Ambitious biodiversity goals to protect 30% or more of the Earth’s surface by 2030 (30x30) require strategic near-term targets. To define areas that must be protected to prevent the most likely and imminent extinctions, we propose Conservation Imperatives—16,825 unprotected sites harboring rare and threatened species and spanning ~164 Mha of the terrestrial realm. We estimate that protecting the Conservation Imperatives would cost approximately US$169 billion [90% probability: $146 — $228 billion]. Globally, 38% of the 16,825 sites are either adjacent to or within 2.5 km of an existing protected area, potentially reducing land acquisition and management costs. These sites should be prioritized for conservation action over the next five years as part of a broader strategy to expand the global protected area network. The expansion of global protected areas between 2018–2023 incorporated only 7% of sites harboring range-limited and threatened species, highlighting a renewed urgency to conserve these habitats. Permanently protecting only 0.74% of land found in the tropics, where Conservation Imperatives are concentrated, could prevent the majority of predicted near-term extinctions once adequately resourced. We estimate this cost to be US$29 billion to US$46 billion per year over the next five years. Multiple approaches will be required to meet long-term protection goals: providing rights and title to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) conserving traditional lands, government designation of new protected areas on federal and state lands, and land purchase or long-term leasing of privately held lands.

Surveys assessing attitudes and values about the environment can help predict human behavior toward wildlife and develop effective conservation goals alongside local communities. Coastal Alabama, in the southeastern United States, is a hotspot for biodiversity and endemism and needs protection. Land and wildlife management practices in Alabama have moved from indigenous‐led, which is more in harmony with the environment, to larger‐scale exploitative uses for agriculture and plantations. We therefore predicted that a large proportion of the population has a dominant view of the environment in which land and wildlife are primarily for human benefit. To test this hypothesis, we surveyed over 1300 residents in Mobile and Baldwin counties—the two southernmost counties in Alabama—to assess attitudes toward local vertebrate wildlife, knowledge of the region's biodiversity, and whether individuals value protected areas where they live and/or work. As hunting is generally considered a dominant behavior, we used self‐identified hunters versus non‐hunters to examine the relationship between humans and the environment. Overall, hunters would kill or kill to eat more often than non‐hunters, and would kill even when it is not for food. Furthermore, regardless of hunting status, most participants in our survey would kill a snake, indicating that targeted environmental education is needed for this group. Both hunters and non‐hunters, independently of demographic differences including education and income levels, were not familiar with the especially rich biodiversity of the area and would not be willing to invest money to protect it. Our results indicate that targeted education about the unique and rich biodiversity of southern Alabama compared to the rest of the United States is needed to support successful environmental management, conservation actions, and local participation.