Optimizing Allocation of Management Resources for Wildlife

Abstract

Allocating money for species conservation on the basis of threatened species listings is not the most cost-effective way of promoting recovery or minimizing extinction rates. Using ecological and social factors in addition to threat categories, we designed a decision-support process to assist policy makers in their allocation of resources for the management of native wildlife and to clarify the considerations leading to a priority listing. Each species is scored on three criteria at the scale of the relevant jurisdiction: (1) threat category, (2) consequences of extinction, and (3) potential for successful recovery. This approach provides opportunity for independent input by policy makers and other stakeholders (who weight the relative importance of the criteria) and scientists (who score the species against the criteria). Thus the process explicitly separates societal values from the technical aspects of the decision-making process while acknowledging the legitimacy of both inputs. We applied our technique to two Australian case studies at different spatial scales: the frogs of Queensland (1,728,000 km(2); 116 species) and the mammals of the Wet Tropics bioregion (18,500 km(2); 96 species). We identified 7 frog and 10 mammal species as priorities for conservation. The frogs included 1 of the 9 species classified as endangered under Queensland legislation, 3 of the 10 species classified as vulnerable, 2 of the 22 species classified as rare, and 1 of the 75 species classified as least concern. The mammals identified included 3 of the 6 species classified as endangered, 1 of the 4 species classified as vulnerable, 5 of the 11 species classified as rare, and 1 of the 75 species classified as least concern. The methods we used to identify species were robust to comparisons across the two taxonomic groups. We concluded that (1) our process facilitates comparisons of data required to make transparent, cost-effective, and strategic management decisions across taxonomic groups and (2) the process should be used to short-list species for further discussion rather than for allocating resources per se.

Integrating species traits with extrinsic threats: closing the gap between predicting and preventing species declines

“…(c) Conservation implications: predictions, misclassification and drivers of decline Our analysis not only provides insight into the intrinsic factors that make species susceptible to declines for a given threat, but also supplies a species-specific tool with which to assess those threats, predict declines and respond with more informed conservation decisions [27,28,33]. We review our findings with reference to the specifics of our study system, highlighting where our approach offers insight that is broadly relevant to endangered species and protected area management, including IUCN Red List assessments and the treatment of data-deficient species.…”

“…While habitat degradation remains a major contemporary conservation problem, prescriptively gazetting species with small distributional ranges in protected areas will in no way alleviate the key threatening processes of disease and invasive species impacting amphibians in Australia and, by extension, many other parts of the world. Without striving to better map and mitigate threats, thereby improving a species' 'potential for successful recovery' [27], declining amphibian species may continue to fall through the conservation prioritization safety net. We expect the same problems to exist for other declining taxa and geographical regions.…”

“…For example, invasive fish have been implicated in the decline of some Australian frog species [23,24]. Given the diversity of known threats and the array of ecological and life-history traits that predispose species to decline, untangling the complex interactions that result in specific pathways to decline or extinction is a challenging task [2,15,22,25] but one that is important for predicting further declines and, more importantly, improving our ability to do something about them [26][27][28].…”

Reducing threats to species: threat reversibility and links to industry

“…First, the categories used in threat summaries have been highly variable and often preclude identification of the industry or specific activity that is ultimately responsible for the damage (e.g., "pollution," Table 1), rendering identification of those responsible for species declines as well as cost-benefit analyses of conservation actions difficult or impossible. Second, some threats are much easier to address than others, but the ease of threat abatement and/or reversibility is an important component of mitigation that is often overlooked (but see Marsh et al 2007;Joseph et al 2009).…”

Conservation implications should guide the application of conservation genetics research

“…While some methods proposed for optimizing resource allocation in conservation biology have presented decision-support tools to prioritize resources across species (e.g. Marsh et al 2007), the key we present is designed to guide the prioritization of species-specific research activities. Other methods proposed for optimizing resource allocation involve sophisticated modeling or cost-benefit analysis (e.g.…”