<?xml version="1.0"?>
<oembed><version>1.0</version><provider_name>Forest Trends</provider_name><provider_url>https://www.forest-trends.org</provider_url><title>Inegrating economic costs into conservation planning - Forest Trends</title><type>rich</type><width>600</width><height>338</height><html>&lt;blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="xMu12dUV0z"&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.forest-trends.org/publications/inegrating-economic-costs-into-conservation-planning/"&gt;Inegrating economic costs into conservation planning&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://www.forest-trends.org/publications/inegrating-economic-costs-into-conservation-planning/embed/#?secret=xMu12dUV0z" width="600" height="338" title="&#x201C;Inegrating economic costs into conservation planning&#x201D; &#x2014; Forest Trends" data-secret="xMu12dUV0z" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;script type="text/javascript"&gt;
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(c,l){"use strict";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=0;o&lt;n.length;o++)n[o].style.display="none";for(o=0;o&lt;i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message){if(1e3&lt;(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s&lt;200)s=200;r.height=s}if("link"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement("a"),a=l.createElement("a"),s.href=r.getAttribute("src"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener("message",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",t,!1),c.addEventListener("load",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf("MSIE 10"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(/Trident.*rv:11\./),i=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),n=0;n&lt;i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute("data-secret")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+="#?secret="+r,t.setAttribute("data-secret",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute("security"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:r},"*")}}}}(window,document);
&lt;/script&gt;
</html><thumbnail_url>https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/thumb-1640Untitled-13.jpg</thumbnail_url><thumbnail_width>150</thumbnail_width><thumbnail_height>215</thumbnail_height><description>Recent studies that incorporate the spatial distributions of biological benefits and economic costs in conservation planning have shown that limited budgets can achieve substantially larger biological gains than when planning ignores costs. Despite concern from donors about the effectiveness of conservation interventions, these increases in efficiency from incorporating costs into planning have not yet been [&hellip;]</description></oembed>
