For the longest time it was thought that the best way to save endangered species was to have the government allocate land for conservation. This land would have to have a large number of endangered animal species. The hope was that the designation of these hotspots would be the most effective route. However, recent studies have shown that there is no way to be certain that these areas will conserve a species. The reason is said to be that many species do not populate just one region or area. Ian Owens and David Orme found that different species in different regions have varying issues that they face. Some of the issues are poachers, disease, the destruction of their habitat, etc. There is now concern over the efficient allocation of funds to conserving the endangered species.
My thought is that maybe they should take these issues into consideration when directing funds into a conservation site. One of the men from the study said that "politics and economics control conservation". When I think of the economics of this situation I wonder if what they have been doing has been efficient or even sustainable. The study appears to show it has been neither. It would seem to me that in the future the governments need to take the issues affecting the conservation into consideration a little bit more when making policies.