A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT RECOVERY PLANS

By J. Hoekstra, J. Clark, William F. Fagan, P. Boersma. 2002

97 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/49b09a3d53a2e38d86999b27f14c35f03103bfb1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

1. James E. M. Watson
2. Hugh P. Possingham
3. Joshua J. Lawler
4. Steven R. Beissinger
5. Nathan H. Schumaker
6. G. Guillera‐Arroita

In Ecology

1. A. Bolten
2. J. Musick
3. Liana N. Joseph
4. James E. M. Watson
5. Hugh P. Possingham
6. LB Crowder
7. Joshua J. Lawler
8. Steven R. Beissinger

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. J. Musick
2. B. Witherington
3. M. Snover
4. A. Bolten
5. James E. M. Watson
6. Hugh P. Possingham
7. LB Crowder
8. Joshua J. Lawler

Citations in the corpus

• Genetic factors in threatened species recovery plans on three continents (2016, methodology): “We developed a standard questionnaire modeled after a previous review of endangered species recovery plans in the US (WebTable 2; Hoekstra et al. 2002) and applied it to the electronic versions of recovery plans collected via online searches.”
• POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS IN ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY PLANS: PAST USE AND FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS (2002, methodology): “Here, we use a survey of endangered species recovery plans (Hoekstra et al. 2002) to evaluate how often PVA is being used in actual conservation practice.”
• AN ASSESSMENT OF MONITORING EFFORTS IN ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY PLANS (2002, background): “For a complete description of the review, database, and questionnaire see Hoekstra et al. (2002) and the project web site.8 Within the questionnaire, 24 questions addressed how the recovery plan provided for monitoring the species concerned, and 48 questions focused on criteria used in the plan to…”
• Quantifying multiple threats to endangered species: an example from loggerhead sea turtles (2011, background): “However, the effectiveness of these plans has “come under increased scrutiny in both political and academic arenas as species are continually added to the endangered species list but few are removed” (Hoekstra et al. 2002).”
• The Effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: A Quantitative Analysis (2005, background): “We also note that the development of recovery plans has become more rigorous in recent years (Gerber and Hatch 2002, Hoekstra et al. 2002).”
• Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for threatened species: an Australian case study (2012, background): “Evidence from other countries shows that taxonomic biases similar to those of threatened species lists occur for the species that receive recovery plans (Hoekstra et al., 2002; Taylor et al., 2005; Schwartz, 2008).”