What “Return on Investment” Really Means in Conservation & Development

 

As I reflect now, working in the private sector after doing my MBA, I see the ambition behind the phrase “return on investment” in conservation and development in a new light: it’s not just a grant-making label, but a discipline in linking financial, ecological, and social logics into a coherent value story. What follows is how I think about ROI in these fields now, what I learned in business school, what the evidence says, and how I try to build credible impact arguments in my current work.

First, ROI in conservation and development must be treated as an integrated narrative, not a single formula. In the corporate world, ROI is about dollars in vs. dollars out; but when you apply that to, say, restoring a mangrove or improving immunization coverage, you immediately confront benefits that are diffuse, time-distributed, and uncertain. So the challenge is: how do you credibly trace a dollar you spend today to avoided losses, health gains, or better resilience tomorrow? That is the central job of a serious ROI argument.

In my work now I insist on anchoring every claim to a counterfactual: what would have happened in absence of the intervention. Without a plausible baseline, “return” is just wishful thinking. Then I layer on three domains: ecological (e.g. survival, restored area, avoided ecosystem loss), social (e.g. lives saved, education, livelihood gains), and financial/economic (e.g. avoided damage, productivity, health system savings). Where possible I monetize outcomes using conservative proxies, and I always show sensitivity to assumptions because discount rates, uptake, baseline trajectories all warp the results.

What does the evidence teach us about what those ROIs can look like? On nature restoration, mangroves are a favorite case. A recent meta-analysis finds that global benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) of mangrove restoration cluster between ~6.35 and 15, meaning that every dollar invested could yield 6 to 15 in ecosystem value (flood protection, fisheries, carbon, etc.) (Zhang et al. 2025). That range is high but not magical: it depends heavily on local exposure, ecosystem condition, and governance. In some coastal insurance-linked projects, the protective value of restored mangroves in places like Mexico and Florida yields BCRs that justify insurance premiums or public subsidies (TNC report, 2022).

On health and development, vaccination offers perhaps the cleanest ROI signals we have. The Decade of Vaccine Economics shows that in 94 low- and middle-income countries, a dollar invested in immunization (for ten pathogens) produced a ~26.1× return via cost-of-illness valuation, and ~51× using value-of-statistical-life methods (Watts et al. 2021). Other studies report that every dollar invested in immunization globally can return up to $44 when including broader health and economic gains (WHO/Immunization Evidence, 2016). That magnitude surpasses many conventional infrastructure or R&D investments.

These numbers inform how I argue for conservation + development investments in the private sector. In bidding on projects, I always compare ROI estimates of “do nothing” (the damage trajectory or status quo) versus my proposed intervention. For example, one could show that the avoided cost of coastal storm damage from a restored mangrove belt could pay back intervention costs over 10–20 years, while delivering biodiversity and local livelihood benefits along the way. The same logic applies to human development: boosting immunization or water/sanitation saves health costs, improves productivity, and builds social capital.

In my MBA training I learned about discounting, cost of capital, risk adjusted returns, and sensitivity analysis. Those tools are essential here: if you assume a 10% discount rate, some long-term conservation benefits vanish; using 3–5% makes them visible. I also bring in risk scenarios—climate shifts, policy changes, lower uptake, and I stress test the ROI. That makes me credible with boards and finance partners. And in blended finance or co-funded projects, I make sure to allocate attribution: if multiple parties pay, estimate each party’s marginal contribution and benefit capture.

One insight from my work is that non-monetized co-benefits (‘soft value’) often matter politically even if they don’t survive rigorous monetization. Things like local trust, capacity building, brand reputational gains, social equity, and climate leadership help persuade stakeholders. So I often present a “value dashboard” rather than a single ROI figure: BCR/IRR estimates, payback periods, plus qualitative or semi-quantitative statements on social equity and institutional strengthening.

Of course, there are pitfalls. Double counting is a classic error (e.g. counting avoided flood damage and assuming full asset resilience). Using global valuation estimates unadjusted for local context is another hazard. Overly short timeframes ignore the compounding of benefits; ignoring risk or downside sensitivity invites skepticism; and presenting opaque spreadsheets undermines trust.

In sum: in bringing conservation and development into a private-sector worldview, I treat ROI as a disciplined way to make value visible across domains. It’s not a guarantee, but when done carefully, with defensible counterfactuals, conservative monetization, sensitivity, and attribution, it becomes a powerful bridge between mission and finance. The evidence from mangroves, vaccines, and other sectors shows the upside is real. The trick is making sure the assumptions are transparent, the risks acknowledged, and the narrative real.

Bibliography

• TNC / Nature.org. Relevance and Feasibility of Mangrove Insurance (2022)
• Watts, E. et al. “Economic Benefits of Immunization for 10 Pathogens in 94 Low- and Middle-Income Countries 2011–2030” (Value in Health / Decade of Vaccine Economics, 2021)
• Zhang, J. et al. “Getting the best of carbon bang for mangrove restoration buck” (Nature Communications, 2025)
• “Return on investment from immunization” — WHO / Immunization Evidence (2016)
•  Analyses of the return on investment of public health interventions (PMC article, 2023)