Aim  Global conservation assessments recognize the mediterranean biome as a priority for the conservation of the world's biodiversity. To better direct future conservation efforts in the biome, an improved understanding of the location, magnitude and trend of key threats and their relationship with species of conservation importance is needed.Location  Mediterranean‐climate regions in California‐Baja California, Chile, South Africa, Australia and the Mediterranean Basin.Methods  We undertook a systematic, pan‐regional assessment of threats in the mediterranean biome including human population density, urban area and agriculture. To realize the full implications of these threats on mediterranean biodiversity, we examined their relationship with species of conservation concern: threatened mammals at the global scale and threatened plants at the subecoregional scale in California, USA.Results  Across the biome, population density and urban area increased by 13% and agriculture by 1% between 1990 and 2000. Both population density and urban area were greatest in California‐Baja California and least in Australia while, in contrast, agriculture was greatest in Australia and least in California‐Baja California. In all regions lowlands were most affected by the threats analysed, with the exception of population density in the Chilean matorral. Threatened species richness had a significant positive correlation with population density at global and subecoregional scales, while threatened species were found to increase with the amount of urban area and decrease as the amount of natural area and unfragmented core area increased.Main conclusions  Threats to mediterranean biodiversity have increased from 1990 to 2000, although patterns vary both across and within the five regions. The need for future conservation efforts is further underlined by the positive correlation between species of conservation concern and the increase in population density over the last decade. Challenges to reducing threats extend beyond those analysed to include human–environmental interactions and their synergistic effects, such as urbanization and invasive species and wildfires.

Conventional wisdom identifies biodiversity hotspots as priorities for conservation investment because they capture dense concentrations of species. However, density of species does not necessarily imply conservation ‘efficiency’. Here we explicitly consider conservation efficiency in terms of species protected per dollar invested. We apply a dynamic return on investment approach to a global biome and compare it with three alternate priority setting approaches and a random allocation of funding. After twenty years of acquiring habitat, the return on investment approach protects between 32% and 69% more species compared to the other priority setting approaches. To correct for potential inefficiencies of protecting the same species multiple times we account for the complementarity of species, protecting up to three times more distinct vertebrate species than alternate approaches. Incorporating costs in a return on investment framework expands priorities to include areas not traditionally highlighted as priorities based on conventional irreplaceability and vulnerability approaches.