Bottrill, Madeleine C., Joseph, Liana N., Carwardine, Josie, Bode, Michael, Cook, Carly, Game, Edward T., Grantham, Hedley, Kark, Salit, Linke, Simon, McDonald-Madden, Eve, Pressey, Robert L., Walker, Susan, Wilson, Kerrie A., and Possingham, Hugh P. (2009) Finite conservation funds mean triage is unavoidable. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24 (4). pp. 183-184.

PDF (Published Version) Restricted to Repository staff only

 

70

7

Abstract

We welcome the interest generated by our recent article [1] on the use of triage principles for allocation of conservation resources in three letters featured in this issue of Trends in Ecology and Evolution [2–4] and appreciate the opportunity to respond to the issues raised. Jachowski and Kesler [3] and Parr and colleagues [4] from the Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) argue against the use of conservation triage. We consider that these authors have confused two issues: the allocation of resources currently available for conservation and decisions on how much society should spend on conservation. The first issue involves wise allocation of funds assisted by approaches such as triage and cost-efficient optimization. The second is an issue of societal values and political willingness. Conservationists fight on both fronts, but the issues should not be confused.

Actions (Repository Staff Only)

Item Control Page