Spending limited resources on de-extinction could lead to net biodiversity loss

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Related collections

Most cited references 17

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets: current spending and unmet needs.

Donal McCarthy, Paul F. Donald, Jörn P W Scharlemann … (2012)

World governments have committed to halting human-induced extinctions and safeguarding important sites for biodiversity by 2020, but the financial costs of meeting these targets are largely unknown. We estimate the cost of reducing the extinction risk of all globally threatened bird species (by ≥1 International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List category) to be U.S. $0.875 to $1.23 billion annually over the next decade, of which 12% is currently funded. Incorporating threatened nonavian species increases this total to U.S. $3.41 to $4.76 billion annually. We estimate that protecting and effectively managing all terrestrial sites of global avian conservation significance (11,731 Important Bird Areas) would cost U.S. $65.1 billion annually. Adding sites for other taxa increases this to U.S. $76.1 billion annually. Meeting these targets will require conservation funding to increase by at least an order of magnitude.

0 comments Cited 237 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol.

Liana Joseph, Richard Maloney, Hugh Possingham (2009)

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.

0 comments Cited 208 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

US protected lands mismatch biodiversity priorities.

Clinton Jenkins, Kyle S. Van Houtan, Stuart Pimm … (2015)

Because habitat loss is the main cause of extinction, where and how much society chooses to protect is vital for saving species. The United States is well positioned economically and politically to pursue habitat conservation should it be a societal goal. We assessed the US protected area portfolio with respect to biodiversity in the country. New synthesis maps for terrestrial vertebrates, freshwater fish, and trees permit comparison with protected areas to identify priorities for future conservation investment. Although the total area protected is substantial, its geographic configuration is nearly the opposite of patterns of endemism within the country. Most protected lands are in the West, whereas the vulnerable species are largely in the Southeast. Private land protections are significant, but they are not concentrated where the priorities are. To adequately protect the nation's unique biodiversity, we recommend specific areas deserving additional protection, some of them including public lands, but many others requiring private investment.

0 comments Cited 110 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Title: Nature Ecology & Evolution

Abbreviated Title: Nat. ecol. evol.

Publisher: Springer Nature

ISSN (Electronic): 2397-334X

Publication date Created: March 1 2017

Publication date (Print): March 1 2017

Volume: 1

Issue: 4

Page: 0053

Article

DOI: 10.1038/s41559-016-0053

SO-VID: 22d80b20-c54b-483f-ba3a-efc705f9a65c

History

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

Cited by 16

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 196

See all reference authors