Heeren Alexander, Karns Gabriel, Bruskotter Jeremy, Toman Eric, Wilson Robyn, Szarek Harmony
The Ohio State University, School of Environment and Natural Resources, 210 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH, 43210, U.S.A.
Conserv Biol. 2017 Jun;31(3):657-665. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12838. Epub 2016 Dec 14.
Decisions concerning the appropriate listing status of species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be controversial even among conservationists. These decisions may determine whether a species persists in the near term and have long-lasting social and political ramifications. Given the ESA's mandate that such decisions be based on the best available science, it is important to examine what factors contribute to experts' judgments concerning the listing of species. We examined how a variety of factors (such as risk perception, value orientations, and norms) influenced experts' judgments concerning the appropriate listing status of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Experts were invited to complete an online survey examining their perceptions of the threats grizzly bears face and their listing recommendation. Although experts' assessments of the threats to this species were strongly correlated with their recommendations for listing status, this relationship did not exist when other cognitive factors were included in the model. Specifically, values related to human use of wildlife and norms (i.e., a respondent's expectation of peers' assessments) were most influential in listing status recommendations. These results suggest that experts' decisions about listing, like all human decisions, are subject to the use of heuristics (i.e., decision shortcuts). An understanding of how heuristics and related biases affect decisions under uncertainty can help inform decision making about threatened and endangered species and may be useful in designing effective processes for protection of imperiled species.
根据美国《濒危物种法》（ESA）对物种进行适当的名录状态判定，即便在环保主义者之间也可能存在争议。这些判定可能决定一个物种在短期内能否存续，并且会产生长期的社会和政治影响。鉴于《濒危物种法》要求此类判定应以现有最佳科学为依据，考察哪些因素影响专家对物种名录的判定十分重要。我们研究了多种因素（如风险认知、价值取向和规范）如何影响专家对大黄石生态系统中灰熊（Ursus arctos horribilis）种群适当名录状态的判定。邀请专家完成一项在线调查，考察他们对灰熊面临威胁的认知以及他们的名录推荐。尽管专家对该物种威胁的评估与他们对名录状态的推荐密切相关，但当模型纳入其他认知因素时，这种关系并不存在。具体而言，与人类对野生动物的利用相关的价值观和规范（即受访者对同行评估的预期）在名录状态推荐中最具影响力。这些结果表明，专家关于名录的判定与所有人类决策一样，都受到启发式思维（即决策捷径）的影响。了解启发式思维及相关偏差如何在不确定性情况下影响决策，有助于为有关受威胁和濒危物种的决策提供信息，并且可能有助于设计保护濒危物种的有效程序。
