Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbitt RJ, Scott JM (2001) Examining differences between recovered and declining endangered species. Conserv Biol 15:1274–1284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ando AW (1999) Waiting to be protected under the Endangered Species Act: the political economy of regulatory delay. J Law Econ 42:29–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ando AW (2001) Economies of scope in endangered-species protection: evidence from interest-group behavior. J Environ Econ Manag 41:312–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bean MJ (2009) The endangered species act. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1162:369–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Beissinger SR, Perrine JD (2001) Extinction, recovery, and the endangered species act. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs KE, Currie DJ (2012) Protecting endangered species: do the main legislative tools work? PloS ONE 7:e35730

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Suarez M, Revilla E (2014) Generalized drivers in the mammalian endangerment process. PloS ONE 9:e90292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gratwicke B, Lovejoy TE, Wildt DE (2012) Will amphibians croak under the Endangered Species Act? BioScience 62:197–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald N, Ando AW, Butchart SHM, Tschirhart J (2013) Conservation: the Endangered Species Act at 40. Nature 504:369–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunnthorsdottir A (2001) Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozoös 14:204–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harllee B, Kim M, Nieswiadomy M (2009) Political influence on historical ESA listings by state: a count data analysis. Public Choice 140:21–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henle K, Davies KF, Kleyer M, Margules C, Settele J (2004) Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodiver Conserv 13:207–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins CN, Pimm SL, Joppa LN (2013) Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation. Proceed Natl Acad Sci 110:E2602–E2610

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jones BD (1999) Bounded rationality. Annu Rev Political Sci 2:297–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh LP, Dunn RR, Sodhi NS, Colwell RK, Proctor HC, Smith VC (2004) Species coextinctions and the biodiversity crisis. Science 305:1632–1634

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom CE (1959) The science of “muddling through”. Public Adm Rev 19:79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manne LL, Brooks TM, Pimm SL (1999) Relative risk of extinction of passerine birds on continents and islands. Nature 399:258–261

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney ML (1997) Extinction vulnerability and selectivity: combining ecological and paleontological views. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:495–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metrick A, Weitzman ML (1996) Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservation. Land Econ 72:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz MW (2008) The performance of the Endangered Species Act. Annu Rev Ecol, Evol, Syst 39:279–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcove DS, Master LL (2005) How many endangered species are there in the United States? Front Ecol Environ 3:414–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 30F. Supp. 3d 1126 (D.N.M. 2011)

Download references

Acknowledgements

Graduate study contributing to this paper was supported by a dissertation research fellowship from Tom Slick Foundation and the J.H. Benedict Memorial Scholarship. We thank Dr. R. Neal Wilkins, Dr. Manuel P. Teodoro, and Dr. Forrest D. Fleishmann for their support and guidance as well as Dr. Roel Lopez and several anonymous reviewers for their helpful reviews.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathryn N. Smith-Hicks.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smith-Hicks, K.N., Morrison, M.L. Factors Associated with Listing Decisions under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Environmental Management 67, 563–573 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01452-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01452-3

Keywords

Navigation