首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      


Pre-listing conservation of candidate species under the endangered species act: An evaluation of prevalence,accessibility, and market-based conservation efforts
Institution:1. Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, New East Building, Campus Box #3140, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3140, United States;2. RiverBank Ecosystems, 1310?S. 1st?St., Austin, TX 79755, United States;1. Chair Group of Forest and Nature Conservation Policy, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Büsgenweg 3, 37077, Göttingen, Germany;2. Institute of Social Sciences, Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Zschokkestr. 32, 39104, Magdeburg, G40-310, Germany;3. Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, Jenderal Soedirman University, Jl. Dr. Suparno, P.O. Box 125, 53123, Purwokerto, Central Java, Indonesia;1. Key Laboratory of Eco-environments in Three Gorges Reservoir Region, Ministry of Education, School of Geographical Sciences, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China;2. Institute of South China Karst, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang 550001, China;3. Karst Dynamics Laboratory, Ministry of Land and Resources, Institute of Karst Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Guilin 541004, China;4. Field Scientific Observation & Research Base of Karst Eco-environments at Nanchuan in Chongqing, Ministry of Land and Resources of China, Chongqing 40843, China;1. Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc., 50 Tice Boulevard, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, 07677, USA;2. Member RIFM Expert Panel, Columbia University Medical Center, Department of Dermatology, 161 Fort Washington Ave., New York, NY, 10032, USA;3. Member RIFM Expert Panel, Malmo University Hospital, Department of Occupational & Environmental Dermatology, Sodra Forstadsgatan 101, Entrance 47, Malmo, SE, 20502, Sweden;4. Member RIFM Expert Panel, School of Natural Resources & Environment, University of Michigan, Dana Building G110, 440 Church St., Ann Arbor, MI, 58109, USA;5. Member RIFM Expert Panel, Fraunhofer Institute for Toxicology and Experimental Medicine, Nikolai-Fuchs-Strasse 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany;6. Member RIFM Expert Panel, University of Sao Paulo, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Pathology, Av. Prof. dr. Orlando Marques de Paiva, 87, Sao Paulo, CEP, 05508-900, Brazil;7. Member RIFM Expert Panel, University of Wuerzburg, Department of Toxicology, Versbacher Str. 9, 97078, Würzburg, Germany;8. Member RIFM Expert Panel, Oregon Health Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd., Portland, OR, 97239, USA;9. Member RIFM Expert Panel, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Department of Biochemistry, Center in Molecular Toxicology, 638 Robinson Research Building, 2200 Pierce Avenue, Nashville, TN, 37232-0146, USA;10. Member of RIFM Expert Panel, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Center of Excellence in Environmental Toxicology, 1316 Biomedical Research Building (BRB) II/III, 421 Curie Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-3083, USA;11. Member RIFM Expert Panel, The University of Tennessee, College of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Comparative Medicine, 2407 River Dr., Knoxville, TN 37996- 4500, USA;12. Member RIFM Expert Panel, Department of Pharmacology, University of Arizona, College of Medicine, 1501 North Campbell Avenue, P.O. Box 245050, Tucson, AZ, 85724-5050, USA;13. Member RIFM Expert Panel, The Journal of Dermatological Science (JDS), Editor-in-Chief, Professor and Chairman, Department of Dermatology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, 1-20-1 Handayama, Higashi-ku, Hamamatsu, 431-3192, Japan
Abstract:In 2011, a legal settlement required the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to develop a series of work plans to assess a backlog of candidate species for protection under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Using the resulting USFWS Fiscal Year 2013–2018 work plan, which included 261 candidate species, we identified and analyzed pre-listing candidate conservation plans (PLCP) to determine their characteristics and evaluate the use of market-based mechanisms. Among the 34 PLCPs identified, we found that species-based conservation plans were more common than habitat-based plans, and market-based conservation approaches were infrequently implemented. Inconsistencies in plan documentation were present throughout the USFWS’s online portal, and not all documentation was publicly accessible. Lastly, we found that many states had implemented their own endangered species programs or initiated conservation plans through a state agency. Our work informs the recently-adopted USFWS pre-listing conservation policy and highlights needed improvements in tracking large numbers of at-risk species as they become the subject of regulations. Increased transparency and consistency in conservation plan databases, coupled with increased accessibility, will improve future at-risk species planning.
Keywords:Endangered species planning  Pre-listing conservation  Mitigation banking  Habitat conservation plans  Candidate conservation agreements
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号