IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envpol/v21y2019i3d10.1007_s10018-018-00235-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does animal charisma influence conservation funding for vertebrate species under the US Endangered Species Act?

Author

Listed:
  • Alejandro M. Bellon

    (The School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University
    Swarthmore College
    Arizona State University, Life Sciences A Wing #123)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Alejandro M. Bellon, 2019. "Does animal charisma influence conservation funding for vertebrate species under the US Endangered Species Act?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(3), pages 399-411, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envpol:v:21:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s10018-018-00235-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10018-018-00235-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10018-018-00235-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10018-018-00235-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ferraro, Paul J. & McIntosh, Craig & Ospina, Monica, 2007. "The effectiveness of the US endangered species act: An econometric analysis using matching methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 245-261, November.
    2. Lueck, Dean & Michael, Jeffrey A, 2003. "Preemptive Habitat Destruction under the Endangered Species Act," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 46(1), pages 27-60, April.
    3. Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1996. "Patterns of Behavior in Endangered Species Preservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 1-16.
    4. Benjamin M. Simon & Craig S. Leff & Harvey Doerksen, 1995. "Allocating scarce resources for endangered species recovery," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 415-432.
    5. Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1998. "Conflicts and Choices in Biodiversity Preservation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 21-34, Summer.
    6. Nico Blüthgen & Nadja K. Simons & Kirsten Jung & Daniel Prati & Swen C. Renner & Steffen Boch & Markus Fischer & Norbert Hölzel & Valentin H. Klaus & Till Kleinebecker & Marco Tschapka & Wolfgang W. W, 2016. "Land use imperils plant and animal community stability through changes in asynchrony rather than diversity," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-7, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Langpap, Christian & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2002. "Success Or Failure? Ordered Probit Approaches To Measuring The Effectiveness Of The Endangered Species Act," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19713, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Ariane Amin & Johanna Choumert, 2015. "Development and biodiversity conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa: A spatial analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(1), pages 729-744.
    3. Christian Langpap & Joe Kerkvliet, 2010. "Allocating Conservation Resources Under The Endangered Species Act," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(1), pages 110-124.
    4. Maresova, Jana & Frynta, Daniel, 2008. "Noah's Ark is full of common species attractive to humans: The case of boid snakes in zoos," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 554-558, January.
    5. Dyar, Julie A. & Wagner, Jeffrey, 2003. "Uncertainty and species recovery program design," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2, Supple), pages 505-522, March.
    6. Christian Langpap & Joe Kerkvliet & Jason F Shogren, 2018. "The Economics of the U.S. Endangered Species Act: A Review of Recent Developments," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 69-91.
    7. Kerkvliet, Joe & Langpap, Christian, 2007. "Learning from endangered and threatened species recovery programs: A case study using U.S. Endangered Species Act recovery scores," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 499-510, August.
    8. Ando, Amy, 1998. "Delay on the Path to the Endangered Species List: Do Costs and Benefits Matter," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-43-rev, Resources for the Future.
    9. Greenstone, Michael & Gayer, Ted, 2009. "Quasi-experimental and experimental approaches to environmental economics," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 21-44, January.
    10. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2004. "Public Support for Sustainable Commercial Harvesting of Wildlife: An Australian Case Study," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51418, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    11. Perry, Neil, 2010. "The ecological importance of species and the Noah's Ark problem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 478-485, January.
    12. Melstrom, Richard T., 2017. "The petroleum industry's response to an endangered species listing," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258281, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Melstrom, Richard T., 2017. "Where to drill? The petroleum industry's response to an endangered species listing," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 320-327.
    14. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2004. "Australian Tropical Reptile Species: Ecological Status, Public Valuation and Attitudes to their Conservation and Commercial Use," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51408, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    15. Andrew B. Whitford, 2007. "Competing Explanations for Bureaucratic Preferences," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(3), pages 219-247, July.
    16. Bošković, Branko & Nøstbakken, Linda, 2017. "The cost of endangered species protection: Evidence from auctions for natural resources," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 174-192.
    17. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2005. "Public Choice of Species for the Ark: Phylogenetic Similarity and Preferred Wildlife Species for Survival," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 54349, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    18. Ariane Manuela Amin, 2012. "What Drives Biodiversity Conservation Effort in the Developing World? An analysis for Sub-Saharan Africa," CERDI Working papers halshs-00722081, HAL.
    19. Ariane Manuela AMIN, 2012. "What Drives Biodiversity Conservation Effort in the Developing World? An analysis for Sub-Saharan Africa," Working Papers 201230, CERDI.
    20. Heid, Benedikt & Márquez-Ramos, Laura, 2023. "International environmental agreements and imperfect enforcement: Evidence from CITES," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envpol:v:21:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s10018-018-00235-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.