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.
