When should we save the most endangered species?

At the heart of our efforts to protect threatened species, there is a controversial debate about whether to give priority to cost-effective actions or whether focusing solely on the most endangered species will ultimately lead to preservation of the greatest number of species. By framing this debate within a decision-analytic framework, we show that allocating resources solely to the most endangered species will typically not minimise the number of extinctions in the long-term, as this does not account for the risk of less endangered species going extinct in the future. It is only favoured when our planning timeframe is short or we have a long-term view and we are optimistic about future conditions. Conservation funding tends to be short-term in nature, which biases allocations to more endangered species. Our work highlights the need to consider resource allocation for biodiversity over the long-term; 'preventive conservation', rather than just short-term fire-fighting.