IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uqseee/54349.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Public Choice of Species for the Ark: Phylogenetic Similarity and Preferred Wildlife Species for Survival

Author

Listed:
  • Tisdell, Clement A.
  • Wilson, Clevo
  • Swarna Nantha, Hemanath

Abstract

Humans 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2005. "Public Choice of Species for the Ark: Phylogenetic Similarity and Preferred Wildlife Species for Survival," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 54349, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uqseee:54349
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.54349
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/54349/files/WP117.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.54349?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    --->

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Bergstrom & John R. Stoll & Alan Randall, 1990. "The Impact of Information on Environmental Commodity Valuation Decisions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(3), pages 614-621.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Clem Tisdell & Clevo Wilson, 2006. "Information, Wildlife Valuation, Conservation: Experiments And Policy," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 144-159, January.
    2. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo, 2004. "Information and Wildlife Valuation: Experiments and Policy," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51409, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    3. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2004. "Dependence of public support for survival of wildlife species on their likeability," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51413, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    4. Li, Xiaoshu & Boyle, Kevin J. & Pullis, Genevieve, 2012. "Does On-site Experience Affect Responses to Stated Preference Questions?," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124991, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2004. "Dynamic Processes in Contingent Valuation: A Case Study Involving the Mahogany Glider," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51414, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    6. Tisdell, Clem & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2008. "Contingent valuation as a dynamic process," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1443-1458, August.
    7. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2005. "Dynamic Processes in the Contingent Valuation of an Endangered Mammal Species," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 55064, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    8. Alejandro M. Bellon, 2019. "Does animal charisma influence conservation funding for vertebrate species under the US Endangered Species Act?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(3), pages 399-411, July.
    9. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2004. "Comparative Public Support for Conserving Reptile Species is High: Australian Evidence and its Implications," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51412, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    10. Teisl, Mario F. & Roe, Brian & Hicks, Robert L., 2002. "Can Eco-Labels Tune a Market? Evidence from Dolphin-Safe Labeling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 339-359, May.
    11. Dyar, Julie A. & Wagner, Jeffrey, 2003. "Uncertainty and species recovery program design," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2, Supple), pages 505-522, March.
    12. Ariane Amin & Johanna Choumert, 2015. "Development and biodiversity conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa: A spatial analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(1), pages 729-744.
    13. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John, 2009. "The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1535-1548, March.
    14. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Englin, Jeffrey, 1997. "Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 296-313, July.
    15. Shreedhar, Ganga & Mourato, Susana, 2019. "Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Biodiversity Conservation Videos on Charitable Donations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 180-193.
    16. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    17. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2004. "Public Support for Sustainable Commercial Harvesting of Wildlife: An Australian Case Study," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51418, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    18. Ando, Amy Whritenour, 2001. "Economies of Scope in Endangered-Species Protection: Evidence from Interest-Group Behavior," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 312-332, May.
    19. Langpap, Christian & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2002. "Success Or Failure? Ordered Probit Approaches To Measuring The Effectiveness Of The Endangered Species Act," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19713, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Michael Getzner & Barbara Färber & Claudia Yamu, 2016. "2D Versus 3D: The Relevance of the Mode of Presentation for the Economic Valuation of an Alpine Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-16, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:uqseee:54349. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decuqau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.