Six Common Mistakes in Conservation Priority Setting

Abstract

A vast number of prioritization schemes have been developed to help conservation navigate tough decisions about the allocation of finite resources. However, the application of quantitative approaches to setting priorities in conservation frequently includes mistakes that can undermine their authors’ intention to be more rigorous and scientific in the way priorities are established and resources allocated. Drawing on well-established principles of decision science, we highlight 6 mistakes commonly associated with setting priorities for conservation: not acknowledging conservation plans are prioritizations; trying to solve an ill-defined problem; not prioritizing actions; arbitrariness; hidden value judgments; and not acknowledging risk of failure. We explain these mistakes and offer a path to help conservation planners avoid making the same mistakes in future prioritizations.Seis Errores Comunes en la Definición de Prioridades de ConservaciónResumenSe ha desarrollado un vasto número de esquemas de priorización para ayudar a que la conservación navegue entre decisiones difíciles en cuanto a la asignación de recursos finitos. Sin embargo, la aplicación de métodos cuantitativos para la definición de prioridades en la conservación frecuentemente incluye errores que pueden socavar la intención de sus autores de ser más rigurosos y científicos en la manera en que se establecen las prioridades y se asignan los recursos. Con base en los bien establecidos principios de la ciencia de la decisión, resaltamos seis errores comúnmente asociados con la definición de prioridades para la conservación: no reconocer que los planes de conservación son priorizaciones; tratar de resolver un problema mal definido; no priorizar acciones; arbitrariedad; juicios de valor ocultos y no reconocer el riesgo de fracasar. Explicamos estos errores y ofrecemos un camino para que planificadores de la conservación no cometan los mismos errores en priorizaciones futuras.

The biodiversity of the United Kingdom’s Overseas Territories: a stock take of species occurrence and assessment of key knowledge gaps

“…Evidence-based decisions help ensure cost-effective management and policies, optimal priority setting and targeted funding (Brooks et al 2006;Waldron et al 2013). However, conservation decisions are frequently based on inadequate or biased data and there is a need to improve our knowledge of biodiversity to assist decision-making (Game et al 2013) and meet obligations under multi lateral agreements such as the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD).…”

“…They support a wealth of biodiversity (Prince and Croxall 1996;Procter and Fleming 1999;Cuthbert 2004;Angel and Cooper 2006;Sheppard et al 2013;Churchyard et al 2014;Friedlander et al 2014;Weber et al 2014;Havery et al 2015) much of which faces immediate threat, particularly from invasive alien species (Hilton and Cuthbert 2010;Dawson et al 2015). However, conservation action is constrained by the limited, poorly prioritised, and taxonomically biased biodiversity information (Clark and May 2002;Game et al 2013). The UKOTs' outstanding global importance for biodiversity dwarfs that of mainland UK, yet quantitative measures of biodiversity health and qualitative assessments of change are almost entirely lacking (Burns et al 2013).…”

Effective conservation requires clear objectives and prioritizing actions, not places or species

“…To find these priority areas, the authors weighted species from six taxa by their range size and level of protection, summing the weighted maps to derive maps of priority scores. Such scoring systems defy contemporary planning approaches, and have repeatedly been shown to identify priorities that are biologically ineffective and economically inefficient (2).…”

“…Second, conservation plans should prioritize actions, not species or places (2). Prioritizing species does not clarify what actions should be taken to avert species' declines.…”

“…Each of these actions has different costs and probabilities of success. Ignoring the costs and feasibilities of these different actions results in inefficient plans (2).…”