing and performance of conservationists.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Article
38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inadequate funding levels are a major impediment to effective global biodiversity conservation and are likely associated with recent failures to meet United Nations biodiversity targets. Some countries are more severely underfunded than others and therefore represent urgent financial priorities. However, attempts to identify these highly underfunded countries have been hampered for decades by poor and incomplete data on actual spending, coupled with uncertainty and lack of consensus over the relative size of spending gaps. Here, we assemble a global database of annual conservation spending. We then develop a statistical model that explains 86% of variation in conservation expenditures, and use this to identify countries where funding is robustly below expected levels. The 40 most severely underfunded countries contain 32% of all threatened mammalian diversity and include neighbors in some of the world's most biodiversity-rich areas (Sundaland, Wallacea, and Near Oceania). However, very modest increases in international assistance would achieve a large improvement in the relative adequacy of global conservation finance. Our results could therefore be quickly applied to limit immediate biodiversity losses at relatively little cost.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.