Hundreds of millions of people around the world live in spots considered critical for the protection of wildlife. More than three-quarters of these populations exist in less-industrialized countries, where poverty can contribute to the loss of biodiversity in the pursuit of meeting basic needs
Recently, in a study in the journal Nature Sustainability published May 18, a team of researchers calculated the cost of providing a conservation basic income (CBI) to the people living around biodiversity-rich parks and reserves or other vital areas for species protection, particularly in low- or middle-income countries. The CBI concept stems from similar proposals for what’s known as universal basic income, with the aim of providing a stable source of income and potentially benefiting biodiversity and nature in general.
There isn’t a lot of research on how effective a CBI — or on universal basic incomes, for that matter — would be. Where evidence for CBI does exist, it paints a mixed picture. It sometimes benefits the environment but other times leaves habitats worse off.
