Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: A project prioritization protocol. Asignacion optima de recursos entre especies amenazadas: Un protocolo de priorizacion de proyectos

Joseph, Liana N., Maloney, Richard F. and Possingham, Hugh P. (2009) Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: A project prioritization protocol. Asignacion optima de recursos entre especies amenazadas: Un protocolo de priorizacion de proyectos. Conservation Biology, 23 2: 328-338. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01124.x


Author Joseph, Liana N.
Maloney, Richard F.
Possingham, Hugh P.
Title Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: A project prioritization protocol. Asignacion optima de recursos entre especies amenazadas: Un protocolo de priorizacion de proyectos
Journal name Conservation Biology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0888-8892
1523-1739
Publication date 2009-04-01
Year available 2008
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01124.x
Open Access Status
Volume 23
Issue 2
Start page 328
End page 338
Total pages 11
Editor Gary K. Meffe
Place of publication Hoboken, NJ, United States
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell Publishing
Language eng
Subject 9608 Flora, Fauna and Biodiversity
050202 Conservation and Biodiversity
Formatted abstract
Conservation funds are grossly inadequate to address the plight of threatened species. Government and conservation organizations faced with the task of conserving threatened species desperately need simple strategies for allocating limited resources. The academic literature dedicated to systematic priority setting usually recommends ranking species on several criteria, including level of endangerment and metrics of species value such as evolutionary distinctiveness, ecological importance, and social significance. These approaches ignore 2 crucial factors: the cost of management and the likelihood that the management will succeed. These oversights will result in misallocation of scarce conservation resources and possibly unnecessary losses. We devised a project prioritization protocol (PPP) to optimize resource allocation among New Zealand's threatened-species projects, where costs, benefits (including species values), and the likelihood of management success were considered simultaneously. We compared the number of species managed and the expected benefits gained with 5 prioritization criteria: PPP with weightings based on species value; PPP with species weighted equally; management costs; species value; and threat status. We found that the rational use of cost and success information substantially increased the number of species managed, and prioritizing management projects according to species value or threat status in isolation was inefficient and resulted in fewer species managed. In addition, we found a clear trade-off between funding management of a greater number of the most cost-efficient and least risky projects and funding fewer projects to manage the species of higher value. Specifically, 11 of 32 species projects could be funded if projects were weighted by species value compared with 16 projects if projects were not weighted. This highlights the value of a transparent decision-making process, which enables a careful consideration of trade-offs. The use of PPP can substantially improve conservation outcomes for threatened species by increasing efficiency and ensuring transparency of management decisions.


Keyword Conservation planning
Conservation priorities
Cost–benefit analysis
Probability of success
Species management
Species values
Threat status
Noahs-ark problem
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ
Additional Notes Article first published online: 15 DEC 2008. Abstract only in Spanish.

 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 185 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 239 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Thu, 03 Sep 2009, 18:29:53 EST by Mr Andrew Martlew on behalf of School of Biological Sciences