cost effectiveness, cost-benefit), the integration of biological, ecological, and economic models, the measurement and application of non-market values, spatial/regional issues, by-catch property rights, policy instruments and governance, and issues concerning critical habitat.
Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements.
Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
Scientific review, that is, evidence-based judgment by scientists, is frequently referred to as “peer review,” the label typically applied to scholarly review by actual professional peers.
The term does not reflect particularly well the type of review intended by the wildlife agencies, which is to obtain expert assessments of agency documents that have been generated by skilled staff who have synthesized data and analyses from the primary scientific literature and other information sources.
Inherent in much of this research, however, are complex biological and ecological relationships in which varying degrees of scientific uncertainty are present.
Addressing this type of uncertainty can affect the economic outcomes related to protected species.
Reliable characterization of the status and trends of species is required to make listing and delisting determinations, resource needs and landscape use by listed species must be quantified to develop recovery plans, and species–habitat relationships need to be analyzed to inform consultations between federal agencies when listed species may be affected by federal agency actions.
Congress anticipated that science and the input of scientists would be essential in implementing nearly all of the Act's provisions.
Less clear is whether the authors of the statute understood that formal review by outside experts of agency determinations under the Act would become common practice.
Considering the substantial economic and social impacts that can accompany implementation of ESA prohibitions, together with concerns by the environmental community that species protections are frequently inadequate, one can appreciate the demands of stakeholders that agency determinations be subjected to review by outside experts.