IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v68y2009i5p1535-1548.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Richardson, Leslie
  • Loomis, John

Abstract

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%.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:5:p:1535-1548
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(08)00477-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard C. Ready & Richard C. Bishop, 1991. "Endangered Species and the Safe Minimum Standard," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(2), pages 309-312.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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(2), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Ronald G. Cummings & Philip T. Ganderton & Thomas McGuckin, 1994. "Substitution Effects in CVM Values," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(2), pages 205-214.
    6. 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.
    7. 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, April.
    8. 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(2), pages 1-16, December.
    9. 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.
    10. King, David A. & Flynn, Deborah J. & Shaw, William W., 1988. "Total and Existence Values of a Herd of Desert Bighorn Sheep," Western Region Archives 303518, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    11. 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.
    12. Peter Kennedy, 2003. "A Guide to Econometrics, 5th Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 5, volume 1, number 026261183x, December.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Kevin J. Boyle & Gregory L. Poe & John C. Bergstrom, 1994. "What Do We Know About Groundwater Values? Preliminary Implications from a Meta Analysis of Contingent-Valuation Studies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(5), pages 1055-1061.
    20. 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, April.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Ressurreição, Adriana & Gibbons, James & Dentinho, Tomaz Ponce & Kaiser, Michel & Santos, Ricardo S. & Edwards-Jones, Gareth, 2011. "Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 729-739, February.
    4. 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, April.
    5. Moritz A. Drupp & Zachary M. Turk & Ben Groom & Jonas Heckenhahn, 2024. "Limited Substitutability, Relative Price Changes and the Uplifting of Public Natural Capital Values," CESifo Working Paper Series 11156, CESifo.
    6. Elena Ojea & Maria L. Loureiro, 2009. "Valuation Of Wildlife: Revising Some Additional Considerations For Scope Tests," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 27(2), pages 236-250, April.
    7. Barrio, Melina & Loureiro, Maria L., 2010. "A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1023-1030, March.
    8. Farr, Marina & Stoeckl, Natalie & Alam Beg, Rabiul, 2014. "The non-consumptive (tourism) ‘value’ of marine species in the Northern section of the Great Barrier Reef," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 89-103.
    9. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clem, 2004. "The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: a policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 93-107, January.
    10. 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.
    11. Loureiro, Maria L. & Ojea, Elena, 2008. "Valuing local endangered species: The role of intra-species substitutes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 362-369, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    14. 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.
    15. Lakhani, Raksha & Doluweera, Ganesh & Bergerson, Joule, 2014. "Internalizing land use impacts for life cycle cost analysis of energy systems: A case of California’s photovoltaic implementation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 253-259.
    16. Ik-Chang Choi & Hyun No Kim & Hio-Jung Shin & John Tenhunen & Trung Thanh Nguyen, 2017. "Economic Valuation of the Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation in South Korea: Correcting for the Endogeneity Bias in Contingent Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, June.
    17. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2004. "Australian Tropical Reptile Species: Ecological Status, Public Valuation and Attitudes to their Conservation and Commercial Use," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51408, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    18. Brander, Luke M. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Kuik, Onno & Markandya, Anil & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D. & Schaafsma, Marije & Wagtendonk, Alfred, 2010. "Scaling up Ecosystem Services Values: Methodology, Applicability and a Case Study," Sustainable Development Papers 60689, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    19. Shuang Liu & David I Stern, 2008. "A Meta-Analysis of Contingent Valuation Studies in Coastal and Near-Shore Marine Ecosystems," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-15, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    20. Jette Jacobsen & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(2), pages 137-160, June.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:5:p:1535-1548. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.