Further collaborative discussions are needed to identify adequate sources of funding for these innovations. One way to improve the Act would be for the ESA to provide additional funding for information and administrative resources that encourage voluntary collaborative initiatives and local efforts. Decisions regarding the protection of species and habitat conservation should be well grounded in sound social and natural science. Efforts to resolve conflicts between private property owners and the ESA would benefit from reliable information, but often information is unavailable or difficult to evaluate. For example, few, if any, thorough, objective studies of the effects of the ESA on private property owners have been published in the scientific literature.
Sound science is especially essential during the listing process.
The current Act states that listing must be based on the best scientific and commercial trade data available. Because of the complexity of these deliberations, decisions should be based on transdisciplinary, integrated scientific findings. Further, the ESA should allow the development of consistent and objective criteria for agencies to use when weighing scientific information in the listing process. The federal government needs to renew efforts to assure that information given to private property owners is clear and comprehensive as to the biological and economic costs and benefits. Evaluating these costs and benefits is often difficult, and additional research is needed in the area of land use economics and how to value preservation of biodiversity.