Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
R. Cullen, G. Fairburn, K. Hughey (2001)
Measuring the productivity of threatened-species programsEcological Economics, 39
H. Marsh, A. Dennis, H. Hines, A. Kutt, K. Mcdonald, Ellen Weber, Stephen Williams, J. Winter (2007)
Optimizing Allocation of Management Resources for WildlifeConservation Biology, 21
Andrew Metrick, M. Weitzman (1998)
Conflicts and Choices in Biodiversity PreservationJournal of Economic Perspectives, 12
Carter Carter, Hunter Hunter, Pashley Pashley, Rosenberg Rosenberg (2000)
Setting conservation priorities for landbirds in the United States: the partners in flight approachAuk, 117
A. Solow, S. Polasky, J. Broadus (1993)
On the measurement of biological diversityJournal of Environmental Economics and Management, 24
Emily Nicholson, H. Possingham (2006)
Objectives for Multiple‐Species Conservation PlanningConservation Biology, 20
H. Possingham, S. Andelman, B. Noon, Stephen Trombulak, H. Pulliam (2001)
Making smart conservation decisions
G. Dunnet, C. King (1984)
Immigrant killers: Introduced predators and the conservation of birds in New Zealand
A. Balmford, K. Gaston, S. Blyth, A. James, V. Kapos (2003)
Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needsProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100
Michael Carter, W. Hunter, D. Pashley, K. Rosenberg (2000)
Conservation Report: Setting Conservation Priorities for Landbirds in the United States: The Partners in Flight ApproachThe Auk, 117
K. Hartmann, M. Steel (2006)
Maximizing phylogenetic diversity in biodiversity conservation: Greedy solutions to the Noah's Ark problem.Systematic biology, 55 4
Liana Joseph, R. Maloney, Shaun O'Connor, P. Cromarty, P. Jansen, T. Stephens, H. Possingham (2008)
Improving methods for allocating resources among threatened species: the case for a new national approach in New Zealand.Pacific Conservation Biology, 14
Alexander James, K. Gaston, A. Balmford (2001)
Can We Afford to Conserve Biodiversity?, 51
(2005)
2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: A Global Species Assessment edited by Jonathan E.M. Baillie, Craig Hilton-Taylor & Simon N. Stuart (2004), xxiii + 191 pp., IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. ISBN 2 8317 0826 5 (pbk), £18.50.Oryx, 39
Weitzman Weitzman (1993)
What to preserve? An application of diversity theory to crane conservationThe Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108
M. Weitzman (1993)
An Application of Diversity Theory to Crane Conservation
G. Mace, H. Possingham, N. Leader‐Williams (2007)
Prioritizing choices in conservation
Metrick Metrick, Weitzman Weitzman (1996)
Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservationLand Economics, 7
Rebecca Miller, J. Rodríguez, Theresa Aniskowicz-Fowler, C. Bambaradeniya, R. Boles, M. Eaton, U. Gärdenfors, V. Keller, Sanjay Molur, S. Walker, C. Pollock (2006)
Extinction Risk and Conservation PrioritiesScience, 313
R. Cullen, E. Moran, K. Hughey (2005)
Measuring the success and cost effectiveness of New Zealand multiple-species projects to the conservation of threatened speciesEcological Economics, 53
H. Possingham, S. Andelman, M. Burgman, R. Medellín, L. Master, D. Keith (2002)
Limits to the use of threatened species listsTrends in Ecology and Evolution, 17
M. Drechsler, M. Burgman (2004)
Combining Population Viability Analysis with Decision AnalysisBiodiversity & Conservation, 13
E. Sanderson (2006)
How Many Animals Do We Want to Save? The Many Ways of Setting Population Target Levels for Conservation, 56
R. Daniels, M. Hegde, N. Joshi, M. Gadgil (1991)
Assigning conservation value: a case study from IndiaConservation Biology, 5
L. Master (1991)
Assessing Threats and Setting Priorities for ConservationConservation Biology, 5
R. Hitchmough, L. Bull, P. Cromarty (2007)
New Zealand Threat Classification System lists: 2005.
Andrew Metrick (1994)
Patterns of Behavior in Biodiversity PreservationLand Economics, 72
S. Martello, P. Toth (1990)
Knapsack Problems: Algorithms and Computer Implementations
M. Weitzman (1998)
The Noah's Ark ProblemEconometrica, 66
M. Burgman, H. Possingham, A. Lynch, D. Keith, M. McCarthy, S. Hopper, W. Drury, Jason Passioura, R. DeVries (2001)
A Method for Setting the Size of Plant Conservation Target AreasConservation Biology, 15
J. Rodríguez, Franklin Rojas-Suárez, C. Sharpe (2004)
Setting priorities for the conservation of Venezuela's threatened birdsOryx, 38
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.
Conservation Biology – Wiley
Published: Apr 1, 2009
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.