Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27419225›Full record

ArticleScience advances2016

Bigger is better: Improved nature conservation and economic returns from landscape-level mitigation.

Christina M Kennedy, Daniela A Miteva, Leandro Baumgarten, Peter L Hawthorne, Kei Sochi, Stephen Polasky, James R Oakleaf, Elizabeth M Uhlhorn, Joseph Kiesecker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science advances, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Prioritizing actions: spatial action maps for conservation.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2021
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Christina M KennedyGlobal Conservation Lands Program, The Nature Conservancy, Fort Collins, CO 80524, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8902-8728
Daniela A MitevaGlobal Conservation Lands Program, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA 22203, USA.
Leandro BaumgartenBrazil Program, The Nature Conservancy, SIG Qd. 01, Lt. 985-1005, Sala 206, Brasília/DF 70610-410, Brazil.
Peter L HawthorneNatural Capital Project and Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, 325 Learning and Environmental Sciences, 1954 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.
Kei SochiGlobal Conservation Lands Program, The Nature Conservancy, Fort Collins, CO 80524, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8222-3344
Stephen PolaskyNatural Capital Project and Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, 325 Learning and Environmental Sciences, 1954 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.; Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, 1994 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55112, USA.
James R OakleafGlobal Conservation Lands Program, The Nature Conservancy, Fort Collins, CO 80524, USA.
Elizabeth M UhlhornEHS and Sustainability, The Dow Chemical Company, Philadelphia, PA 19106, USA.
Joseph KieseckerGlobal Conservation Lands Program, The Nature Conservancy, Fort Collins, CO 80524, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Impact mitigation is a primary mechanism on which countries rely to reduce environmental externalities and balance development with conservation. Mitigation policies are transitioning from traditional project-by-project planning to landscape-level planning. Although this larger-scale approach is expected to provide greater conservation benefits at the lowest cost, empirical justification is still scarce. Using commercial sugarcane expansion in the Brazilian Cerrado as a case study, we apply economic and biophysical steady-state models to quantify the benefits of the Brazilian Forest Code (FC) under landscape- and property-level planning. We find that FC compliance imposes small costs to business but can generate significant long-term benefits to nature: supporting 32 (±37) additional species (largely habitat specialists), storing 593,000 to 2,280,000 additional tons of carbon worth $69 million to $265 million ($ pertains to U.S. dollars), and marginally improving surface water quality. Relative to property-level compliance, we find that landscape-level compliance reduces total business costs by $19 million to $35 million per 6-year sugarcane growing cycle while often supporting more species and storing more carbon. Our results demonstrate that landscape-level mitigation provides cost-effective conservation and can be used to promote sustainable development.

Indexed as

Models, EconomicBrazilCarbonConservation of Energy ResourcesEcosystemForestsSaccharumWater QualityCarbonagricultural expansionbiodiversityecosystem servicesImpact mitigationlandscape conservationland-use planningland-use policy

Identifiers

PMID27419225
PMCPMC4942327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.