It is critical to assess the effectiveness of the tools used to protect endangered species. The main tools enabled under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) to promote species recovery are funding, recovery plan development and critical habitat designation. Earlier studies sometimes found that statistically significant effects of these tools could be detected, but they have not answered the question of whether the effects were large enough to be biologically meaningful. Here, we ask: how much does the recovery status of ESA-listed species improve with the application of these tools? We used species' staus reports to Congress from 1988 to 2006 to quantify two measures of recovery for 1179 species. We related these to the amount of federal funding, years with a recovery plan, years with critical habitat designation, the amount of peer-reviewed scientific information, and time listed. We found that change in recovery status of listed species was, at best, only very weakly related to any of these tools. Recovery was positively related to the number of years listed, years with a recovery plan, and funding, however, these tools combined explain <13% of the variation in recovery status among species. Earlier studies that reported significant effects of these tools did not focus on effect sizes; however, they are in fact similarly small. One must conclude either that these tools are not very effective in promoting species' recovery, or (as we suspect) that species recovery data are so poor that it is impossible to tell whether the tools are effective or not. It is critically important to assess the effectiveness of tools used to promote species recovery; it is therefore also critically important to obtain population status data that are adequate to that task.
References
[1]
Pullin AS, Knight TM (2009) Doing more good than harm - Building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management. Biol Cons 142: 931–934.
[2]
Gosnell H (2001) Section 7 of the endangered species act and the art of compromise: The evolution of a reasonable and prudent alternative for the Animas-La Plata Project. Natural Res J 41: 561–626.
[3]
Salzman J (1990) Evolution and Application of Critical Habitat under the Endangered Species Act. Harv Envtl L Rev 14: 311–342.
[4]
Schwartz MW (2008) The Performance of the Endangered Species Act. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39: 279–299.
[5]
Thompson BH Jr (2006) Managing the working landscape. In: Globe DD, Scott JM, Davis FW, editors. pp. 101–126. The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Renewing the Conservation Promise: Island Press, Washington, DC.
[6]
Scott JM, Goble DD, Wiens JA, Wilcove DS, Bean M, et al. (2005) Recovery of imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act: the need for a new approach. Front Ecol Environ 3: 383–389.
[7]
Solomon BD (1998) Impending recovery of Kirtland's warbler: Case study in the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. Environ Manage 22: 9–17.
[8]
Kerkvliet J, Lanypap C (2007) Learning from endangered and threatened species recovery programs: A case study using US Endangered Species Act recovery scores. Ecolog Econ 63: 499–510.
[9]
Male TD, Bean MJ (2005) Measuring progress in US endangered species conservation. Ecol Lett 8: 986–992.
[10]
Taylor MFJ, Suckling KF, Rachlinski JJ (2005) The effectiveness of the endangered species act: A quantitative analysis. Bioscience 55: 360–367.
[11]
Endangered Species Act (1973) Public Law No. 93–205, 87. US Statutes at Large 884 (Dec.23, 1973).
[12]
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1990a–2006a) Federal and state endangered and threatened species expenditure: fiscal years: 1989–2004. Washington, (D.C.): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-librar？y/index.html#expenditure Accessed 2008 May 10.
[13]
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2007) Critical habitat. What is it? Washington, (D.C.): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-librar？y/pdf/critical_habitat.pdf Accessed 2008 July 15.
[14]
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2006) Threatened and endangered species system (TESS). Arlington, (Virginia): U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available:http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_publi？c/StartTESS.doAccessed 2007 Aug 11.
[15]
Hagen AN, Hodges KE (2006) Resolving critical habitat designation failures: Reconciling law, policy, and biology. Cons Biol 20: 399–407.
[16]
Hoekstra JM, Fagan WF, Bradley JE (2002) A critical role for critical habitat in the recovery planning process? Not yet. Ecol Appl 12: 701–707.
[17]
Suckling KF, Taylor M (2006) Critical habitat and recovery. In: Globe DD, Scott JM, Davis FW, editors. The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Renewing the Conservation Promise. Washington, DC.: Island Press. pp. 75–89.
[18]
U. S. Department of the Interior (2003) Endangered Species Act “Broken”. Washington, (D.C.): U.S. Department of the Interior. Available: http://www.doi.gov/archive/news/03_News_？Releases/030528a.htm Accessed 2008 July 29.
[19]
Bean MJ (2009) The Endangered Species Act Science, Policy, and Politics. Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology 2009. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 369–391.
[20]
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2007) Critical habitat. What is it? Washington, (DC): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-librar？y/pdf/critical_habitat.pdf Accessed 2008 July 25.
[21]
Miller JK, Scott JM, Miller CR, Waits LP (2002) The Endangered Species Act: Dollars and sense? Bioscience 52: 163–168.
[22]
Boersma PD, Kareiva P, Fagan WF, Clark JA, Hoekstra JM (2001) How good are endangered species recovery plans? Bioscience 51: 643–649.
[23]
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990b–2006b, 2008a Report to Congress on the recovery of threatened and endangered species: fiscal years 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997–1998, 1999–2000, 2001–2002, 2003–2004, 2005–2006. Washington, (DC): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-librar？y/index.html#recovery Accessed 2009 May 17.
[24]
NatureServe (2009) NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed 2009 Aug 20.
[25]
McFadden D (1974) Analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in Econometrics. New York, New York: Academic Press. pp. 105–142.
[26]
Mittlbock M, Schemper M (1999) Computing measures of explained variation for logistic regression models. Comput Meth Prog Bio 58: 17–24.
[27]
Rachlinski JJ (1997) Noah by the numbers: an empirical evaluation of the Endangered Species Act. Cornell L Rev 82: 356–389.
[28]
Ferraro PJ, McIntosh C, Ospina M (2007) The effectiveness of the US endangered species act: An econometric analysis using matching methods. J Environ Econ Manage 54: 245–261.
[29]
Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998) Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48: 607–615.
[30]
Tear TH, Scott JM, Hayward PH, Griffith B (1995) Recovery Plans and the Endangered-Species-Act - Are Criticisms Supported by Data. Cons Biol 9: 182–195.
[31]
Abbitt RJF, Scott JM (2001) Examining differences between recovered and declining endangered species. Cons Biol 15: 1274–1284.
[32]
Greenwald DN, Suckling KF, Taylor M (2006) The listing record. In: Globe DD, Scott JM, Davis FW, editors. The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Renewing the Conservation Promise. Washington, DC: Island Press. pp. 51–67.
