Effective conservation requires clear objectives and prioritizing actions, not places or species
- aAustralian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia;
- bQuantitative & Applied Ecology Group, School of Botany, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia;
- cCentre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia;
- dNational Environmental Research Program, Environmental Decision Hub, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072 Australia;
- eSchool of Geography, Planning, and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia;
- fGlobal Conservation Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY 10460
See allHide authors and affiliations

In their recent article, Jenkins et al. (1) identify “priorities for future conservation investment” in the continental United States. 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).
Three decades of evolution in the theory and practice of conservation planning has led to four critical lessons. First, priority setting requires explicit and defensible objectives (2); for example, …
↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: chris.brown{at}griffith.edu.au.
Citation Manager Formats
Article Classifications
- Biological Sciences
- Ecology
This Letter has a Reply and related content. Please see:
- Relationship between Letter and Reply - August 03, 2015
- US protected lands mismatch biodiversity priorities - April 06, 2015