The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is one of the most controversial pieces of environmental legislation. Part of the controversy stems from doubts about its effectiveness in generating improvements in species viability. This paper uses ordered probit models to test whether the ESA has been successful in promoting species recovery. We find a negative correlation between listing and species recovery. Additionally, we find evidence of positive effects for species-specific spending and the achievement of recovery goals. The evidence also shows that recovery plan completion and the designation of critical habit are not correlated or negatively correlated with recovery.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association) in its series 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA with number
19713.
Length: Date of creation: 2002 Date of revision: Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea02:19713
Contact details of provider: Postal: 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Phone: (414) 918-3190 Fax: (414) 276-3349 Email: Web page: http://www.aaea.org More information through EDIRC
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (AgEcon Search).
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.: