The effectiveness of the US endangered species act: An econometric analysis using matching methods

Abstract Diametrically opposed views of the effectiveness of the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) co-exist more than 30 years after the Act's creation. The evidence marshaled to date for and against the ESA suffers from a problem common in analyses of biodiversity protection measures: the absence of a well-chosen control group. We demonstrate how matching methods can be used to select such a control group and thereby estimate how species listed under the ESA would have fared had they not been listed. Our results show that listing a species under the ESA is, on average, detrimental to species recovery if not combined with substantial government funds. In contrast, listed species with such funding tend to improve. Our analysis offers not only new insights into a controversial debate, but also a methodology to guide conservation scientists in evaluating the effectiveness of society's responses to biodiversity loss.

[1]  C. Mann,et al.  Noah's Choice: The Future of Endangered Species , 1995 .

[2]  Craig R. Miller,et al.  The Endangered Species Act: Dollars and Sense? , 2002 .

[3]  J. Shogren,et al.  An Update on Priorities and Expenditures under the Endangered Species Act , 2001, Land Economics.

[4]  G. Imbens,et al.  Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects , 2004 .

[5]  E. Stokstad.  What's Wrong With the Endangered Species Act? , 2005, Science.

[6]  J. Michael,et al.  Preemptive Habitat Destruction under the Endangered Species Act* , 2003, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[7]  S. Polasky,et al.  When the Truth Hurts: Endangered Species Policy on Private Land with Imperfect Information☆☆☆ , 1998 .

[8]  Christian Langpap,et al.  Allocating Conservation Resources Under the Endangered Species Act , 2010 .

[9]  M. Bean,et al.  Measuring progress in US endangered species conservation. , 2005, Ecology letters.

[10]  S. Yaffee.  Prohibitive Policy: Implementing the Federal Endangered Species Act , 1982 .

[11]  Daniel L. Millimet,et al.  Does Private Tutoring Payoff? , 2008, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[12]  Robert Innes,et al.  Takings, Compensation, and Equal Treatment for Owners of Developed and Undeveloped Property1 , 1997, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[13]  D. Wilcove,et al.  What Exactly Is an Endangered Species? An Analysis of the U.S. Endangered Species List: 1985–1991 , 1993 .

[14]  Amy W. Ando.  Waiting to Be Protected Under the Endangered Species Act: The Political Economy of Regulatory Delay* , 1999, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[15]  M. Gangl.  RBOUNDS: Stata module to perform Rosenbaum sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects on the treated , 2004 .

[16]  Daniel L. Millimet,et al.  School Nutrition Programs and the Incidence of Childhood Obesity , 2008 .

[17]  B. Sianesi,et al.  PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing , 2003 .

[18]  Jeffrey A. Smith,et al.  Does Matching Overcome Lalonde's Critique of Nonexperimental Estimators? , 2000 .

[19]  D. Rubin,et al.  Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the Propensity Score , 1984 .

[20]  Daowei Zhang.  Endangered Species and Timber Harvesting: The Case of Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers , 2004 .

[21]  Success or Failure: Measuring the Effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act , 2002 .

[22]  M. Frölich.  Finite-Sample Properties of Propensity-Score Matching and Weighting Estimators , 2004 .

[23]  J. Rachlinski.  Noah by the Numbers: An Empirical Evaluation of the Endangered Species Act , 1997 .

[24]  Ross Cullen,et al.  Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of yellow-eyed penguin recovery , 2009 .

[25]  T. DiPrete,et al.  7. Assessing Bias in the Estimation of Causal Effects: Rosenbaum Bounds on Matching Estimators and Instrumental Variables Estimation with Imperfect Instruments , 2004 .

[26]  A. Ichino,et al.  From Temporary Help Jobs to Permanent Employment: What Can We Learn from Matching Estimators and Their Sensitivity? , 2006, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[27]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[28]  G. Imbens,et al.  On the Failure of the Bootstrap for Matching Estimators , 2006 .

[29]  Andrew Metrick,et al.  Patterns of Behavior in Biodiversity Preservation , 1994 .

[30]  J. Shogren,et al.  Economics of the Endangered Species Act , 1998 .

[31]  Jonah Busch,et al.  Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of Yellow-Eyed Penguin conservation measures , 2008 .

[32]  J. Rachlinski,et al.  The Effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: A Quantitative Analysis , 2005 .

[33]  Christian Langpap,et al.  Success or Failure? Ordered Probit Approaches to Measuring the Effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act , 2002 .

[34]  Craig McIntosh.  Estimating Treatment Effects from Spatial Policy Experiments: An Application to Ugandan Microfinance , 2008, The Review of Economics and Statistics.

[35]  Paul McErlain-Ward.  Science and the Endangered Species Act , 1996 .

[36]  Mark W. Schwartz,et al.  Choosing the Appropriate Scale of Reserves for Conservation , 1999 .

[37]  Holly Doremus,et al.  Listing Decisions Under the Endangered Species Act: Why Better Science Isn't Always Better Policy , 1997 .

[38]  J. K. Lacy,et al.  Conservation under the endangered species act , 1997 .

[39]  Subhrendu K. Pattanayak,et al.  Money for Nothing? A Call for Empirical Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation Investments , 2006, PLoS biology.