Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Letter

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

Christopher J. Brown, Michael Bode, Oscar Venter, Megan D. Barnes, Jennifer McGowan, Claire A. Runge, James E. M. Watson, and Hugh P. Possingham
  1. aAustralian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia;
  2. bQuantitative & Applied Ecology Group, School of Botany, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia;
  3. cCentre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia;
  4. dNational Environmental Research Program, Environmental Decision Hub, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072 Australia;
  5. eSchool of Geography, Planning, and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia;
  6. fGlobal Conservation Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY 10460

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS August 11, 2015 112 (32) E4342; first published August 3, 2015; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509189112
Christopher J. Brown
aAustralian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: chris.brown@griffith.edu.au
Michael Bode
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;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Oscar Venter
cCentre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Megan D. Barnes
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;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer McGowan
cCentre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claire A. Runge
eSchool of Geography, Planning, and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James E. M. Watson
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
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hugh P. Possingham
cCentre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

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.

View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effective conservation requires clear objectives and prioritizing actions, not places or species
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Effective conservation prioritizes actions
Christopher J. Brown, Michael Bode, Oscar Venter, Megan D. Barnes, Jennifer McGowan, Claire A. Runge, James E. M. Watson, Hugh P. Possingham
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 2015, 112 (32) E4342; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1509189112

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Effective conservation prioritizes actions
Christopher J. Brown, Michael Bode, Oscar Venter, Megan D. Barnes, Jennifer McGowan, Claire A. Runge, James E. M. Watson, Hugh P. Possingham
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 2015, 112 (32) E4342; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1509189112
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

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
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 112 (32)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Smoke emanates from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant a few days after tsunami damage
Core Concept: Muography offers a new way to see inside a multitude of objects
Muons penetrate much further than X-rays, they do essentially zero damage, and they are provided for free by the cosmos.
Image credit: Science Source/Digital Globe.
Water from a faucet fills a glass.
News Feature: How “forever chemicals” might impair the immune system
Researchers are exploring whether these ubiquitous fluorinated molecules might worsen infections or hamper vaccine effectiveness.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Dmitry Naumov.
Venus flytrap captures a fly.
Journal Club: Venus flytrap mechanism could shed light on how plants sense touch
One protein seems to play a key role in touch sensitivity for flytraps and other meat-eating plants.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Kuttelvaserova Stuchelova.
Illustration of groups of people chatting
Exploring the length of human conversations
Adam Mastroianni and Daniel Gilbert explore why conversations almost never end when people want them to.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Horse fossil
Mounted horseback riding in ancient China
A study uncovers early evidence of equestrianism in ancient China.
Image credit: Jian Ma.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Cozzarelli Prize
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490