The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis
This paper updates a 1996 meta-analysis of studies using the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) to value threatened, endangered and rare species published in this journal by Loomis and White. A variable for studies conducted in or after 1995 was added to the model to test if new studies are systematically different from old studies and identify which explanatory variables influencing willingness-to-pay (WTP) for these species have changed over time. Generally newer studies yielded higher WTP. Variables such as the change in the size of the species population, payment frequency, survey mode, response rate, type of respondent, type of species, and a new variable for whether a species is a 'charismatic megafauna' or not, whether the species has use and nonuse value versus nonuse value only and year of the study, were found to significantly influence WTP. This model is used in a benefit transfer example and a comparison of original study estimates and model estimates is made to compare its accuracy. The average within sample benefit transfer error was 34-45%.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
- Catherine Chambers & John Whitehead, 2003. "A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 249-267, October.
- Thomas H. Stevens & Jaime Echeverria & Ronald J. Glass & Tim Hager & Thomas A. More, 1991. "Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 390-400.
- Edward Balistreri & Gary McClelland & Gregory Poe & William Schulze, 2001.
"Can Hypothetical Questions Reveal True Values? A Laboratory Comparison of Dichotomous Choice and Open-Ended Contingent Values with Auction Values,"
Environmental & Resource Economics,
Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 18(3), pages 275-292, March.
- Balistreri, Edward J. & Poe, Gregory L. & McClelland, Gary H. & Schulze, William D., 1996. "Can Hypothetical Questions Reveal True Values? A Laboratory Comparison of Dichotomous Choice and Open-Ended Contingent Values with Auction Values," Working Papers 127865, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
- Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clement A., 2004. "Changing Abundance of Elephants and Willingness to Pay for their Conservation," Economic Theory, Applications and Issues Working Papers 90538, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
- 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.
- 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.
- J. M. Bowker & John R. Stoll, 1988. "Use of Dichotomous Choice Nonmarket Methods to Value the Whooping Crane Resource," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(2), pages 372-381.
- Daniel A. Haqen & James W. Vincent & Patrick G. Welle, 1992. "Benefits Of Preserving Old-Growth Forests And The Spotted Owl," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 10(2), pages 13-26, 04.
- Tisdell, Clem & Nantha, Hemanath Swarna & Wilson, Clevo, 2007. "Endangerment and likeability of wildlife species: How important are they for payments proposed for conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 627-633, January.
- Giraud, Kelly & Turcin, Branka & Loomis, John & Cooper, Joseph, 2002. "Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 451-458, November.
- Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
- Douglas Noonan, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Cultural Resources: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Literature," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 159-176, November.
- Loomis, John B. & White, Douglas S., 1996. "Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 197-206, September.
- Denise L. Stanley, 2005. "Local Perception of Public Goods: Recent Assessments of Willingness-to-pay for Endangered Species," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(2), pages 165-179, 04.
- Berrens, Robert P. & Ganderton, Philip T. & Silva, Carol L., 1996. "Valuing The Protection Of Minimum Instream Flows In New Mexico," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(02), December.
- Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(02), December.
- John B. Loomis, 2000. "Vertically Summing Public Good Demand Curves: An Empirical Comparison of Economic versus Political Jurisdictions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(2), pages 312-321.
- Peter Kennedy, 2003. "A Guide to Econometrics, 5th Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 5, volume 1, number 026261183x, July.
- Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:5:p:1535-1548. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.