Specifically, 9 percent of the total budget was shifted to different areas between the climate-adapted allocation and the climate-neutral allocation.
We then considered an ecoregion to more urgently require investment if this threshold is met earlier in the climate-adapted allocation than in the climate-neutral allocation and less urgent if it occurs later.
Ecoregions that received increased investment under the climate-adapted allocation reflect their stable climatic conditions.
As a result, the species loss from land conversion increased 1 percent in the climate-adapted allocation.
This probability is set to zero across all the ecoregions in the climate-neutral allocation.
Twenty ecoregions become more urgent under the climate-adapted allocation and 28 become less urgent.
Importantly, our modelling predicts that 22% more species remain within new protected areas in the climate-adapted allocation.
Many of the ecoregions that received the greatest investment under the climate-adapted allocation were also identified in previous prioritization schemes (Figure 3).
A trade-off was observed, however, as some of the ecoregions highly threatened from land conversion become relatively less important under the climate-adapted allocation (Figure 6c).
For instance, 86 percent of the ecoregions prioritized in the climate-adapted allocation were also identified as Biodiversity Hotspots by Conservation International and 87 percent are included in the Global 200 by WWF.
The ecoregions which received the greatest increase in investment in the climate-adapted allocation were located on the islands of South East Asia (e.g. Borneo, Sulawesi, and New Guinea) and some of the moist montane forests in the Andes and highlands of Eastern Africa (Figure 4).
