title: When should we save the most endangered species?
abstract: 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.affiliation: The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Boulevard, The Bronx, NY 10460, USA. h.wilson1@uq.edu.au
authors.forename: Howard B
authors.initials: HB
authors.lastname: Wilson
authors.forename: Liana N
authors.initials: LN
authors.lastname: Joseph
authors.forename: Alana L
authors.initials: AL
authors.lastname: Moore
authors.forename: Hugh P
authors.initials: HP
authors.lastname: Possingham
mesh_terms: D044822:Biodiversity; D003247:Conservation of Natural Resources / Q000191:economics*; D017753:Ecosystem; D056727:Endangered Species; D053476:Extinction, Biological; D008954:Models, Biological