Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Assessing Threats and Setting Priorities for Conservation

Assessing Threats and Setting Priorities for Conservation The purpose of this comment is to discuss and to compare briefly some systems for prioritizing species for Conservation attention. This comment is written in response to a proposed new International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) hierarchical categorization, described in Conservation Biology by Mace and Lande (1991), and based on a species’ probability of extinction. Resources (e.g., time and money) available for the conservation of species and ecosystems are invariably in short supply relative to the needs for those resources. Accordingly, setting priorities for conservation actions is a necessary and major preoccupation of governmental and nongovernmental organizationsconcerned with the conservation of species and ecosystems. Priorities for the allocation of resources to individual species are often based primarily on an assessment of the threats to those species, and secondarily on other factors. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has two priority species ranking systems-one for listing actions and one for recovery actions. For listing as “endangered’ or “threatened,” species are ranked on a scale of 1 through 12 based on magnitude (high or moderate to low) and immediacy (imminent or nonimminent) of threat, and taxonomic distinctness (monotypic genus, species, or subspecies). For http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Conservation Biology Wiley

Assessing Threats and Setting Priorities for Conservation

Conservation Biology , Volume 5 (4) – Dec 1, 1991

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/assessing-threats-and-setting-priorities-for-conservation-tfd20rZz7L

References (12)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
"Copyright © 1991 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company"
ISSN
0888-8892
eISSN
1523-1739
DOI
10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00370.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The purpose of this comment is to discuss and to compare briefly some systems for prioritizing species for Conservation attention. This comment is written in response to a proposed new International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) hierarchical categorization, described in Conservation Biology by Mace and Lande (1991), and based on a species’ probability of extinction. Resources (e.g., time and money) available for the conservation of species and ecosystems are invariably in short supply relative to the needs for those resources. Accordingly, setting priorities for conservation actions is a necessary and major preoccupation of governmental and nongovernmental organizationsconcerned with the conservation of species and ecosystems. Priorities for the allocation of resources to individual species are often based primarily on an assessment of the threats to those species, and secondarily on other factors. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has two priority species ranking systems-one for listing actions and one for recovery actions. For listing as “endangered’ or “threatened,” species are ranked on a scale of 1 through 12 based on magnitude (high or moderate to low) and immediacy (imminent or nonimminent) of threat, and taxonomic distinctness (monotypic genus, species, or subspecies). For

Journal

Conservation BiologyWiley

Published: Dec 1, 1991

There are no references for this article.