The effectiveness of the endangered species act: A quantitative analysis

BioScience

Volumn 55, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 360-367

  Taylor, Martin F J ^a   Suckling, Kieran F ^b   Rachlinski, Jeffrey J ^b  

^a Natl Parks Assoc of Queensland   (Australia)

^b MIT Sloan School of Management   (United States)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Endangered species; Environmental policy; Population biology

Indexed keywords

EID: 17444396370     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0360:TEOTES]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Boersma PD, Kareiva P, Fagan WF, Clark JA, Hoekstra JM. 2001. How good are endangered species recovery plans? BioScience 51: 643-649.
2. Clark JA, Harvey E. 2002. Assessing multi-species recovery plans under the Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications 12: 655-662.
3. Clark JA, Hoekstra JM, Boersma PD, Kareiva P. 2002. Improving US Endangered Species Act recovery plans: Key findings and recommendations of the SCB recovery plan project. Conservation Biology 16: 1510-1519.
4. Doremus H, Pagel JE. 2001. Why listing may be forever: Perspectives on delisting under the Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 15: 1258-1268.
5. Foin TC, Riley SPD, Pawley AL, Avers DR, Carlsen TM, Hodum PJ, Switzer PV. 1998. Improving recovery planning for threatened and endangered species. BioScience 48: 177-184.
6. Gerber LR, Hatch LR. 2002. Are we recovering? An evaluation of recovery criteria under the US Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications 12: 668-673.
7. Greenwald DN, Suckling KF, Taylor M. 2005. Factors affecting the rate and taxonomy of species listings under the US Endangered Species Act. In Gobel D, Scott MJ, Davis FW, eds. The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Renewing the Conservation Commitment. Washington (DC): Island Press. Forthcoming.
8. Hoekstra JM, Clark JA, Fagan WF, Boersma PD. 2002. A comprehensive review of Endangered Species Act recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12: 630-640.
9. [IG/USDOI] Inspector General, US Department of the Interior. 2003. Final Audit Report on Reporting and Recovery Planning and Implementation for Endangered Species, US Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington (DC): USDOI, Office of the Inspector General. Report no. 2003-1-0045.
10. Lawler JJ, Campbell SP, Guerry AD, Kolozsvary MB, O'Connor RJ, Seward LCN. 2002. The scope and treatment of threats in endangered species recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12: 663-667.
11. Mann CC, Plummer ML. 1995. Noah's Choice: The Future of Endangered Species. New York: Alfred Knopf.
12. Miller JK, Scott JM, Miller CR, Waits LP. 2002. The Endangered Species Act: Dollars and sense? BioScience 52: 163-168.
13. [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 1994. Endangered Species Act Biennial Report to Congress, January 1992-June 1994. Washington (DC): Department of Commerce. (28 February 2004; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/readingrm/ESABiennial/ bien94.pdf)
14. _. 1996. Biennial Report to Congress on the Recovery Program for Threatened and Endangered Species, October 1, 1994-September 30, 1996. Washington (DC): Department of Commerce. (28 February 2004; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ pr/readingrm/ESABiennial/bien96.pdf)
15. _. 2002. Biennial Report to Congress on the Recovery Program for Threatened and Endangered Species, October 1, 2000-September 30, 2002. Washington (DC): Department of Commerce. (28 February 2004; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ pr/readingrm/ESABiennial/2002bien.pdf)
16. Norris G. 2004. Only 30: Portrait of the Endangered Species Act as a young law. BioScience 54: 288-294.
17. [NRC] National Research Council. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. Washington (DC): National Research Council.
18. Pombo RW. 2004. The ESA at 30: Time for Congress to Update and Strengthen the Law. US House of Representatives Resources Committee. (22 February 2005; http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/more/esa/whitepaper.htm)
19. Rachlinski JJ. 1997. Noah by the numbers: An empirical evaluation of the Endangered Species Act. Cornell Law Review 82: 356-89.
20. Restani M, Marzluff JM. 2001. Avian conservation under the Endangered Species Act: Expenditures versus recovery priorities. Conservation Biology 15: 1292-1299.
21. _. 2002. Funding extinction? Biological needs and political realities in the allocation of resources to endangered species recovery. BioScience 52: 169-177.
22. Schemske DW, Husband BC, Ruckelshaus MH, Goodwillie C, Parker LM, Bishop JG. 1994. Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75: 584-606.
23. Schultz CB, Gerber LR. 2002. Are recovery plans improving with practice? Ecological Applications 12: 641-647.
24. Schwartz MF. 1999. Choosing an appropriate scale of reserves for conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 83-108.
25. Sidle JG. 1998. Arbitrary and capricious species conservation. Conservation Biology 12: 248-249.
26. Stinchcombe J, Moyle LC, Hudgens BR, Bloch PL, Chinnadurai S, Morris WF. 2002. The influence of academic conservation biology literature on endangered species recovery planning. Conservation Ecology 6: 15.
27. Suckling KF, Taylor M. 2005. Critical habitat and recovery. In Goble DD, Scott JM, Davis FW, eds. The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Renewing the Conservation Commitment. Washington (DC): Island Press. Forthcoming.
28. Tear TH, Scott JM, Hayward PH, Griffith B. 1993. Trend and prospects for success of the Endangered Species Act: A look at recovery plans. Science 262: 976-977.
29. _. 1995. Recovery plans and the Endangered Species Act: Are criticisms supported by data? Conservation Biology 9: 182-195.
30. [USDOI] US Department of the Interior. 2003. Critical Habitat - Questions and Answers, May 2003. (22 February 2005; http://endangered.fws.gov/ criticalhabitat/CH_qanda.pdf)
31. [USFWS] US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Report to Congress: Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Program. Washington (DC): US Department of the Interior.
32. _. 1992. Report to Congress: Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Program. Washington (DC): US Department of the Interior.
33. _. 1994. Report to Congress: Recovery Program, Endangered and Threatened Species. Washington (DC): US Department of the Interior.
34. _. 1999. Report to Congress on the Recovery Program for Threatened and Endangered Species, 1996. Washington (DC): USFWS, US Department of the Interior. (22 February 2005; http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/report_to_congress.html)
35. _. 2000. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2000. Washington (DC): US Department of the Interior.
36. _. 2003. Recovery Report to Congress: Fiscal Years 1997-98 and 1999-2 000. Washington (DC): US Department of the Interior. (4 March 2005; http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/reports_to_congress/97-2000/report_text.pdf)
37. _. 2004a. Recovery Report to Congress: Fiscal Years 2001-2002. Washington (DC): US Department of the Interior.
38. _. 2004b. Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS): Listed Species and Populations with Recovery Plans. Washington (DC): US Department of the Interior. (22 February 2005; http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_ public/ TESSWebpageRecovery?sort=1)
39. Whitfield J. 2003. US Endangered Species Act turns 30: Birthday comes at critical point for US conservation policy. BioEd Online: Biology News from Nature News Service (23 December). (22 February 2005; www. bioedonline.org/news/ news.cfm?art=698).
40. Wilcove DS, McMillan M, Winston KC. 1993. What exactly is an endangered species? An analysis of the US Endangered Species List: 1985-1990. Conservation Biology 7: 87-93.
41. Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States: Assessing the relative importance of habitat destruction, alien species, pollution, overexploitation and disease. BioScience 48: 607-615.