Conservation goals and the relative importance of costs and benefits in reserve selection.

Including both economic costs and biological benefits of sites in systematic reserve selection greatly increases cost-efficiency. Nevertheless, limited funding generally forces conservation planners to choose which data to focus the most resources on; therefore, the relative importance of different types of data must be carefully assessed. We investigated the relative importance of including information about costs and benefits for 3 different commonly used conservation goals: 2 in which biological benefits were measured per site (species number and conservation value scores) and 1 in which benefits were measured on the basis of site complementarity (total species number in the reserve network).

A note on attitudes and knowledge concerning environmental issues in Sweden.

As part of a larger research effort, the empirical basis for this note is responses to four out of many questions in a mailed survey, which primarily focused on national environmental objectives in Sweden. The results show that out of eight broad areas for use of tax money, five-including environment-are rated as important by over 90% of the respondents. Respondents appear to be less willing to discriminate between different issues covered by national environmental objectives, as all of these are rated as important by more than 80% of the respondents.