Journal
ECOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 14, Issue 9, Pages 886-890Publisher
WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01652.x
Keywords
Anti-triage; decision theory; endangered species; time-frames
Categories
Funding
- Australian Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
Ask authors/readers for more resources
At the heart of our efforts to protect threatened species, there is a controversial debate about whether to give priority to cost-effective actions or whether focusing solely on the most endangered species will ultimately lead to preservation of the greatest number of species. By framing this debate within a decision-analytic framework, we show that allocating resources solely to the most endangered species will typically not minimise the number of extinctions in the long-term, as this does not account for the risk of less endangered species going extinct in the future. It is only favoured when our planning timeframe is short or we have a long-term view and we are optimistic about future conditions. Conservation funding tends to be short-term in nature, which biases allocations to more endangered species. Our work highlights the need to consider resource allocation for biodiversity over the long-term; 'preventive conservation', rather than just short-term fire-fighting.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available