The Effect of a State’s Commitment on Policy Responsiveness of the Endangered Species Act Open Access

Abstract

Illegal wildlife trade is a threat to both biodiversity and security globally, and the United States has no exemption to its effects. This analysis sought to explore how states differ in illegal wildlife import rates during the years of 2001 to 2016. Through the lens of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a state’s ability to manage its resources, funds, permits, and listing for species and its effect on illegal wildlife import rates were analyzed. Ultimately, two measures of commitment, resource manager of land and permit authority, had a significant relationship with the policy responsiveness of a state as indicated by illegal wildlife import rates. As states designated greater percentages of their land to conservation and received fewer permits to take from their species, the rate of illegal wildlife imports within the state lowered. Additionally, the control of urbanization had a significant and positive relationship. Given the results, this model suggests that states that have greater commitment to their roles of resource manager and permit authority can increase policy responsiveness to the ESA by increasing lands for conservation and decreasing issued permits within their state. While the complexities of conservation cannot be addressed by one single policy measure, it is nonetheless important to analyze the results of this model and consider it as an additional tool to addressing wildlife crime at the state-level. 

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 

2. BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 3 

2.1 Review of the Endangered Species Act ........................................ 3 

Figure 1 ...............................................................................................3 

Figure 2 ...............................................................................................7 

2.2 Current State ................................................................................ 8 

2.3 Framework of the Endangered Species Act .................................. 9 

Figure 3 .............................................................................................. 9 

Figure 4 ............................................................................................. 11 

3. THEORY ........................................................................................ 15 

3.1 Partnership Federalism ............................................................... 16 

Figure 5 ............................................................................................. 20 

3.2 Wildlife Policy .............................................................................. 22 

4. METHODS ..................................................................................... 24 

4.1 Ports ............................................................................................ 24 

Figure 6 …………………………………………………………………......... 25 

4.2 Dependent Variable ...................................................................... 25 

Figure 7 ............................................................................................. 27 

Figure 8 ............................................................................................. 28 

Figure 9 ............................................................................................. 29 

4.3 Independent Variables ................................................................ 29 

4.3.1. FWS State Lands..................................................................... 30 

Figure 10 .......................................................................................... 31 

4.3.2 FWS State Funds...................................................................... 32 

Figure 11 .......................................................................................... 33 

Figure 12 .......................................................................................... 34 

4.3.3 Issued Permits ......................................................................... 35 

Figure 13 .......................................................................................... 36 

4.3.4 Citizen Petition ........................................................................ 36 

Figure 14 .......................................................................................... 36 

4.4 Control Variables ........................................................................ 38 

4.4.1 GDP ........................................................................................ 38 

4.4.2 Population ............................................................................... 39 

4.4.3. Public Lands .......................................................................... 39

Figure 15 …………………………………………………………………..... 40

4.4.4. Urbanization............................................................................ 40 

Figure 16 .......................................................................................... 41 

4.4.5. Environmental Support ........................................................... 42 

4.4.6. Ideology ................................................................................. 43 

Figure 17 .......................................................................................... 43 

4.4.7. Polarized Government ............................................................ 44

5. RESULTS ..................................................................................... 44

Table 1 ............................................................................................. 46 

Table 2 ............................................................................................. 47 

6. DISCUSSION ……………………………………………………..…...… 48

7. CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 52

8. REFERENCES .............................................................................. 54 

About this Master's Thesis

Rights statement

• Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.

School	Laney Graduate School
Department	Environmental Sciences
Degree	M.S.
Submission	Master's Thesis
Language	English
Research Field	Environmental Sciences
Keyword	Conservation Endangered Species Act Wildlife Trade
Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor	Saikawa, Eri, Emory University
Committee Members	Wegner, John, Emory University Rich, Michael, Emory University

Last modified

Primary PDF

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions
	The Effect of a State’s Commitment on Policy Responsiveness of the Endangered Species Act ()	2019-04-05 14:32:52 -0400	Press to Select an action Download

Supplemental Files

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions