TY - JOUR
T1 - Aligning actions with objectives in endangered species recovery plans
AU - Weiss, Katherine C.B.
AU - Iacona, Gwenllian D.
AU - Tuñas Corzón, Álex
AU - Davis, Olivia N.
AU - Kemppinen, Krista
AU - Surrey, Katie C.
AU - Gerber, Leah R.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work benefited from support from the National Socio‐ Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC)–NSF award DBI‐1052875. The authors would like to thank R. Buxton, Y.‐W. Li, J. Newman, and B. Sterner for several helpful conversations regarding this work. The authors would also like to thank the various undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral researchers who supported this work in its various iterations, including K. Cummings, H. Fischer, and I. Hill. The authors would also like to thank A. Mendez for her help with Figure 1 . Finally, the authors thank the reviewers for their helpful comments and feedback, which greatly improved our manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors. Conservation Science and Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology
PY - 2021/8
Y1 - 2021/8
N2 - To achieve conservation objectives for threatened and endangered species, managers must choose among potential recovery actions based on their efficacy. Yet, a lack of standardization in defining how conservation actions support recovery objectives can impede action efficacy and inhibit the efficient allocation of resources across species and projects. It is especially difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of actions in U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) recovery plans due to variation in how actions are described across different plans. To address this issue, we examined our ability to apply the internationally supported Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP) taxonomy to categorize existing ESA recovery plan action descriptions. Using ESA listed species in Arizona as a case study, we tested the feasibility of assigning CMP taxonomy categories to actions detailed in current recovery plans, and then used our assigned categories to assess the distribution of action categories. Pairs of researchers categorized and then compared levels of agreement between categories of recovery actions for 840 actions across 31 active recovery plans. Paired categorizations diverged for many of these actions, though confidence in action description assignments among pairs was highest in categorizing Research and Monitoring actions, which represented, on average, 53% (SD 0.9%) of actions with researcher agreement, and, on average, 42% (SD 0.08%) of classification among individual researchers. These results suggests that categorizable action descriptions most often correspond with Research and Monitoring objectives, and that other categories of actions required to delist species may be underrepresented in ESA recovery plans. We provide recommendations to support the application of the CMP taxonomy to current and future ESA recovery action descriptions using existing processes within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Our recommendations provide a roadmap for standardizing the description of recovery actions to improve decision-support for ESA-listed species.
AB - To achieve conservation objectives for threatened and endangered species, managers must choose among potential recovery actions based on their efficacy. Yet, a lack of standardization in defining how conservation actions support recovery objectives can impede action efficacy and inhibit the efficient allocation of resources across species and projects. It is especially difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of actions in U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) recovery plans due to variation in how actions are described across different plans. To address this issue, we examined our ability to apply the internationally supported Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP) taxonomy to categorize existing ESA recovery plan action descriptions. Using ESA listed species in Arizona as a case study, we tested the feasibility of assigning CMP taxonomy categories to actions detailed in current recovery plans, and then used our assigned categories to assess the distribution of action categories. Pairs of researchers categorized and then compared levels of agreement between categories of recovery actions for 840 actions across 31 active recovery plans. Paired categorizations diverged for many of these actions, though confidence in action description assignments among pairs was highest in categorizing Research and Monitoring actions, which represented, on average, 53% (SD 0.9%) of actions with researcher agreement, and, on average, 42% (SD 0.08%) of classification among individual researchers. These results suggests that categorizable action descriptions most often correspond with Research and Monitoring objectives, and that other categories of actions required to delist species may be underrepresented in ESA recovery plans. We provide recommendations to support the application of the CMP taxonomy to current and future ESA recovery action descriptions using existing processes within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Our recommendations provide a roadmap for standardizing the description of recovery actions to improve decision-support for ESA-listed species.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122093148&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85122093148&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/csp2.473
DO - 10.1111/csp2.473
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85122093148
SN - 2578-4854
VL - 3
JO - Conservation Science and Practice
JF - Conservation Science and Practice
IS - 8
M1 - e473
ER -