Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for threatened species: an Australian case study

  • Walsh J
  • Watson J
  • Bottrill M
 et al. 
  • 1


    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • N/A


    Citations of this article.


Abstract Many countries rely on formal legislation to protect and plan for the recovery of threatened species. Even though the listing procedures in threatened species legislation are designed to be consistent for all species there is usually a bias in implementing the laws towards charismatic fauna and flora, which leads to uneven allocation of conservation efforts. However, the extent of bias in national threatened species lists is often unknown. Australia is a good example: the list of threatened species under the Environmental Protection and Biological Conservation Act has not been reviewed since 2000, when it was first introduced. We assessed how well this Act represents threatened species across taxonomic groups and threat status, and whether biases exist in the types of species with recovery plans. We found that birds, amphibians and mammals have high levels of threatened species (12–24%) but

Author-supplied keywords

  • Papers; Australian Conservation; Environmental Pro

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document


  • Jessica C Walsh

  • James E M Watson

  • Madeleine C Bottrill

  • Liana N Joseph

  • Hugh P Possingham

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free