Abstract
The US federal government spent 6 billion dollars to protect endangered species in 2013. The previous studies have shown that federal funding allocated under the Endangered Species Act is not necessarily based on the priority a species has been assigned by the Fish and Wildlife Service. This paper asks whether this continues to be the case using more recent data from 2013. It analyzes what factors affect total species funding by various federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act, and particularly examines the role of animal charisma using the number of Google results per species as a proxy. Results show that, while federal priority ranking had no effect on funding, charisma had a significant effect, suggesting biased funding for some species of animals.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We checked that neither was a highly influential point on the regression by checking if they had a Cook’s distance, which measures the effect of deleting a given data point, greater than 4 divided by the sample size (4/265) (Bollen and Jackman 1990), which they did not.
The RESET test did not reject the null that the model is correctly specified (F(3,249) = 0.55, p = 0.6499).
We rejected a null of homoskedasticity using a degree-of-freedom conserving form of the White test, indicating that heteroskedasticity is a threat to efficiency (F(2,262) = 5.25, p = 0.0058).
We get this from (100(exp(2.332) − 1), since the variable is a dummy and the model has a logged-dependent variable.
Abbreviations
- ESA:
-
Endangered Species Act
- FWS:
-
Fish and Wildlife Service
- NOAA:
-
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- OLS:
-
Ordinary Least Squares
References
Barnosky AD, Matzke N, Tomiya S, Wogan GO, Swartz B, Quental TB, Marshall C, McGuire JL, Lindsey EL, Maguire KC, Mersey B (2011) Has the Earth/’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471(7336):51–57
Blüthgen N, Simons NK, Jung K, Prati D, Renner SC, Boch S, Fischer M, Hölzel N, Klaus VH, Kleinebecker T, Tschapka M (2016) Land use imperils plant and animal community stability through changes in asynchrony rather than diversity. Nat Commun 7:10697
Bollen KA, Jackman RW (1990) Regression diagnostics: an expository treatment of outliers and influential cases. Modern Methods Data Anal 13(4):257–291
Bowen-Jones E, Entwistle A (2002) Identifying appropriate flagship species: the importance of culture and local contexts. Oryx 36(2):189–195
Caro T (2010) Conservation by proxy: indicator, umbrella, keystone, flagship, and other surrogate species. Island Press, Washington
Cash D (1997) Science, politics, and environmental risk: regulatory decision-making in the US Endangered Species Act. JFK School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge
Charisma [Def. 1]. (n.d.). Oxford University Press. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/charisma. Retrieved 16 Oct 2018
Dirzo R, Young HS, Galetti M, Ceballos G, Isaac NJ, Collen B (2014) Defaunation in the anthropocene. Science 345(6195):401–406
Ducarme F, Luque GM, Courchamp F (2013) What are “charismatic species” for conservation biologists? BioSci Master Rev 10(2013):1–8
Encyclopedia of Life. Available via http://eol.org/. Cited 30 Aug 2017
Ferraro PJ, McIntosh C, Ospina M (2007) The effectiveness of the US endangered species act: an econometric analysis using matching methods. J Environ Econ Manag 54(3):245–261
Fortin D, Beyer HL, Boyce MS, Smith DW, Duchesne T, Mao JS (2005) Wolves influence elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 86(5):1320–1330
Gerber LR (2016) Conservation triage or injurious neglect in endangered species recovery. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(13):3563–3566
Jann B (2010) robreg: Stata module providing robust regression estimators. http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s457114.html. Accessed 17 Aug 2017
Levi T, Kilpatrick AM, Mangel M, Wilmers CC (2012) Deer, predators, and the emergence of Lyme disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(27):10942–10947
Lorimer J (2006) Non human charisma: which species trigger our emotions and why? Ecos-Br Assoc Nat Conserv 27(1):20
Lowell N, Kelly RP (2016) Evaluating agency use of “best available science” under the United States Endangered Species Act. Biol Conserv 196:53–59
Lueck D, Michael JA (2003) Preemptive habitat destruction under the Endangered Species Act. J Law Econ 46(1):27–60
Luther D, Skelton J, Fernandez C, Walters J (2016) Conservation action implementation, funding, and population trends of birds listed on the Endangered Species Act. Biol Conserv 197:229–234
Mahoney J (2009) What determines the level of funding for an endangered species? Major Themes in Economics. http://business.uni.edu/web/pages/departments/PDFs/mahoney.pdf. Cited 15 June 2017
Metrick A, Weitzman ML (1996) Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservation. Land Econ 72:1–16
Metrick A, Weitzman ML (1998) Conflicts and choices in biodiversity preservation. J Econ Perspect 12(3):21–34
Miller JK, Scott JM, Miller CR, Waits LP (2002) The endangered species act: dollars and sense? Bioscience 52(2):163–168
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2012) Full Text of the Endangered Species Act. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/text.htm. Cited 23 July 2017
Natureserve. http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?init=Species. Cited 06 July 2015
Norton BG (2014) The preservation of species. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Restani M, Marzluff JM (2002) Funding extinction? Biological needs and political realities in the allocation of resources to endangered species recovery: an existing priority system, which should guide the Fish and Wildlife Service in endangered species recovery, is ineffective, and current spending patterns decrease long-term viability of island species. AIBS Bull 52(2):169–177
Rolston H (1985) Duties to endangered species. Bioscience 35(11):718–726
Schwartz MW (2008) The performance of the endangered species act. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:279–299
Simon BM, Leff CS, Doerksen H (1995) Allocating scarce resources for endangered species recovery. J Policy Anal Manag 14(3):415–432
US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) (2012) Report to congress on the recovery of threatened and endangered species fiscal year 2011–2012. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/Recovery_Report_FY2011-2012.pdf. Cited 09 Sept 2015
US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) (2013) Federal and State endangered and threatened species expenditures. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/2013.EXP.FINAL.pdf. Cited 06 June 2015
U.S. Government Accountability Office (USGAO) (2005) Fish and Wildlife Service generally focuses recovery funding on high priority species, but needs to periodically assess its funding decisions. http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/245953.pdf. Cited 16 Aug 2017
Valiente-Banuet A, Aizen MA, Alcántara JM, Arroyo J, Cocucci A, Galetti M, García MB, García D, Gómez JM, Jordano P, Medel R (2015) Beyond species loss: the extinction of ecological interactions in a changing world. Funct Ecol 29(3):299–307
Willemen L, Cottam AJ, Drakou EG, Burgess ND (2015) Using social media to measure the contribution of Red List species to the nature-based tourism potential of African protected areas. PLoS One 10(6):e0129785
Winter M, Devictor V, Schweiger O (2013) Phylogenetic diversity and nature conservation: where are we? Trends Ecol Evol 28(4):199–204
Yohai VJ (1987) High breakdown-point and high efficiency robust estimates for regression. Ann Stat 15:642–656
Yu C, Yao W (2017) Robust linear regression: a review and comparison. Commun Stat Simul Comput 46:6261–6282
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank P. Jefferson for the initial impulse which led to this paper as well as his feedback. I am also grateful to F. Carocciolo for providing econometric advice. Finally I would like to thank J. Lauderdale for comments and editing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Bellon, A.M. Does animal charisma influence conservation funding for vertebrate species under the US Endangered Species Act?. Environ Econ Policy Stud 21, 399–411 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-018-00235-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-018-00235-1