ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2022
Financing conservation by valuing carbon services produced by wild animals.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Congo Basin Carbon Cycle Responses to Global Change.Global change biology · 2026Review
- The need for carbon finance schemes to tackle overexploitation of tropical forest wildlife.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Future coexistence with great apes will require major changes to policy and practice.Nature human behaviour · 2024Review
- Climate co-benefits of tiger conservation.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
- Tiger protection brings carbon benefits.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
- Megaherbivores modify forest structure and increase carbon stocks through multiple pathways.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Filling the global biodiversity financing gap will require significant investments from financial markets, which demand credible valuations of ecosystem services and natural capital. However, current valuation approaches discourage investment in conservation because their results cannot be verified using market-determined prices. Here, we bridge the gap between finance and conservation by valuing only wild animals’ carbon services for which market prices exist. By projecting the future path of carbon service production using a spatially explicit demographic model, we place a credible value on the carbon capture services produced by African forest elephants. If elephants were protected, their services would be worth $20.8 billion ($10.3 to $29.7 billion) and $25.9 billion ($12.8 to $37.6 billion) for the next 10 and 30 y, respectively, and could finance antipoaching and conservation programs. Elephant population growth would generate a carbon sink of 109 MtC (64 to 153) across tropical Africa in the next 30 y. Avoided elephant extinction would also prevent the loss of 93 MtC (46 to 130), which is the contribution of the remaining populations. Uncertainties in our projections are controlled mainly by forest regeneration rates and poaching intensity, which indicate that conservation can actively reduce uncertainty for increased financial and biodiversity benefits. Our methodology can also place lower bounds on the social cost of nature degradation. Poaching would result in $2 to $7 billion of lost carbon services within the next 10 to 30 y, suggesting that the benefits of protecting elephants far outweigh the costs. Our methodology enables the integration of animal services into global financial markets with major implications for conservation, local socioeconomies, and conservation.
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.