BALMFORD, Andrew. Must read analysis by Balmford et al.: “ Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature”
Dr Andrew Balmford is Professor of Conservation Science, Department of Zoology, Cambridge University, UK where he states “my research focuses on conservation planning, the costs and benefits of effective conservation, evaluating the success of conservation interventions, and exploring how conservation efforts might best be reconciled with other activities, especially in developing countries. I try to tackle these questions through fieldwork, analyses of large databases, and modelling, and strive to work with colleagues in other disciplines. I am also extremely keen on building close working relationships between conservation scientists and conservation practitioners” (see: http://www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/zoostaff/balmford.htm ).
Dr Andrew Balmford and numerous colleagues in key paper in Science entitled “ Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature”(2002): “On the eve of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, it is timely to assess progress over the 10 years since its predecessor in Rio de Janeiro. Loss and degradation of remaining natural habitatshas continued largely unabated. However, evidence has been accumulating that such systems generate marked economic benefits, which the available data suggest exceed those obtained from continued habitat conversion. We estimate that the overall benefit:cost ratio of an effective global program for the conservation of remaining wild nature is at least 100:1.” [1].
Dr Andrew Balmford and numerous colleagues in key paper in Science entitled “ Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature”(2002): “On the eve of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, it is timely to assess progress over the 10 years since its predecessor in Rio de Janeiro. Loss and degradation of remaining natural habitatshas continued largely unabated. However, evidence has been accumulating that such systems generate marked economic benefits, which the available data suggest exceed those obtained from continued habitat conversion. We estimate that the overall benefit:cost ratio of an effective global program for the conservation of remaining wild nature is at least 100:1.” [1].
[1]. A. Balmford, A. Bruner, P. Cooper, R. Costanza, S. Farber, R. E. Green, M. Jenkins, P. Jefferiss, V. Jessamy, J. Madden, K. Munro, N. Myers, S. Naeem, J. Paavola, M. Rayment, S. Trumper and R. K. Turner. 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297: 950-953: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5583/950 .
[1]. A. Balmford, A. Bruner, P. Cooper, R. Costanza, S. Farber, R. E. Green, M. Jenkins, P. Jefferiss, V. Jessamy, J. Madden, K. Munro, N. Myers, S. Naeem, J. Paavola, M. Rayment, S. Trumper and R. K. Turner. 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297: 950-953: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5583/950 .