Public Choice of Species for the Ark: Phylogenetic Similarity and Preferred Wildlife Species for Survival
AbstractHumans play a role in deciding which species are preserved and which will perish in the current extinction wave. Because of the Similarity Principle, physical attractiveness and likeability, it is argued that public choice would greatly favour the survival of higher-order species at the expense of others. This paper empirically tests this argument by considering a hypothetical ‘Ark’ situation. Results are drawn from surveys of 204 members of the Australian public who were asked whether they are in favour of the survival of each of 24 native mammal, bird and reptile species. The species were ranked by percentage of ‘yes’ votes received. Species composition in various fractions of the ranking was determined. If the Similarity Principle holds, mammals would rank highly and dominate the top fractions of animals in the hierarchical list that would be saved (i.e., taken on the ‘Ark’). We find that although mammals would be over-represented in the ‘Ark’, birds and reptiles would also be well represented when social choice is based on numbers ‘voting’ for the survival of each species. Differences in public support for species in the relevant taxa are not as statistically significant as one might expect from the Similarity Principle.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of Queensland, School of Economics in its series Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers with number 54349.
Date of creation: Mar 2005
Date of revision:
Environmental Economics and Policy;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1998.
"Conflicts and Choices in Biodiversity Preservation,"
Journal of Economic Perspectives,
American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 21-34, Summer.
- Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1998. "Conflicts and Choices in Biodiversity Preservation," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1836, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Tisdell, Clem, 1990. "Economics and the debate about preservation of species, crop varieties and genetic diversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 77-90, April.
- Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1996. "Patterns of Behavior in Endangered Species Preservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 1-16.
- Ajzen, Icek & Brown, Thomas C. & Rosenthal, Lori H., 1996. "Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-57, January.
- Spash, Clive L., 2002. "Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: Coral reef biodiversity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 665-687, October.
- Tisdell, Clement A., 2007. "Institutional Economics and the Behaviour of Conservation Organizations: Implications for Biodiversity Conservation," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 55099, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
- Tisdell, Clement A., 2008. "BEHAVIOURS OF CONSERVATION ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS. Analysis based on New (and not so new) Institutional Economics," Institutional Change in Agriculture and Natural Resources Discussion Papers 6185, Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Agricultural Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.