Online Supporting Information for
Maximizing return on conservation investment in the
conterminous U.S.
John C. Withey*, Joshua J. Lawler, Stephen Polasky, Andrew J. Plantinga, Erik J. Nelson, Peter
Kareiva, Chad B. Wilsey, Carrie A. Schloss, Theresa M. Nogeire, Aaron Ruesch, Jorge Ramos Jr.,
and Walter Reid.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: jwithey@fiu.edu
This file includes:
Figure S1 (pp. 2-3). Maps of individual county-level datasets used in the calculation of ROI:
vertebrate species richness, estimated land cost ($/ha), percentage of county in protected areas, and
the percentage of natural land cover in a county threatened with conversion. For each variable
mapped, the legend is divided into bins of 10% quantiles, with units as shown in the legend.
Table S1 (p. 4). Total number of species “in need of protection”, area selected, and estimated cost of
land selected by three heuristics (full ROI, richness/cost, and richness alone, see Methods) across 20
protection targets. ‘Target’ refers to the minimum percentage of every species’ range that must be in
protected area (sum of existing protected areas and lands selected for acquisition by the heuristic),
before a species is taken off the list in subsequent steps of the heuristic. Results for the three
heuristics, from left to right under each heuristic title, are 1) the total area selected for acquisition
across all counties (km2), 2) the cost of those lands based on the county-specific estimate of land
costs, in $US billion ($B), and 3) the percentage of lands acquired that are considered overprotection,
i.e. lands that we assume would not be threatened with conversion (see Fig. 1). In the article Figure 3
shows maps associated with protection targets 1%, 7%, 14% and 20% for the heuristic using the full
ROI.
1
Online Supporting Information for ‘Maximizing Return on Conservation Investment’ (Withey et al.)
2
Online Supporting Information for ‘Maximizing Return on Conservation Investment’ (Withey et al.)
3
Table S1.
full ROI
richness/cost
richness alone
Target
1%
Species
27
km2
2,420
cost ($B)
0.3
overprotect
1.7%
km2
2,300
cost ($B)
0.2
overprotect
10%
km2
1,980
cost ($B)
0.3
overprotect
6.3%
2%
56
14,410
1.5
0.3%
13,200
1.3
11%
12,810
1.9
7.6%
3%
118
38,530
4.6
0.6%
39,390
4.5
13%
40,470
6.7
25%
4%
232
83,180
9.9
1.0%
81,460
9.8
13%
79,880
14.3
19%
5%
313
136,238
16.5
1.1%
128,960
15.4
14%
127,730
23.2
18%
6%
366
191,790
23.8
1.4%
181,230
21.9
17%
179,190
33.1
18%
7%
438
250,130
31.8
1.5%
237,260
28.7
19%
234,450
43.2
19%
8%
501
310,020
40.4
1.6%
299,480
36.1
22%
295,970
54.5
20%
9%
554
375,050
49.3
1.6%
365,650
43.7
24%
362,300
66.5
21%
10%
605
449,100
60.1
1.6%
436,540
51.7
26%
433,210
79.5
23%
11%
659
527,830
72.6
1.6%
509,400
59.9
29%
506,810
92.8
25%
12%
742
603,940
84.5
1.6%
585,860
68.6
31%
582,470
106.3
27%
13%
815
680,080
97.2
1.6%
664,500
77.6
33%
659,910
120.1
29%
14%
855
759,790
113.7
1.6%
744,520
86.9
36%
743,280
135.9
31%
15%
885
832,510
140.6
1.6%
824,390
96.1
37%
827,340
149.7
33%
16%
915
882,370
155.5
1.6%
906,430
105.7
39%
913,650
164.4
36%
17%
931
921,250
169.9
1.6%
989,280
115.3
41%
998,780
179.3
38%
18%
953
976,680
184.5
1.6%
1,072,810
125.1
43%
1,085,080
194.3
40%
19%
967
981,510
191.2
1.6%
1,157,490
135.2
45%
1,171,410
209.4
42%
20%
978
981,510
191.2
1.6%
1,243,190
145.1
47%
1,259,080
224.3
44%
4