Factors Associated with Listing Decisions under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

Szczegóły
Abstrakt

Tytuł:: Factors Associated with Listing Decisions under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
Autorzy:: Smith-Hicks KN; Department of Rangeland, Wildlife and Fisheries Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA. .; Natural Resources Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA. .
Morrison ML; Department of Rangeland, Wildlife and Fisheries Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA.
Źródło:: Environmental management [Environ Manage] 2021 Apr; Vol. 67 (4), pp. 563-573. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Feb 27.
Typ publikacji:: Journal Article
Język:: English
Imprint Name(s):: Publication: New York Ny : Springer Verlag
Original Publication: New York, Springer-Verlag.
MeSH Terms:: Conservation of Natural Resources*
Endangered Species*
Animals ; Ecosystem ; Fishes ; Uncertainty
References:: Abbitt RJ, Scott JM (2001) Examining differences between recovered and declining endangered species. Conserv Biol 15:1274–1284. (PMID: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.00430.x)
Ando AW (1999) Waiting to be protected under the Endangered Species Act: the political economy of regulatory delay. J Law Econ 42:29–60. (PMID: 10.1086/467417)
Ando AW (2001) Economies of scope in endangered-species protection: evidence from interest-group behavior. J Environ Econ Manag 41:312–332. (PMID: 10.1006/jeem.2000.1145)
Bates D, Maechler M (2009) Ime4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, R package version 0.999375-31.
Bean MJ (2009) The endangered species act. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1162:369–391. (PMID: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04150.x)
Bechtold T (1999) Listing the bull trout under the Endangered Species Act: the passive-aggressive strategy of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to prevent protecting warranted species. Public Land Resour Law Rev 20:99–129.
Beissinger SR, Perrine JD (2001) Extinction, recovery, and the endangered species act. Cambridge University Press, New York. (PMID: 10.1017/CBO9780511625916.005)
Benscoter AM, Reece JS, Noss RF, Brandt LA, Mazzotti FJ, Romañach SS, Watling JI (2013) Threatened and endangered subspecies with vulnerable ecological traits also have high susceptibility to sea level rise and habitat fragmentation. PloS ONE 8:e70647. (PMID: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070647)
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
Doremus H (1997) Listing decisions under the Endangered Species Act: why better science isn’t always better policy. Washington Univer Law Rev 75:1029–1153.
Gerlach JD, Williams LK, Forcina CE (2013) Data selection for making biodiversity management decisions: best available science and institutionalized agency norms. Adm Soc 45:213–241. (PMID: 10.1177/0095399712451886)
Gibbs KE, Currie DJ (2012) Protecting endangered species: do the main legislative tools work? PloS ONE 7:e35730. (PMID: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035730)
Gonzalez-Suarez M, Revilla E (2014) Generalized drivers in the mammalian endangerment process. PloS ONE 9:e90292. (PMID: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090292)
Gratwicke B, Lovejoy TE, Wildt DE (2012) Will amphibians croak under the Endangered Species Act? BioScience 62:197–202. (PMID: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.2.13)
Greenwald N, Ando AW, Butchart SHM, Tschirhart J (2013) Conservation: the Endangered Species Act at 40. Nature 504:369–370. (PMID: 10.1038/504369a)
Gunnthorsdottir A (2001) Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozoös 14:204–215. (PMID: 10.2752/089279301786999355)
Harllee B, Kim M, Nieswiadomy M (2009) Political influence on historical ESA listings by state: a count data analysis. Public Choice 140:21–42. (PMID: 10.1007/s11127-009-9409-z)
Heard MJ, Smith KF, Ripp KJ, Berger M, Chen J, Dittmeier J, Goter M, Mcgarvey ST, Ryan E (2013) The threat of disease increases as species move toward extinction. Conserv Biol 27:1378–1388. (PMID: 10.1111/cobi.12143)
Henle K, Davies KF, Kleyer M, Margules C, Settele J (2004) Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodiver Conserv 13:207–251. (PMID: 10.1023/B:BIOC.0000004319.91643.9e)
Jenkins CN, Pimm SL, Joppa LN (2013) Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation. Proceed Natl Acad Sci 110:E2602–E2610. (PMID: 10.1073/pnas.1302251110)
Jones BD (1999) Bounded rationality. Annu Rev Political Sci 2:297–321. (PMID: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.297)
Koh LP, Dunn RR, Sodhi NS, Colwell RK, Proctor HC, Smith VC (2004) Species coextinctions and the biodiversity crisis. Science 305:1632–1634. (PMID: 10.1126/science.1101101)
Laband DN, Nieswiadomy M (2006) Factors affecting species’ risk of extinction: an empirical anaylysis of ESA and NatureServe listings. Contemp Econ Policy 24:160–171. (PMID: 10.1093/cep/byj015)
Lindblom CE (1959) The science of “muddling through”. Public Adm Rev 19:79–88. (PMID: 10.2307/973677)
Manne LL, Brooks TM, Pimm SL (1999) Relative risk of extinction of passerine birds on continents and islands. Nature 399:258–261. (PMID: 10.1038/20436)
McKinney ML (1997) Extinction vulnerability and selectivity: combining ecological and paleontological views. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:495–516. (PMID: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.495)
Metrick A, Weitzman ML (1996) Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservation. Land Econ 72:1–16. (PMID: 10.2307/3147153)
Pimm SL, Jenkins CN, Abell R, Brooks TM, Gittleman JL, Joppa LN, Raven PH, Roberts CM, Sexton JO (2014) The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344:1246752. (PMID: 10.1126/science.1246752)
Purvis A, Gittleman JL, Cowlishaw G, Mace GM (2000) Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proceed Royal Soc Londn B: Biol Sci 267:1947–1952. (PMID: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1234)
R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/ .
Schultz C (2008) Responding to scientific uncertainty in US forest policy. Environ Sci Policy 11:253–271. (PMID: 10.1016/j.envsci.2007.09.002)
Schwartz MW (2008) The performance of the Endangered Species Act. Annu Rev Ecol, Evol, Syst 39:279–299. (PMID: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173538)
Smith DR, Allan NL, McGowan CP, Szymanski JA, Oetker SR, Bell HM (2018) Development of a Species Status Assessment Process for Decisions under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. J Fish Wildilfe Manag 9:302–320. (PMID: 10.3996/052017-JFWM-041)
Smith KN (2016) Salience, special interest, and science: an emperical assessment of ESA listing decisions. Dissertation, Texas A&M University.
Stefanaki A, Kantsa A, Tscheulin T, Charitonidou M, Petanidou T (2015) Lessons from red data books: Plant vulnerability increases with floral complexity. Plos ONE 10:e0138414. (PMID: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138414)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (1994) Interagency policy on information standards under Endangered Species Act. Federal Register 94-16022.
WWF (2020) Living planet report 2020 -bending the curve of biodiversity loss. Almond, REA, Grooten M, Peterson T (Eds). WWWF, Gland Switzerland.
Waples RS, Nammack M, Cochrane JF, Hutchings JA (2013) A tale of two acts: endangered species listing practices in Canada and the United States. Bioscience 63:723–734. (PMID: 10.1093/bioscience/63.9.723)
Wilcove DS, Master LL (2005) How many endangered species are there in the United States? Front Ecol Environ 3:414–420. (PMID: 10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0414:HMESAT]2.0.CO;2)
WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 30F. Supp. 3d 1126 (D.N.M. 2011).
Contributed Indexing:: Keywords: Declining species; Extinction; Listing decisions; Species recovery; U.S. Endangered Species Act
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20210227 Date Completed: 20210423 Latest Revision: 20210731
Update Code:: 20240105
DOI:: 10.1007/s00267-021-01452-3
PMID:: 33638664
: Czasopismo naukowe

Full Text Finder

Conservation efforts, including authorities outlined in the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, are attempting to slow the decline of species. Opinions on the success of the ESA vary widely, due in part to few species historically recovering to the point of delisting. Uncertainty surrounding the ESA relates to listing decisions and ambiguity of terminology within the ESA itself. Our goal was to evaluate the relationship, if any, of species characteristics, population metrics, threat level, and potential non-biological indicators to listing decisions under the ESA by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). We collected data from 143 ESA listing decisions published in the Federal Register from February 2011 to October 2014. Only 33 and 31% of listing decisions included population or range size estimates, respectively. Factors significantly correlated with ESA listing decision included taxonomic group, primary ownership of the species' habitat (federal or non-federal), whether the species is aquatic or terrestrial, and whether the species was part of a single or multiple-species listing decision. Increasing number of listed threats and time as a candidate species correlated positively with being listed as endangered. We have attempted to broadly identify the role both intrinsic (biological) and extrinsic (non-biological) factors play in listing decisions, and the importance of comprehensive data to understanding species distribution and abundance to facilitate more informed listing decisions.

Informacja