Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 101–107 | Cite as

Endangered species: Deciding which species to save

  • Francis R. Thibodeau
Forum

Abstract

Many species face extinction because preservation organizations do not have the resources to mount all of the interventions that are needed. Decision analysis provides techniques that can help managers of these organizations to make judgments about which species they will attempt to rescue. A formal analysis of the choices available to the US Fish and Wildlife Services' endangered species program with regard toIsotria medeoloides illustrates how the difficulties of making preservation decisions can be lessened.I. medeoloides is perhaps the rarest orchid in the United States. Little is known of the species' biology and less about effective management. Yet unless a preservation effort is mounted, the species will continue to be threatened by habitat destruction and botanical collecting. The analysis employs formal probabalistic techniques to weigh the utility of possible intervention strategies, that is, their likelihood of achieving different amounts of increase in the longevity of the species, and to balance these gains against their costs. If similar decision analyses are performed on other endangered species, the technique can be used to choose among them, as well as among strategies for individual species.

Key words

Endangered species Decision analysis Isotria medeoloides Preserve selection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Coyne, R. G. 1972. Decision analysis, Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., London. 122 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Federal Register. 9/11/80. Proposal to determineIsotria medeoloides (small whorled pogonia) to be endangered species.Federal Register 45(178):59909–59914.Google Scholar
  3. Kenney, R. L. 1973. A decision analysis with multiple objectives: The Mexico City airport.Bell Journal of Economics, and Management Science 4:101–117.Google Scholar
  4. Lovejoy, T. E. 1976. We must decide which species will go forever.Smithsonian 7(4):52–59.Google Scholar
  5. Myers, N. 1979. The sinking ark. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 307 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Raiffa, H. 1970. Decision analysis: Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA. 309 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Sanchez de Rivera, D. P. 1980. A decision analysis model for a serious medical problem.Management Science 26(7):707–718.Google Scholar
  8. Sparrowe, R. D., and H. M. Wight. 1975. Setting priorities for the endangered species program.Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 40:142–156.Google Scholar
  9. Spetzler, C. S. 1974. The development of a corporate risk policy for capital investment decisions.in R. A. Howard, J. E. Matheson, and K. K. Miller (eds.), Readings in decision analysis. Stanford Research Institute, Melno Park, CA. 527 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Spetzler, C. S., and C. C. Staël von Holstein, 1972. Probability encoding in decison analysis.in R. A. Howard, J. E. Matheson, and K. L. Miller (eds.), Readings in decision analysis. Stanford Research Institute, Melno Park, CA. 527 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Thibodeau, F. R. 1981. The preservation of genetic diversity in America: The adequacy of present ecological reserves and a biological foundation for further action. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI. 420 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francis R. Thibodeau
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urban and Environmental PolicyTufts UniversityMedford

Personalised recommendations