Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Protecting Endangered Species: Do the Main Legislative Tools Work?

By Katherine E. Gibbs and David J. Currie


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

Topics: Research Article
Publisher: Public Library of Science
OAI identifier:
Provided by: PubMed Central

Suggested articles


  1. (2002). A critical role for critical habitat in the recovery planning process? Not yet.
  2. (1974). Analysis of qualitative choice behavior.
  3. (1999). Computing measures of explained variation for logistic regression models.
  4. (2006). Critical habitat and recovery. In:
  5. (2007). Critical habitat. What is it?.
  6. (2008). Department of the Interior (2003) Endangered Species Act ‘‘Broken’’.
  7. (2009). Doing more good than harm - Building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management.
  8. (1973). Endangered Species Act
  9. (1990). Evolution and Application of Critical Habitat under the Endangered Species Act.
  10. (2001). Examining differences between recovered and declining endangered species.
  11. (1990). Federal and state endangered and threatened species expenditure: fiscal years:
  12. (2001). How good are endangered species recovery plans?
  13. (1998). Impending recovery of Kirtland’s warbler: Case study in the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act.
  14. (2007). Learning from endangered and threatened species recovery programs: A case study using US Endangered Species Act recovery scores.
  15. (2006). Managing the working landscape. In:
  16. (2005). Measuring progress in US endangered species conservation.
  17. (2009). NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life Version 7.1. NatureServe,
  18. (1997). Noah by the numbers: an empirical evaluation of the Endangered Species Act.
  19. (1998). Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States.
  20. (2005). Recovery of imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act: the need for a new approach.
  21. (1995). Recovery Plans and the Endangered-Species-Act - Are Criticisms Supported by Data.
  22. (1990). Report to Congress on the recovery of threatened and endangered species: fiscal years
  23. (2006). Resolving critical habitat designation failures: Reconciling law, policy, and biology.
  24. (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.
  25. (2005). The effectiveness of the endangered species act: A quantitative analysis.
  26. (2007). The effectiveness of the US endangered species act: An econometric analysis using matching methods.
  27. (2009). The Endangered Species Act Science, Policy, and Politics.
  28. (2002). The Endangered Species Act: Dollars and sense?
  29. (2006). The listing record. In: Globe DD,
  30. (2008). The Performance of the Endangered Species Act.
  31. (2006). Threatened and endangered species system (TESS).

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.