Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Cambridge Prisms: Extinction logoLink to Cambridge Prisms: Extinction
. 2023 Jan 18;1:e6. doi: 10.1017/ext.2023.3

Prioritisation to prevent extinction

Kerrie A Wilson 1
PMCID: PMC11895714  PMID: 40078688

Abstract

Prioritisation is about choice, and in the context of species extinction, it is about choosing what investments to make to prevent extinctions as opposed to assessing extinction risk, identifying species that are doomed to extinction, or mapping components of biodiversity. Prioritised investments may focus on conservation activities aimed at species protection or management, but they may also seek to acquire new knowledge to resolve uncertainties. Two core components of prioritisation are a clearly stated objective and knowledge of what activities can be undertaken, acknowledging that there are likely to be dependencies between these activities. As the natural environment and society change, so will the enabling conditions for conservation, hence the need to be adaptable and proactive into the future.

Keywords: biodiversity conservation, biodiversity loss, conservation planning, Red List, triage

Impact statement

A diversity of conservation activities is needed to avert the loss of species threatened with extinction. Prioritisation of investments can enhance the transparency and defensibility of resource allocation and can also inform the funding required to reverse decline of species.

Introduction

The Anthropocene era is dominated by a sixth mass extinction (Barnosky et al., 2011; Ceballos et al., 2015) with key drivers being global environmental change, habitat destruction and fragmentation, overexploitation, pollution, and invasive species and diseases (Prugh et al., 2010; Allek et al., 2018; Hirsch et al., 2020). The scale of the biodiversity crisis demands urgent action, with approximately 1 million species threatened with extinction globally (IPBES, 2019). A diversity of conservation activities is needed to avert the loss of species and ecosystems. While the biodiversity extinction crisis is on international and national policy agendas, the amount of funding invested to date has been insufficient to achieve global targets (McCarthy et al., 2012). Where resources require careful allocation, prioritisation can reduce the possibility of ad hoc or biased allocation of resources (Wilson et al., 2009). The focus of this review is on prioritisation to prevent species going extinct, and therefore the unit of interest is the species. This review has three objectives: (1) clarify what prioritisation is, and what it is not; (2) summarise the commonalities amongst approaches and points of contention; and (3) identify important areas for future debate and research.

Core components of a prioritisation

At its most basic, prioritisation means to arrange in order of priority (Mace et al., 2007). Prioritisation is underpinned by decision science or operations research (Hemming et al., 2022), and seeks to enhance the extent to which decisions (i.e., choices between alternatives given a stated objective) are informed, transparent and defensible. In the field of biodiversity conservation, prioritisation typically informs the allocation of conservation resources (i.e., funding, effort, time and attention).

There are several approaches to species prioritisation. They differ according to whether they prioritise:

  • species themselves (Chen, 2007; Liu et al., 2019),

  • their habitats or populations (Nielsen and Kenchington, 2001; Clarkson et al., 2012; Strimas-Mackey and Brodie, 2018),

  • conservation activities targeting species (Joseph et al., 2009; Wilson et al., 2009; Rose et al., 2016; Brazill-Boast et al., 2018; Gillespie et al., 2020),

  • abatement or mitigation of particular threats more generally (Carwardine et al., 2019), or

  • protection of areas of land critical for species protection (Sinclair et al., 2018; Leclerc et al., 2022).

While the focus here is on species, it is also important to consider the actions required to abate the threats to species persistence, the locations where these actions must be implemented, and the most effective timing for implementation (Game et al., 2013). The actions of interest will have a cost and likelihood of success, and consideration of these more pragmatic components of prioritising species has triggered debate around the use of the term “triage” in conservation (see below).

The basic conservation prioritisation problem has the following core components (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Core components of a prioritisation problem.

An objective

This is a measurable interpretation of our overarching goal. In conservation, the objective is typically to maximise the number of species conserved (to some targeted level) or minimise the number of species that go extinct over some time period (Wilson et al., 2009). The far end of this spectrum is an objective of zero extinction (Box 1).

Knowledge of the system

In the context of prioritising species to prevent extinctions, key knowledge requirements are the species of interest, the threats to these species, the actions that might be taken to abate these threats or improve the likelihood of the species persisting, and the cost of those actions. Importantly, species are generally threatened by multiple threats and as such there are likely to be dependencies and synergies between the threats, and between the associated mitigating actions that are available for investment (see Box 2).

Control variables

Reflect the things that we can do, such as how much funding or effort is directed towards the actions in any location and at any point in time (Hughey et al., 2003). For example, we might seek to invest funds in restoring degraded habitat across multiple locations or protect an area from development.

Constraints

These may include a budget envelope, or alternatively, the minimum amount of conservation or benefit that is sought. This minimum amount might be specified as a target. Targets can be tailored to account for life history characteristics and the habitat needs of a species, such as the minimum viable population size for a species needed for it to persist in the wild. Alternatively, targets can be generalised across species (e.g., protect 30% of the range of each species of interest).

A generalised version of the conservation prioritisation problem subject to a fixed budget, bt, is described below. Let xjkt be the amount of money to be spent on action k in location j in time period t. Each year the cost of all the actions across all the locations must be less than our overall budget, so we have the constraint

graphic file with name S2755095823000037_eqnu1.jpg

where N is the number of locations and P is the number of possible actions.

The overall aim is to find a solution (or multiple strong-performing solutions) through manipulation of the control variables that have the highest possible value of the objective function subject to our constraints. Each location j has a cost cj and each asset (which might include species) i has a target ri. The variable xj equals 1 if location j is selected for investment, otherwise it equals 0. The objective can be to either minimise the cost.

graphic file with name S2755095823000037_eqnu4.jpg

subject to the constraint that the targets are met for each asset of interest.

The objective of the maximal-coverage problem is to maximise some measure of “benefit”, given a fixed budget. That is, the objective is to maximise

graphic file with name S2755095823000037_eqnu2.jpg

Subject to the constraint

graphic file with name S2755095823000037_eqnu3.jpg

A variety of algorithms can be used to prioritise investments in species (Hanson et al., 2019). These algorithms might generate optimal or near optimal solutions to a specified problem such as maximising coverage or minimising loss (Wilson et al., 2009). Alternatively, scoring approaches can be used to rank alternative options according to specific criteria, such as cost-effectiveness or cost-utility (Wilson et al., 2007). Scoring approaches will provide inefficient solutions if they do not account for the complementarity between actions (Possingham et al., 2006).

The key is to distinguish conservation problem formulation (the objective, control variables, etc.) as outlined above, the algorithms or criteria that can be used to find solutions to the problem (e.g., simulated annealing) and software packages (e.g., Marxan) that can package up all these components into an easy-to-use interface (Ball et al., 2009).

Box 1. Alliance for Zero Extinction.

Launched globally in 2005, the Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) focusses on sites for preventing global extinctions of species. AZE sites are often the last remaining refuges of one or more endangered or critically endangered species. The protection of such sites was aligned with the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Targets, namely Aichi Targets 11 and 12, with the overarching objective of improving the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity. The AZE sites are also aligned with the draft Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, specifically (CBD, 2021), milestone A.2 (the increase in the extinction rate is halted or reversed, and the extinction risk is reduced by at least 10%, with a decrease in the proportion of species that are threatened, and the abundance and distribution of populations of species are enhanced or at least maintained). There are over 850 AZE sites worldwide, and over half of these are at least partially protected. The alliance focusses on engaging with governments, institutions, community groups, and non-governmental organisations to improve and implement policy, deliver site conservation programs and progress research efforts to prevent extinctions. From the viewpoint of the alliance, the objective of species prioritisation is zero extinction (Wiedenfeld et al., 2021).

Box 2. Threat interactions, co-extinction and other dependencies.

Species at risk of extinction are typically impacted by more than one threatening process. For example, in Australia at-risk fauna are impacted by multiple threatening processes (Allek et al., 2018). There are likely to be commonalities between required management actions to abate threats to species, and furthermore, the actions taken can interact; that is, the costs, benefits and feasibility of one action can change when another action is undertaken. Consider for example the control of invasive species. Actions taken to control an invasive species may release other pest species from competition or predation. In Australia, control of invasive rabbits alone may lead to intensified predation of native prey by foxes, whereas control of foxes alone may result in increased rabbit populations and competition with native herbivores. If these interactions are ignored, opportunities to enhance efficiency could be missed and targeted efforts could be compromised. Explicitly managing will likely alter decisions about what actions to invest in and where they should occur and has the potential to deliver increased investment efficiency (Auerbach et al., 2015; Figure 2). An extension of this approach is to assign the threats to species to particular industries or sectors in order to prioritise overarching sectoral improvements in management and ultimately accountability (Prugh et al., 2010).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Case study: Prioritisation accounting for threat management interactions. Adapted from Auerbach et al. (2015).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Case study: Prioritisation accounting for threat management interactions. Adapted from Auerbach et al. (2015).

Prioritising species versus assessing extinction risk

The process of prioritising species to prevent extinction differs from assessing extinction risk per se. Extinction risk is typically assessed using criteria such as species life history characteristics often within a population viability analysis framework (Liu et al., 2020), responsibility for protection (Martin et al., 2010; Kricsfalusy and Trevisan, 2014), taxonomic uniqueness (Chen, 2007), rarity (Toledo et al., 2014), management feasibility (Martin et al., 2010), recovery potential (Di Marco et al., 2012), species distribution (Liu et al., 2019), threat status or some combination of these criteria.

The threat status of a species is often determined by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red Listing criteria, which use quantitative rules to assign the risk of extinction (Mace et al., 2008) and ecosystem collapse (Keith et al., 2013). Building on these static lists, the Red List Index evaluates trends in biodiversity (Butchart et al., 2007). Red Lists are supported within countries through legislation that seeks to protect threatened and endangered species, such as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 in Australia. Red Lists have singly been used to prioritise species, but they are not a prioritisation in and of themselves (Miller et al., 2006) – they do not identify specific actions, or quantify what would be involved to shift the conservation status of a species or ecosystem (Collen et al., 2016; Kyrkjeeide et al., 2021). Red List assessments are also not comprehensive across all species or even taxonomic groups (Walsh et al., 2013; Tingley et al., 2016; Tapley et al., 2018).

The “Red to Green” framework was developed to translate the Red List Index into prioritisations based on extinction risk (Akçakaya et al., 2018; Kyrkjeeide et al., 2021). This approach uses quantitative criteria of risk assessment (i.e., extinction risk for species, risk of ecosystem collapse for habitat) to develop measurable objectives and targets for species and habitats (e.g., the improvement in the Red List category to be achieved by a target year). This is then followed by the identification of conservation actions needed to reach the goals and quantification of the costs of these actions and other constraints. This approach is much closer to a species prioritisation, compared to the use of threat status alone.

Some have approached species prioritisation by combining evolutionary data with measures of extinction risk. The focus here is to prioritise threatened species that represent large amounts of phylogenetic/functional trait diversity using metrics such as evolutionary distinctiveness (ED; Faith, 2008; Cadotte and Davies, 2010; Gumbs et al., 2018). Metrics such as ED ideally require species-level phylogenies to calculate the individual contribution of each species to the total phylogenetic diversity of a clade (Isaac et al., 2007). Such genetic data is not routinely available and species-level phylogenies are often incomplete, although imputation methods exist (Curnick et al., 2015; Gumbs et al., 2018; Weedop et al., 2019) and scenario-based approaches to account for uncertainties in extinction probability values have also been applied (Billionnet, 2017). While providing a more comprehensive assessment of the benefit of taking action to mitigate the threats to a species, this approach alone falls short of a comprehensive prioritisation if it does not have a specified objective or account for what needs to be done where and when in order to secure the persistence of the species of interest.

Triage controversy

Prioritising species also carries with it an ethical dilemma (Wilson and Law, 2016), reflected in the controversial debate about the use of the term “triage” in conservation. Triage in the field of emergency medicine is a process of prioritisation under severely constrained resources, where the needs of a few, resource-intensive, critical cases are “sacrificed” so that resources can be distributed to a greater number of less critical cases. Controversy associated with the use of the term in conservation has been well summarised previously (Bottrill et al., 2009) and it is clear from the discussion that has ensued over the past decade that the fundamental concern about the use of the word “triage” in conservation relates to how the term is interpreted.

“Triage” in conservation has typically been interpreted as allowing some critically endangered species to go extinct to save others. Its enaction is assumed to reveal the species that have been relegated to extinction, with some arguing that the concept of triage should be avoided altogether in conservation so as not to preclude opportunities to expand the resources available for conservation (Wiedenfeld et al., 2021), whether it be for protection or monitoring (Wheeler et al., 2016). Alternatively, we should view triage as a process that analyses the expected outcomes of investments in different species, which is then used to prioritise investment based on what can be achieved with different levels of investment or effort. Such an analysis can then be used to determine the investment needed to prevent most species from going extinct, instigating efforts to fill any gap, such as through conservation marketing and fundraising campaigns (see Box 3). But while triage can inform, and motivate, investment in conservation, ultimately the level of resources available to prevent extinctions is a socio-political decision.

Box 3. Conservation prioritisation and flagship species.

Similar to the arguments against triage, there has been a long-running debate in conservation about the use of flagship species. An overreliance on such flagships (e.g., koala, tiger and panda) can be seen to divert resources from less charismatic or well-known species. However, such flagships can be important for raising funds for conservation (Veríssimo et al., 2017), and thus filling the shortfall in funding needed to prevent species from going extinct (see section “Triage controversy”). There is the possibility that carefully selected flagship species can raise funds for conservation and also encourage spending of resources to conserve broader biodiversity. Key places that harbour at least one charismatic flagship species but that also maximise a broader biodiversity objective have been identified (McGowan et al., 2020). Through such integrated conservation planning analyses, it is possible to maximise public awareness and raise funding for conservation while still achieving broader species conservation goals. Ward et al. (2020) demonstrated a comprehensive prioritisation analysis using umbrella species – that is, species that due to their large habitat requirements can facilitate the protection of other naturally co-occurring species (Roberge and Angelstam, 2004). Ward et al. (2020) demonstrate that the umbrella species approach can also be used in conjunction with a systematic prioritisation of funds to protect and recover species at risk of extinction through an analysis of the spatial distribution of threats, of conservation actions and costs, as well as overlaps in species geographic ranges.

Asset maps shows what we value, but are not necessarily priorities

The identification of priority places for species conservation has received significant attention in both the peer-reviewed and grey literature (Moilanen et al., 2009). The focus here has been on mapping the distribution of biodiversity and its patterns, such as centres of species endemism (Orme et al., 2005), uniqueness (Eken et al., 2004), biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al., 2000) and various measures of diversity (Grenyer et al., 2006; Brum et al., 2017). The production of these asset maps rests on the assumption that protecting these places from the threats to species persistence in these locations will result in the best outcomes for biodiversity conservation at large. While such maps may highlight the uneven distribution of biodiversity and areas that could yield returns from investment, since the identification of these places is not situated in a properly formulated problem (with an objective, constraints, etc., as outlined above) it is not possible to discern whether these places are indeed conservation priorities, nor the relative priority of one place compared to another.

Broader contextual considerations and challenges

Prioritising species to prevent extinctions needs to consider not only extinction risk, but a range of enabling conditions that influence the likelihood of success of conservation investments such as financial, cultural, logistical, ethical, human livelihoods and social factors (Miller et al., 2006; Fitzpatrick et al., 2007; Moir and Brennan, 2020). Furthermore, there are often conflicting objectives (Simmons et al., 2021), differing value judgements (Latombe et al., 2022), varying risk preferences and tolerances (Tulloch et al., 2015) and sources of uncertainty. Given all these complexities, it is important to utilise a variety of theories and methods from the decision science toolbox (Hemming et al., 2022).

Knowledge constraints are often posed as an argument against prioritisation: to not prioritise species reduces the risk of misallocating effort. There is indeed uneven knowledge of threatened species, with a research bias towards larger bodied species and charismatic or economically valued species (Allek et al., 2018); within taxonomic groups, there is often a bias towards species occurring in developed nations (Buechley et al., 2019). Building on the pre-cautionary principle the use of the best available knowledge and prioritising further research as well as implementation of conservation activities is key. Importantly, the very act of determining the most appropriate conservation action (or suite of actions) might be considered as a control variable if these actions are unknown at the time of prioritisation (Game et al., 2013; Raymond et al., 2018). Decision science methods based on the value-of-information theory to determine and appraise the relative value of further data collection versus managing species at risk of extinction to determine optimal strategy are also available (Bennett et al., 2018). Similarly, proactively progressing activities to prevent species from being at risk of extinction in the first place is critical (Walls, 2018).

As knowledge improves or as values and perceptions change, priorities are likely to shift. Furthermore, funded projects may underperform or new projects may require investment when additional funding is not available immediately (Gerber, 2016). Reallocation of ongoing investments in response to shifting priorities (i.e., reprioritisation) would need to be balanced by the likely transaction costs, lost opportunities and the risks associated with not honouring the needs of ongoing project commitments (Wu et al., 2021).

Conclusions

The biodiversity crisis is immense – around 1 million species are under threat globally – and the funding currently available to prevent extinctions is inadequate. As such, prioritisation of conservation efforts is essential. A wide range of approaches to prioritisation has been used, and this is appropriate given the diversity of contexts and the pace of environmental change, nonetheless, all prioritisations should be based on sound knowledge of the systems in question and clearly defined objectives, control variables and constraints (Figure 3). Careful prioritisations can improve decision making and motivate further investment in conservation, the funding available to prevent extinctions is a socio-political decision.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Additional components of the prioritisation problem, with a focus on key additional elements in relation to species prioritisation.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for the review of early drafts of this manuscript by Dr. Blake Simmons, Dr. Ilva Sporne and Timothy Campbell. I would like to thank Dr. Jess Hopf at Knowlegible Designs for providing the figures. This work was supported by ARC SRIEAS Grant SR200100005 Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/ext.2023.3.

Data availability statement

Data availability is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

Author contributions

The author confirms sole responsibility for the following: conception of the study, manuscript preparation and revision.

Financial support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interest

The author declares none.

References

  1. Akçakaya HR, Bennett EL, Brooks TM, Grace MK, Heath A, Hedges S, Hilton-Taylor C, Hoffmann M, Keith DA, Long B, Mallon DP, Meijaard E, Milner-Gulland EJ, Rodrigues ASL, Rodriguez JP, Stephenson PJ, Stuart SN and Young RP (2018) Quantifying species recovery and conservation success to develop an IUCN Green List of Species. Conservation Biology 32, 1128–1138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Allek A, Assis AS, Eiras N, Amaral TP, Williams B, Butt N, Renwick AR, Bennett JR and Beyer HL (2018) The threats endangering Australia’s at-risk fauna. Biological Conservation 222, 172–179. [Google Scholar]
  3. Auerbach NA, Wilson KA, Tulloch AIT, Rhodes JR, Hanson JO and Possingham HP (2015) Effects of threat management interactions on conservation priorities. Conservation Biology 29, 1626–1635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ball IR, Possingham HP and Watts M (2009) Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation prioritization. In Moilanen A, Wilson KA and Possingham HP (eds.), Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 185–195. [Google Scholar]
  5. Barnosky AD, Matzke N, Tomiya S, Wogan GOU, Swartz B, Quental TB, Marshall C, McGuire JL, Lindsey EL, Maguire KC, Mersey B and Ferrer EA (2011) Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471, 51–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bennett JR, Maxwell SL, Martin AE, Chades I, Fahrig L and Gilbert B (2018) When to monitor and when to act: Value of information theory for multiple management units and limited budgets. Journal of Applied Ecology 55, 2102–2113. [Google Scholar]
  7. Billionnet A (2017) How to take into account uncertainty in species extinction probabilities for phylogenetic conservation prioritization. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 22, 535–548. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bottrill MC, Joseph LN, Carwardine J, Bode M, Cook C, Game ET, Grantham H, Kark S, Linke S, McDonald-Madden E, Pressey RL, Walker S, Wilson KA and Possingham HP (2009) Finite conservation funds mean triage is unavoidable. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24, 183–184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Brazill-Boast J, Williams M, Rickwood B, Partridge T, Bywater G, Cumbo B, Shannon I, Probert WJM, Ravallion J, Possingham H and Maloney RF (2018) A large-scale application of project prioritization to threatened species investment by a government agency. PLoS One 13, e0201413. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brum FT, Graham CH, Costa GC, Hedges SB, Penone C, Radeloff VC, Rondinini C, Loyola R and Davidson AD (2017) Global priorities for conservation across multiple dimensions of mammalian diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114, 7641–7646. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Buechley ER, Santangeli A, Girardello M, Neate-Clegg MHC, Oleyar D, McClure CJW and Sekercioglu CH (2019) Global raptor research and conservation priorities: Tropical raptors fall prey to knowledge gaps. Diversity and Distributions 25, 856–869. [Google Scholar]
  12. Butchart SHM, Resit Akçakaya H, Chanson J, Baillie JEM, Collen B, Quader S, Turner WR, Amin R, Stuart SN and Hilton-Taylor C (2007) Improvements to the Red List Index. PLoS One 2, e140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cadotte MW and Davies TJ (2010) Rarest of the rare: Advances in combining evolutionary distinctiveness and scarcity to inform conservation at biogeographical scales. Diversity and Distributions 16, 376–385. [Google Scholar]
  14. Carwardine J, Martin TG, Firn J, Reyes RP, Nicol S, Reeson A, Grantham HS, Stratford D, Kehoe L and Chades I (2019) Priority threat management for biodiversity conservation: A handbook. Journal of Applied Ecology 56, 481–490. [Google Scholar]
  15. CBD (2021) First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Open Ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Third Meeting, 23 August - 3 September 2021, Online.
  16. Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky AD, García A, Pringle RM and Palmer TM (2015) Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances 1, e1400253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Chen YH (2007) Prioritizing avian conservation areas in China by hotspot scoring, heuristics and optimisation. Acta Ornithologica 42, 119–128. [Google Scholar]
  18. Clarkson RW, Marsh PC and Dowling TE (2012) Population prioritization for conservation of imperilled warmwater fishes in an arid-region drainage. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 22, 498–510. [Google Scholar]
  19. Collen B, Dulvy NK, Gaston KJ, Gärdenfors U, Keith DA, Punt AE, Regan HM, Böhm M, Hedges S, Seddon M, Butchart SHM, Hilton-Taylor C, Hoffmann M, Bachman SP and Akçakaya HR (2016) Clarifying misconceptions of extinction risk assessment with the IUCN Red List. Biology Letters 12, 20150843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Curnick DJ, Head CEI, Huang D, Crabbe MJC, Gollock M, Hoeksema BW, Johnson KG, Jones R, Koldewey HJ, Obura DO, Rosen BR, Smith DJ, Taylor ML, Turner JR, Wren S and Redding DW (2015) Setting evolutionary-based conservation priorities for a phylogenetically data-poor taxonomic group (Scleractinia). Animal Conservation 18, 303–312. [Google Scholar]
  21. Di Marco M, Cardillo M, Possingham HP, Wilson KA, Blomberg SP, Boitani L and Rondinini C (2012) A novel approach for global mammal extinction risk reduction. Conservation Letters 5, 134–141. [Google Scholar]
  22. Eken G, Bennun LA, Brooks TM, Darwall W, Fishpool LDC, Foster M, Knox D, Langhammer PF, Matiku P, Radford E, Salaman P, Sechrest W, Smith ML, Spector S and Tordoff A (2004) Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. Bioscience 54, 1110–1118. [Google Scholar]
  23. Faith DP (2008) Threatened species and the potential loss of phylogenetic diversity: Conservation scenarios based on estimated extinction probabilities and phylogenetic risk analysis. Conservation Biology 22, 1461–1470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fitzpatrick U, Murray TE, Paxton RJ and Brown MJF (2007) Building on IUCN regional Red Lists to produce lists of species of conservation priority: A model with Irish bees. Conservation Biology 21, 1324–1332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Game ET, Kareiva P and Possingham HP (2013) Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting. Conservation Biology 27, 480–485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gerber LR (2016) Conservation triage or injurious neglect in endangered species recovery. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113, 3563–3566. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gillespie GR, Roberts JD, Hunter D, Hoskin CJ, Alford RA, Heard GW, Hines H, Lemckert F, Newell D and Scheele BC (2020) Status and priority conservation actions for Australian frog species. Biological Conservation 247, 108543. [Google Scholar]
  28. Grenyer R, Orme CDL, Jackson SF, Thomas GH, Davies RG, Davies TJ, Jones KE, Olson VA, Ridgely RS, Rasmussen PC, Ding TS, Bennett PM, Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ, Gittleman JL and Owens IPF (2006) Global distribution and conservation of rare and threatened vertebrates. Nature 444, 93–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gumbs R, Gray CL, Wearn OR and Owen NR (2018) Tetrapods on the EDGE: Overcoming data limitations to identify phylogenetic conservation priorities. PLoS One 13, e0194680. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hanson JO, Schuster R, Strimas-Mackey M and Bennett JR (2019) Optimality in prioritizing conservation projects. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10, 1655–1663. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hemming V, Camaclang AE, Adams MS, Burgman M, Carbeck K, Carwardine J, Chades I, Chalifour L, Converse SJ, Davidson LNK, Garrard GE, Finn R, Fleri JR, Huard J, Mayfield HJ, Madden EM, Naujokaitis-Lewis I, Possingham HP, Rumpff L, Runge MC, Stewart D, Tulloch VJD, Walshe T and Martin TG (2022) An introduction to decision science for conservation. Conservation Biology 36, e13868. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hirsch T, Mooney K and Cooper D (2020) Global biodiversity outlook 5. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hughey KFD, Cullen R and Moran E (2003) Integrating economics into priority setting and evaluation in conservation management. Conservation Biology 17, 93–103. [Google Scholar]
  34. IPBES (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the inter governmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES Secretariat. Bonn, Germany. [Google Scholar]
  35. Isaac NJB, Turvey ST, Collen B, Waterman C and Baillie JEM (2007) Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation priorities based on threat and phylogeny. PLoS One 2, e296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Joseph LN, Maloney RF and Possingham HP (2009) Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: A project prioritization protocol. Conservation Biology 23, 328–338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Keith DA, Rodríguez JP, Rodríguez-Clark KM, Nicholson E, Aapala K, Alonso A, Asmussen M, Bachman S, Basset A, Barrow EG, Benson JS, Bishop MJ, Bonifacio R, Brooks TM, Burgman MA, Comer P, Comín FA, Essl F, Faber-Langendoen D, Fairweather PG, Holdaway RJ, Jennings M, Kingsford RT, Lester RE, Nally RM, McCarthy MA, Moat J, Oliveira-Miranda MA, Pisanu P, Poulin B, Regan TJ, Riecken U, Spalding MD and Zambrano-Martínez S (2013) Scientific foundations for an IUCN Red List of ecosystems. PLoS One 8, e62111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kricsfalusy VV and Trevisan N (2014) Prioritizing regionally rare plant species for conservation using herbarium data. Biodiversity and Conservation 23, 39–61. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kyrkjeeide MO, Pedersen B, Evju M, Magnussen K, Mair L, Bolam FC, McGowan PJK, Vestergaard KM, Braa J and Rusch G (2021) Bending the curve: Operationalizing national Red Lists to customize conservation actions to reduce extinction risk. Biological Conservation 261, 109227. [Google Scholar]
  40. Latombe G, Lenzner B, Schertler A, Dullinger S, Glaser M, Jaric I, Pauchard A, Wilson JRU and Essl F (2022) What is valued in conservation? A framework to compare ethical perspectives. Neobiota 72, 45–80. [Google Scholar]
  41. Leclerc C, Magneville C and Bellard C (2022) Conservation hotspots of insular endemic mammalian diversity at risk of extinction across a multidimensional approach. Diversity and Distributions, 28, pp. 2754–2764. [Google Scholar]
  42. Liu U, Kenney S, Breman E and Cossu TA (2019) A multicriteria decision making approach to prioritise vascular plants for species-based conservation. Biological Conservation 234, 221–240. [Google Scholar]
  43. Liu XJ, Yang X, Zanatta DT, Lopes-Lima M, Bogan AE, Zieritz A, Ouyang S and Wu XP (2020) Conservation status assessment and a new method for establishing conservation priorities for freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionida) in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River drainage. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 30, 1000–1011. [Google Scholar]
  44. Mace GM, Collar NJ, Gaston KJ, Hilton-Taylor C, Akcakaya HR, Leader-Williams N, Milner-Gulland EJ and Stuart SN (2008) Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conservation Biology 22, 1424–1442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Mace GM, Possingham HP and Leader-Williams N (2007) Prioritizing choices in conservation. In Macdonald DW and Service K. (eds.), Key Topics in Conservation Biology. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK, pp. 17–34. [Google Scholar]
  46. Martin JL, Cardoso P, Arechavaleta M, Borges PAV, Faria BF, Abreu C, Aguiar AF, Carvalho JA, Costa AC, Cunha RT, Fernandes FM, Gabriel R, Jardim R, Lobo C, Martins AMF, Oliveira P, Rodrigues P, Silva L, Teixeira D, Amorim IR, Homem N, Martins B, Martins M and Mendonca E (2010) Using taxonomically unbiased criteria to prioritize resource allocation for oceanic island species conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 19, 1659–1682. [Google Scholar]
  47. McCarthy DP, Donald PF, Scharlemann JPW, Buchanan GM, Balmford A, Green JMH, Bennun LA, Burgess ND, Fishpool LDC, Garnett ST, Leonard DL, Maloney RF, Morling P, Schaefer HM, Symes A, Wiedenfeld DA and Butchart SHM (2012) Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets: Current spending and unmet needs. Science 338, 946–949. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. McGowan J, Beaumont LJ, Smith RJ, ALM C, Harcourt R, Atkinson SC, Mittermeier JC, Esperon-Rodriguez M, Baumgartner JB, Beattie A, Dudaniec RY, Grenyer R, Nipperess DA, Stow A and Possingham HP (2020) Conservation prioritization can resolve the flagship species conundrum. Nature Communications 11, 994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Miller RM, Rodriguez JP, Aniskowicz-Fowler T, Bambaradeniya C, Boles R, Eaton MA, Gardenfors U, Keller V, Molur S, Walker S and Pollock C (2006) Extinction risk and conservation priorities. Science 313, 441–441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Moilanen A, Wilson KA and Possingham H (2009) Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  51. Moir ML and Brennan KEC (2020) Incorporating coextinction in threat assessments and policy will rapidly improve the accuracy of threatened species lists. Biological Conservation 249, 108715. [Google Scholar]
  52. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB and Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Nielsen EE and Kenchington E (2001) A new approach to prioritizing marine fish and shellfish populations for conservation. Fish and Fisheries 2, 328–343. [Google Scholar]
  54. Orme CDL, Davies RG, Burgess M, Eigenbrod F, Pickup N, Olson VA, Webster AJ, Ding T-S, Rasmussen PC, Ridgely RS, Stattersfield AJ, Bennett PM, Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ and Owens IPF (2005) Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with endemism or threat. Nature 436, 1016–1019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Possingham H, Wilson KA, Andelman SA and Vynne CH (2006) Protected areas: Goals, limitations, and design. In Groom J, Meffe GK and Carroll CR (eds.), Principles of Conservation Biology, 3rd Edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, U.S., pp. 507–549. [Google Scholar]
  56. Prugh LR, Sinclair ARE, Hodges KE, Jacob AL and Wilcove DS (2010) Reducing threats to species: Threat reversibility and links to industry. Conservation Letters 3, 267–276. [Google Scholar]
  57. Raymond CV, Wen LN, Cooke SJ and Bennett JR (2018) National attention to endangered wildlife is not affected by global endangerment: A case study of Canada’s species at risk program. Environmental Science & Policy 84, 74–79. [Google Scholar]
  58. Roberge J-M and Angelstam P (2004) Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conservation Biology 18, 76–85. [Google Scholar]
  59. Rose LE, Heard GW, Chee YE and Wintle BA (2016) Cost-effective conservation of an endangered frog under uncertainty. Conservation Biology 30, 350–361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Simmons BA, Nolte C and McGowan J (2021) Tough questions for the “30 × 30” conservation agenda. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 19, 322–323. [Google Scholar]
  61. Sinclair SP, Milner-Gulland EJ, Smith RJ, McIntosh EJ, Possingham HP, Vercammen A and Knight AT (2018) The use, and usefulness, of spatial conservation prioritizations. Conservation Letters 11, e12459. [Google Scholar]
  62. Strimas-Mackey M and Brodie JF (2018) Reserve design to optimize the long-term persistence of multiple species. Ecological Applications 28, 1354–1361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Tapley B, Michaels CJ, Gumbs R, Bohm M, Luedtke J, Pearce-Kelly P and Rowley JJL (2018) The disparity between species description and conservation assessment: A case study in taxa with high rates of species discovery. Biological Conservation 220, 209–214. [Google Scholar]
  64. Tingley R, Meiri S and Chapple DG (2016) Addressing knowledge gaps in reptile conservation. Biological Conservation 204, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  65. Toledo LF, Becker CG, Haddad CFB and Zamudio KR (2014) Rarity as an indicator of endangerment in neotropical frogs. Biological Conservation 179, 54–62. [Google Scholar]
  66. Tulloch AIT, Maloney RF, Joseph LN, Bennett JR, Di Fonzo MMI, Probert WJM, O’Connor SM, Densem JP and Possingham HP (2015) Effect of risk aversion on prioritizing conservation projects. Conservation Biology 29, 513–524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Veríssimo D, Vaughan G, Ridout M, Waterman C, MacMillan D and Smith RJ (2017) Increased conservation marketing effort has major fundraising benefits for even the least popular species. Biological Conservation 211, 95–101. [Google Scholar]
  68. Walls SC (2018) Coping with constraints: Achieving effective conservation with limited resources. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 6, 24. [Google Scholar]
  69. Walsh JC, Watson JEM, Bottrill MC, Joseph LN and Possingham HP (2013) Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for threatened species: An Australian case study. Oryx 47, 134–143. [Google Scholar]
  70. Ward M, Rhodes JR, Watson JEM, Lefevre J, Atkinson S and Possingham HP (2020) Use of surrogate species to cost-effectively prioritize conservation actions. Conservation Biology 34, 600–610. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Weedop KB, Mooers AO, Tucker CM and Pearse WD (2019) The effect of phylogenetic uncertainty and imputation on EDGE scores. Animal Conservation 22, 527–536. [Google Scholar]
  72. Wheeler HC, Berteaux D, Furgal C, Pariee B, Yoccoz NG and Gremillet D (2016) Stakeholder perspectives on triage in wildlife monitoring in a rapidly changing Arctic. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 4, 128. [Google Scholar]
  73. Wiedenfeld DA, Alberts AC, Angulo A, Bennett EL, Byers O, Contreras-MacBeath T, Drummond G, da Fonseca GAB, Gascon C, Harrison I, Heard N, Hochkirch A, Konstant W, Langhammer PF, Langrand O, Launay F, Lebbin DJ, Lieberman S, Long B, Lu Z, Maunder M, Mittermeier RA, Molur S, al Mubarak RK, Parr MJ, Ratsimbazafy J, Rhodin AGJ, Rylands AB, Sanderson J, Sechrest W, Soorae P, Supriatna J, Upgren A, Vie JC and Zhang L (2021) Conservation resource allocation, small population resiliency, and the fallacy of conservation triage. Conservation Biology 35, 1388–1395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Wilson KA, Carwardine J and Possingham HP (2009) Setting conservation priorities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1162, 237–264. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Wilson KA and Law EA (2016) Ethics of conservation triage. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 4, 112. [Google Scholar]
  76. Wilson KA, Underwood EC, Morrison SA, Klausmeyer KR, Murdoch WW, Reyers B, Wardell-Johnson G, Marquet PA, Rundel PW, McBride MF, Pressey RL, Bode M, Hoekstra JM, Andelman S, Looker M, Rondinini C, Kareiva P, Shaw MR and Possingham HP (2007) Conserving biodiversity efficiently: What to do, where, and when. PLoS Biology 5, 1850–1861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Wu CH, Dodd AJ, Hauser CE and McCarthy MA (2021) Reallocating budgets among ongoing and emerging conservation projects. Conservation Biology 35, 955–966. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2023.3.pr2

Review: Prioritisation to prevent extinction — R0/PR2

Manuel B Morales 1

Comments to Author: Comments on Wilson “Prioritisation to prevent extinction”

This is an interesting and potentially useful review of the of the prioritisation concept and its application to decision making in the context of species conservation. Nevertheless, I consider the ms is a bit too theoretical, relying too much on abstract concepts such as the core components of prioritisation and very little (or nothing) on practical examples. For example, I think that the definition of control variables needs to be more operative, so than a decision maker can identify them in a more straight-forward way. The same would apply to concepts such as “budget envelope” or “minimum amount of conservation or benefit”. Therefore, I consider the ms and its take-home message would greatly benefit from the reference to one or several case studies that illustrate theoretical concepts, as well as from some graphical depiction of the theoretical framework of prioritisation.

One particular case study that comes to my mind is that of the relic population of capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) of the Cantabrian mountains in northern Spain (please, do not get me wrong, I am NOT suggesting the use of this example, because I do not even know if it would be fit; you surely know dozens of them that are much more suitable). In this area, capercaillie is a relic of glacial time, isolated from all other Eurasian populations and adapted to much milder and temperate climate conditions (in terms of diet preferences, for example), so that it is classified as a separate subspecies. Hunting, land-use change, human disturbance and climate change have pushed Cantabrian capercaillie into the vortex of extinction, but the species Tetrao urogallus is quite abundant and widely distributed across the Eurasian belt of boreal forests, from Scandinavia to Siberia. Should the Cantabrian subspecies be prioritised at world level? At Spanish level? How should it be ordered in the priority list in relation to other threatened species that are farther from extinction but show more restricted distributions (even endemic species) and worrying declining trends? Perhaps the ms would gain insight if you dived into this kind of aspects.

Apart from this, you discuss the utility of the flagstaff species concept. I suggest you expand a little more as to include the umbrella species concept, which may partly overlap with the former, and has also been widely used in conservation prioritisation.

Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2023.3.pr3

Review: Prioritisation to prevent extinction — R0/PR3

Michael Pirie 1

Comments to Author: As a curator of living collections with a conservation remit, rather than a conservation biologist, I found this review paper both informative and thought-provoking. I believe it will be a useful contribution in clarifying what is meant by conservation prioritization, and in setting out distinctions between various activities and decisions taken on by conservationists in the broader sense and thereby aiding their overall contribution to the positive outcomes society needs. I only have minor comments with regard clarity in a couple of sections.

The following section I found particularly difficult to parse. Rephrasing, breaking it up, or even examples might help:

“They differ according to whether they

50 prioritise species themselves (Chen, 2007; Liu et al., 2019), their habitats or populations

51 (Clarkson et al., 2012; Nielsen and Kenchington, 2001; Strimas-Mackey and Brodie, 2018),

52 conservation activities targeting species (Brazill-Boast et al., 2018; Gillespie et al., 2020;

53 Joseph et al., 2009; Rose et al., 2016; Wilson et al., 2009), abatement or mitigation of

54 particular threats more generally (Carwardine et al., 2019) or protection of areas of land

55 critical for species protection (Leclerc et al., 2021; Sinclair et al., 2018).”

The following section is rather damning of a widely known part of the literature, such as relating to the widely used phrase ‘biodiversity hotspot’. I see the point of the criticism in this context, but might it be worth expanding somewhat on the real value of such results: e.g., in highlighting the uneven distribution of biodiversity globally; indicating areas within which conservation prioritization might yield disproportionate impact?

“since the identification of these

226 places is not situated in a properly formulated problem (with an objective, constraints, etc,

227 as outline above) it is not possible to discern whether these places are indeed conservation

228 priorities, nor the relative priority of one place compared to another”

Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2023.3.pr4

Review: Prioritisation to prevent extinction — R0/PR4

Richard Schuster 1

Comments to Author: Thank you very much for the opportunity to review manuscript EXT-22-0003, “Prioritisation to prevent extinction”. I very much enjoyed reading this review and I think it sets the stage very well for the audience of this new journal. The review is well structured and argued. I only have one small suggestion to make below. Other than that I think the manuscript is in great shape and would make an important contribution to the journal.

Line 78 and 81. For both control variables and constraints I would recommend adding a bit of text especially to introduce some examples so that readers new to the topic get a better idea of what control variables and constraints could be.

Best regards,

Richard Schuster

Director of Spatial Planning and Innovation, Nature Conservancy of Canada

Email: richard.schuster@natureconservancy.ca

Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2023.3.pr5

Recommendation: Prioritisation to prevent extinction — R0/PR5

Editor: Alice Hughes1

Comments to Author: The paper is useful, and all three reviewers enjoyed reading it. However more examples are needed, and more background to more theoretical elements to really demonstrate the potential of the approaches discussed

Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2023.3.pr6

Decision: Prioritisation to prevent extinction — R0/PR6

Editor: John Alroy1

No accompanying comment.

Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2023.3.pr7

Decision: Prioritisation to prevent extinction — R0/PR7

Editor: Barry Brook1

No accompanying comment.

Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2023.3.pr9

Review: Prioritisation to prevent extinction — R1/PR9

Manuel B Morales 1

Comments to Author: I think authors have followed my suggestions and the ms is now much clearer and focused. I have no further remarks.

Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2023.3.pr10

Review: Prioritisation to prevent extinction — R1/PR10

Michael Pirie 1

Comments to Author: I reviewed this ms. in its first version and had only minor comments. These have been addressed satisfactorily. The additional graphics are a welcome further improvement. I look forward to seeing this published.

Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2023.3.pr11

Review: Prioritisation to prevent extinction — R1/PR11

Richard Schuster 1

Comments to Author: Thank you very much for the opportunity to review manuscript EXT-22-0003.R1, “Prioritisation to prevent extinction”. I very much appreciated reading this revised version of the manuscript. In my mind all reviewer comments have been addressed sufficiently and I don’t have any further comments to make at this point. I’m happy to recommend acceptance of this fine work.

Best regards,

Richard Schuster

Director of Spatial Planning and Innovation, Nature Conservancy of Canada

Email: richard.schuster@natureconservancy.ca

Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2023.3.pr12

Recommendation: Prioritisation to prevent extinction — R1/PR12

Editor: Alice Hughes1

Comments to Author: All reviewers appreciate the article as well as improvements to figures

Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2023.3.pr13

Decision: Prioritisation to prevent extinction — R1/PR13

Editor: Barry Brook1

No accompanying comment.

Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2023.3.pr14

Decision: Prioritisation to prevent extinction — R1/PR14

Editor: John Alroy1

No accompanying comment.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Availability Statement

    Data availability is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

    Articles from Cambridge Prisms: Extinction are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

    RESOURCES