Are gray wolves endangered inthe Northern Rocky Mountains? A role for social science in endangered species listingdeterminations
BioScience, Vol: 60, Page: 941-948
2010
- 25Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage25
- Abstract Views25
Article Description
Conservation scientists increasingly recognize the need to incorporate the social sciences into policy decisions. In practice, however, considerable challenges to integrating the social and natural sciences remain. In this article, we review the US Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) 2009 decision to remove the northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves from the federal list of endangered species. We examine the FWS's arguments concerning the threat posed by humans' attitudes toward wolves in light of the existing social science literature. Our analysis found support for only one of four arguments underlying the FWS's assessment of public attitudes as a potential threat to wolves. Although we found an extensive literature on attitudes toward wolves, the FWS cited just one empirical research article. We conclude that when listing decisions rest on assumptions about society, these assumptions should be evaluated using the best available natural and social science research.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know