Conservation triage or injurious neglect in endangered species recovery

Leah Gerber, James A. Estes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Listing endangered and threatened species under the US Endangered Species Act is presumed to offer a defense against extinction and a solution to achieve recovery of imperiled populations, but only if effective conservation action ensues after listing occurs. The amount of government funding available for species protection and recovery is one of the best predictors of successful recovery; however, government spending is both insufficient and highly disproportionate among groups of species, and there is significant discrepancy between proposed and actualized budgets across species. In light of an increasing list of imperiled species requiring evaluation and protection, an explicit approach to allocating recovery funds is urgently needed. Here I provide a formal decision-theoretic approach focusing on return on investment as an objective and a transparent mechanism to achieve the desired recovery goals. I found that less than 25% of the $1.21 billion/year needed for implementing recovery plans for 1,125 species is actually allocated to recovery. Spending in excess of the recommended recovery budget does not necessarily translate into better conservation outcomes. Rather, elimination of only the budget surplus for "costly yet futile" recovery plans can provide sufficient funding to erase funding deficits for more than 180 species. Triage by budget compression provides better funding for a larger sample of species, and a larger sample of adequately funded recovery plans should produce better outcomes even if by chance. Sharpening our focus on deliberate decision making offers the potential to achieve desired outcomes in avoiding extinction for Endangered Species Act-listed species.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3563-3566
Number of pages4
JournalProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Volume113
Issue number13
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 29 2016

Fingerprint

Endangered Species
Triage
Budgets
Financial Management
Decision Making
Population
Psychological Extinction

Keywords

  • Conservation prioritization
  • Conservation triage
  • Cost
  • Endangered species
  • Return on investment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General

Cite this

Conservation triage or injurious neglect in endangered species recovery. / Gerber, Leah; Estes, James A.

In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 113, No. 13, 29.03.2016, p. 3563-3566.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a26cb6f9439146e191e59de9f3a0c9e6,
title = "Conservation triage or injurious neglect in endangered species recovery",
abstract = "Listing endangered and threatened species under the US Endangered Species Act is presumed to offer a defense against extinction and a solution to achieve recovery of imperiled populations, but only if effective conservation action ensues after listing occurs. The amount of government funding available for species protection and recovery is one of the best predictors of successful recovery; however, government spending is both insufficient and highly disproportionate among groups of species, and there is significant discrepancy between proposed and actualized budgets across species. In light of an increasing list of imperiled species requiring evaluation and protection, an explicit approach to allocating recovery funds is urgently needed. Here I provide a formal decision-theoretic approach focusing on return on investment as an objective and a transparent mechanism to achieve the desired recovery goals. I found that less than 25{\%} of the $1.21 billion/year needed for implementing recovery plans for 1,125 species is actually allocated to recovery. Spending in excess of the recommended recovery budget does not necessarily translate into better conservation outcomes. Rather, elimination of only the budget surplus for {"}costly yet futile{"} recovery plans can provide sufficient funding to erase funding deficits for more than 180 species. Triage by budget compression provides better funding for a larger sample of species, and a larger sample of adequately funded recovery plans should produce better outcomes even if by chance. Sharpening our focus on deliberate decision making offers the potential to achieve desired outcomes in avoiding extinction for Endangered Species Act-listed species.",
keywords = "Conservation prioritization, Conservation triage, Cost, Endangered species, Return on investment",
author = "Leah Gerber and Estes, {James A.}",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "29",
doi = "10.1073/pnas.1525085113",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "113",
pages = "3563--3566",
journal = "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America",
issn = "0027-8424",
number = "13",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conservation triage or injurious neglect in endangered species recovery

AU - Gerber, Leah

AU - Estes, James A.

PY - 2016/3/29

Y1 - 2016/3/29

N2 - Listing endangered and threatened species under the US Endangered Species Act is presumed to offer a defense against extinction and a solution to achieve recovery of imperiled populations, but only if effective conservation action ensues after listing occurs. The amount of government funding available for species protection and recovery is one of the best predictors of successful recovery; however, government spending is both insufficient and highly disproportionate among groups of species, and there is significant discrepancy between proposed and actualized budgets across species. In light of an increasing list of imperiled species requiring evaluation and protection, an explicit approach to allocating recovery funds is urgently needed. Here I provide a formal decision-theoretic approach focusing on return on investment as an objective and a transparent mechanism to achieve the desired recovery goals. I found that less than 25% of the $1.21 billion/year needed for implementing recovery plans for 1,125 species is actually allocated to recovery. Spending in excess of the recommended recovery budget does not necessarily translate into better conservation outcomes. Rather, elimination of only the budget surplus for "costly yet futile" recovery plans can provide sufficient funding to erase funding deficits for more than 180 species. Triage by budget compression provides better funding for a larger sample of species, and a larger sample of adequately funded recovery plans should produce better outcomes even if by chance. Sharpening our focus on deliberate decision making offers the potential to achieve desired outcomes in avoiding extinction for Endangered Species Act-listed species.

AB - Listing endangered and threatened species under the US Endangered Species Act is presumed to offer a defense against extinction and a solution to achieve recovery of imperiled populations, but only if effective conservation action ensues after listing occurs. The amount of government funding available for species protection and recovery is one of the best predictors of successful recovery; however, government spending is both insufficient and highly disproportionate among groups of species, and there is significant discrepancy between proposed and actualized budgets across species. In light of an increasing list of imperiled species requiring evaluation and protection, an explicit approach to allocating recovery funds is urgently needed. Here I provide a formal decision-theoretic approach focusing on return on investment as an objective and a transparent mechanism to achieve the desired recovery goals. I found that less than 25% of the $1.21 billion/year needed for implementing recovery plans for 1,125 species is actually allocated to recovery. Spending in excess of the recommended recovery budget does not necessarily translate into better conservation outcomes. Rather, elimination of only the budget surplus for "costly yet futile" recovery plans can provide sufficient funding to erase funding deficits for more than 180 species. Triage by budget compression provides better funding for a larger sample of species, and a larger sample of adequately funded recovery plans should produce better outcomes even if by chance. Sharpening our focus on deliberate decision making offers the potential to achieve desired outcomes in avoiding extinction for Endangered Species Act-listed species.

KW - Conservation prioritization

KW - Conservation triage

KW - Cost

KW - Endangered species

KW - Return on investment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962097623&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84962097623&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1073/pnas.1525085113

DO - 10.1073/pnas.1525085113

M3 - Article

C2 - 26976572

AN - SCOPUS:84962097623

VL - 113

SP - 3563

EP - 3566

JO - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

JF - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

SN - 0027-8424

IS - 13

ER -