Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Agency plans are inadequate to conserve US endangered species under climate change


Despite widespread evidence of climate change as a threat to biodiversity, it is unclear whether government policies and agencies are adequately addressing this threat to species. Here we evaluate species sensitivity, a component of climate change vulnerability, and whether climate change is discussed as a threat in planning for climate-related management action in official documents from 1973 to 2018 for all 459 US animals listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. We find that 99.8% of species are sensitive to one or more of eight sensitivity factors, but agencies consider climate change as a threat to only 64% of species and plan management actions for only 18% of species. Agencies are more likely to plan actions for species sensitive to more factors, but such planning has declined since 2016. Results highlight the gap between climate change sensitivity and the attention from agencies charged with conserving endangered species.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Sensitivity to climate factors, threat assessment and planned management action.
Fig. 2: Taxonomic differences in sensitivity to climate factors.
Fig. 3: Taxonomic differences occur in whether and how climate change is discussed in official management documents for endangered animals.
Fig. 4: Discussion of climate change as a threat and planning of management action in official documents over time.

Data availability

Data are archived on Open Science Framework and available at A free, interactive web application containing data and results from this study is available at


  1. 1.

    Lipton, D. et al. in Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment Vol. II (eds Reidmiller, D. R. et al.) 268–321 (US Global Change Research Program, 2018).

  2. 2.

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A.) (IPCC, 2014).

  3. 3.

    Pounds, J. et al. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439, 161–167 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Urban, M. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348, 571–573 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Díaz, S. et al. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Secretariat, 2019).

  6. 6.

    Butt, N. & Gallagher, R. Using species traits to guide conservation actions under climate change. Climatic Change 151, 317–332 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hoeppner, J. M. & Hughes, L. Climate readiness of recovery plans for threatened Australian species. Conserv. Biol. 33, 534–542 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Scott, D. & Lemieux, C. Climate change and protected area policy and planning in Canada. Forestry 81, 696–703 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Araújo, M., Alagador, D., Cabeza, M., Nogués-Bravo, D. & Thuiller, W. Climate change threatens European conservation areas. Ecol. Lett. 14, 484–492 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Evans, D. M. et al. Species recovery in the United States: increasing the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. Issues Ecol. 20, 1–28 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Gerber, L. R. et al. Endangered species recovery: a resource allocation problem. Science 362, 284–286 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    McClanahan, T. R. et al. Conservation action in a changing climate. Conserv. Lett. 1, 53–59 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Mawdsley, J. R., O’Malley, R. & Ojima, D. S. A review of climate-change adaptation strategies for wildlife management and biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 23, 1080–1089 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Bierbaum, R. et al. A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States: more than before, but less than needed. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 18, 361–406 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Wilcove, D. S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A. & Losos, E. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48, 607–615 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    McCright, A. & Dunlap, R. E. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol. Q 52, 155–194 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    McCright, A. M., Dunlap, R. E. & Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union. Environ. Polit. 25, 338–358 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Povilitis, A. & Suckling, K. Addressing climate change threats to endangered species in US recovery plans. Conserv. Biol. 24, 372–376 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Bernazzani, P., Bradley, B. A. & Opperman, J. J. Integrating climate change into habitat conservation plans under the US Endangered Species Act. Environ. Manag. 49, 1103–1114 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (US Congress, 1973).

  21. 21.

    Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1988 (US Congress, 1988).

  22. 22.

    Peters, R. & Lovejoy, T. Global Warming and Biological Diversity (Yale Univ. Press, 1992).

  23. 23.

    Ruhl, J. Climate change and the endangered species act: building bridges to the no-analog future. Environ. Law Policy Annu. Rev. 39, 10735–10745 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Pacifici, M. et al. Assessing species vulnerability to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 215–225 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Case, M. J., Lawler, J. J. & Tomasevic, J. A. Relative sensitivity to climate change of species in northwestern North America. Biol. Conserv. 187, 127–133 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Gustafson, A., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. Americans are increasingly ‘alarmed’ about global warming. Climate Note (2019).

  27. 27.

    Trump, D. J. Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth Executive Order 13783 (The White House, 2017).

  28. 28.

    Shear, M. Trump will withdraw US from Paris Climate Agreement. The New York Times (1 June 2017).

  29. 29.

    Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012).

  30. 30.

    Platt, J. How much did the US spend on the Endangered Species Act in 2012? Scientific American (1 November 2013).

  31. 31.

    Gerber, L. R. Conservation triage or injurious neglect in endangered species recovery. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 3563–3566 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Heller, N. & Zavaleta, E. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol. Conserv. 142, 14–32 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Geyer, J. et al. Classification of climate-change-induced stresses on biological diversity. Conserv. Biol. 25, 708–715 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Schwartz, M. W. et al. Decision support frameworks and tools for conservation. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12385 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Glick, P., Stein, B. A. & Edelson, N. A. Scanning the Conservation Horizon (National Wildlife Federation, 2011).

  36. 36.

    Young, B. E., Dubois, N. S. & Rowland, E. L. Using the climate change vulnerability index to inform adaptation planning: lessons, innovations, and next steps. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 39, 174–181 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Bagne, K. E., Friggens, M. M. & Finch, D. M. A System for Assessing Vulnerability of Species (SAVS) to Climate Change (Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, 2011).

  38. 38.

    Foden, W. B. et al. Climate change vulnerability assessment of species. WIREs Clim. Change 10, 1–36 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    US Fish and Wildlife Service Information Quality Guidelines and Peer Review (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012).

  40. 40.

    NAO 202-735D: Scientific Integrity (NOAA, 2011).

  41. 41.

    Lankford, A. J., Svancara, L. K., Lawler, J. J. & Vierling, K. Comparison of climate change vulnerability assessments for wildlife. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 38, 386–394 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Wheatley, C. J. et al. Climate change vulnerability for species—assessing the assessments. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3704–3715 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Delach, A. et al. Agency plans are inadequate to conserve US endangered species under climate change (data sets). Open Science Framework (2019).

Download references


We thank N. Dubois and N. Matson for valuable input and B. Dreher, M. Evans, M. Evansen, M. Lacey, S. Pastel and S. Steingard for feedback on the manuscript. Financial support for data collection was provided by University of Maryland and the Stanback Internship Program of Duke University.

Author information




A.D. and A.C. designed the study. A.D., A.C., K.M.E., R.K., S.M., K.A.T. and L.J.V. collected data. A.D. and J.R.B.M. analysed data and wrote the manuscript. A.D., J.W.M., M.N.S. and J.R.B.M. interpreted results and J.W.M. built the web app. All authors provided critical feedback on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aimee Delach.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Nathalie Butt, Mark Schwartz and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary results, Figs. 1 and 2, and Tables 1 and 2.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Delach, A., Caldas, A., Edson, K.M. et al. Agency plans are inadequate to conserve US endangered species under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 999–1004 (2019).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing