Comparison of funding and demand for the conservation of the charismatic koala with those for the critically endangered wombat <Emphasis Type="Italic">Lasiorhinus krefftii</Emphasis>

This study contrasts the actual conservation spending and the Australian public’s demand for conservation funding for two Australian mammal species, the koala and the northern hairy-nosed wombat. It involves a survey of 204 members of the Australian public. Willingness to fund conservation action to protect the northern hairy-nosed wombat was found to be higher than that for the koala despite the koala’s immense popularity. The critically endangered status of the northern-hairy nosed wombat and the more secure conservation status of the koala is a factor likely to have influenced the comparative willingness-to-pay decisions. Actual annual conservation expenditure for both species is lower than the estimated aggregate willingness-to-pay for their conservation. Furthermore, conservation funding for the koala is much more than that for the northern hairy-nosed wombat even though the estimated public willingness-to-pay (demand) for funding koala conservation was less than for this wombat species. Reasons for this are suggested. They may also help to explain misalignment between demand for conservation funding of other species involving differences in charisma and endangerment.     

Minimizing the cost of environmental management decisions by optimizing statistical thresholds

Environmental management decisions are prone to expensive mistakes if they are triggered by hypothesis tests using the conventional Type I error rate (α) of 0.05. We derive optimal α‐levels for decision‐making by minimizing a cost function that specifies the overall cost of monitoring and management. When managing an economically valuable koala population, it shows that a decision based on α = 0.05 carries an expected cost over $5 million greater than the optimal decision. For a species of such value, there is never any benefit in guarding against the spurious detection of declines and therefore management should proceed directly to recovery action. This result holds in most circumstances where the species’ value substantially exceeds its recovery costs. For species of lower economic value, we show that the conventional α‐level of 0.05 rarely approximates the optimal decision‐making threshold. This analysis supports calls for reversing the statistical ‘burden of proof’ in environmental decision‐making when the cost of Type II errors is relatively high.