Social Construction, Political Power, and the Allocation of Benefits to Endangered Species

Abstract

Social construction is the virtue ascribed to a subject by the general public; along with political power, it influences the allocation of public policy benefits. Nonhuman species are socially constructed by humans, and political power is held in trust for them by human interest groups. Our goal was to determine if the allocation of benefits to endangered species is consistent with social construction and political power. We assessed the social construction of broad types of species using survey data collected from a national sample of 643 respondents. We found that plants, birds, mammals, and fish have a distinctly more positive social construction than reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and microorganisms. Respondents also indicated, however, that all nonhuman species should be conserved and that ecological importance and rarity are the most important factors to consider in prioritizing species for conservation. We gauged the political power affiliated with types of species by the number of nongovernmental organizations representing them. Birds have a substantial advantage over all other types. We employed a political science model that identifies policy subjects based on social construction and political power and identified birds, mammals, and fish as “advantaged” subjects, plants as “dependents,” and reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and microorganisms as “deviants.” Numerous exceptions, especially among mammals, are best described as “contenders.” Allocation of the benefits of the U.S. Endangered Species Act is consistent with predictions of the model. A myriad of values converge to favor birds, mammals, fish, and plants in the policy arena. The most promising opportunities for species conservation in the political arena, however, may be with plants and amphibians, for which the ratio of social construction to benefit allocation is highest. Opinión Pública, Poder Politico, y Ubiación de Beneficios para Especies Amenazadas La opinión pública y el poder político influencian la distribución de beneficios hacia los sujetos humano de la política. La opinión pública sobre especies no humanas está también determinada por el ser humanos, y el poder político asociado a estas especies se ejerce a través de grupos interesados en ellas. Nuestro objetivo fue determinar si la distribución de beneficios dirigidos a especies en peligro de extinción es consecuente con la opinión pública y el poder político. Realizamos una evaluación de la opinión pública sobre grupos amplios de tipos de especies usando datos de encuestas nacionales. Encontramos que las plantas, las aves, los mamíferos, y los peces tienen una opinión pública claramente más positiva que los reptiles, los anfibios, los invertebrados y los microorganismos. Sin embargo, las personas que respondieron la encuesta indicaron que es esencial conservar a todas las especies animales no humanas, y que la importancia ecológica y la rareza son los factores más importantes a considerar al priorizar las especies para su conservación. Medimos el poder político asociado a tipos de especies por medio del número de organizaciones no gubernamentales que los representan. Las aves tienen una importancia substancial en relación a todos los otros tipos. Usamos un modelo desarrollado para ciencias políticas que identifica los sujetos de la política en base a la opinión pública y el poder político, e identificamos a las aves, los mamíferos, y los peces como sujetos “con ventaja,” las plantas como sujetos “dependientes,” y los reptiles, los anfibios, los invertebrados y los microorganismos como sujetos “desviados de lo común.” Numerosas excepciones, especialmente entre mamíferos, son descritas como “contendientes.” Las discrepancias entre la valuación pública y la distribución de recursos para esfuerzos de recuperación son consistentes con las predicciones del modelo. Se concluye que hay un gran número de valores que convergen a favor de las aves, los mamíferos, los peces, y las plantas en el terreno político. Sin embargo, las oportunidades más prometedoras para la conservación de especies en el terreno político pueden estar en las plantas y los anfibios, para los que el cociente entre la opinión pública y la distribución de beneficios es la más alta.

Funding Extinction? Biological Needs and Political Realities in the Allocation of Resources to Endangered Species Recovery

“…Ranks range from 1, highest priority (high threat, high recovery potential, monotypic genus), to 18, lowest priority (low threat, low recovery potential, subspecies). The public also believes that rarity of a species and its ecological importance should direct conservation (Czech et al 1998). Despite this agreement, many people-scientists, government officials, the public-question the effectiveness of the endangered species program (Rohlf 1991, Tear et al 1995, Carroll et al 1996, Easter-Pilcher 1996, Foin et al 1998, Restani and Marzluff 2001, in part because approximately 1 percent of listed species receive almost 50 percent of available recovery funds each year (Simon et al 1995, USDOI 1992, 1994.…”

“…Birds especially benefit from litigation because they are represented by more environmental groups than are mammals or herptiles (57 groups versus 40 and 6, respectively) (Czech et al 1998). The public appears willing to ignore taxon when establishing conservation priorities (Czech et al 1998), yet birds and mammals received more money per species than herptiles, and only for birds did spending correlate with rank (mammals: r 2 = 0.05, p = 0.11; birds: r 2 = 0.04, p = 0.05; herptiles: r 2 = 0.04, p = 0.18). Spending for mammal recovery programs also reflected special interest priorities, with most funding directed toward large, wide-ranging predators.…”

Teaching Species Identification – A Prerequisite for Learning Biodiversity and Understanding Ecology

“…Such a fundamental view of biodiversity is shared by both, educational instructors and practitioners as well as by conservation biologists. Many conservation agencies and NGOs make use of flagship species to raise money, again, emphasising the value of species (Czeck et al 1998;Dalton 2005).…”

Public Knowledge of Monarchs and Support for Butterfly Conservation

“…Education or exposure to different values may be an effective way to change the public's opinion on conservation ideas [12,[16][17][18][19] as attitudes can be based partially on social expectations and narratives [20][21][22]. For instance, during interviews with immigrant women in Los Angeles, Sustainability 2018, 10, 807 2 of 16 Lassister and Wolch [23] found that many times the participants' opinions of marine animal welfare changed after exposure to US norms on animal welfare and treatment.…”

“…Surveys of the Connecticut public and children, revealed a general dislike of insects [16,33]. Additionally, when looking at the valuation placed on invertebrates versus birds, mammals, and even reptiles and fish, invertebrates have been consistently the lowest rated in terms of monetary support for conservation [20,34]. One invertebrate of note is the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus L. (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)) since it is often used as a teaching device in schools and outreach events due to its iconic orange color and its annual trek across North America [35,36].…”