IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v68y2009i7p2129-2136.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The ghost of extinction: Preservation values and minimum viable population in wildlife models

Author

Listed:
  • Eiswerth, Mark E.
  • van Kooten, G. Cornelis

Abstract

The inclusion of a minimum viable population in bioeconomic modeling creates at least two complications that are not resolved by using a modified logistic growth function. The first complication can be dealt with by choosing a different depensational growth function. The second complication relates to the inclusion of the in situ benefits of wildlife into the analysis. Knowledge about the magnitude of the in situ benefits provides no guide for policy about conservation management. Simply knowing that people are willing to pay a large amount each year to protect a species says nothing about whether one should manage habitat to protect or enhance the species' numbers, unless the species is in imminent danger of extinction. If willingness to pay is to be a guide, it needs to be better tied to population numbers, especially the minimum viable population.

Suggested Citation

  • Eiswerth, Mark E. & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2009. "The ghost of extinction: Preservation values and minimum viable population in wildlife models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2129-2136, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:7:p:2129-2136
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(09)00064-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bulte, Erwin H. & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2001. "Harvesting and conserving a species when numbers are low: population viability and gambler's ruin in bioeconomic models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 87-100, April.
    2. Erwin Bulte & G. van Kooten, 1999. "Marginal Valuation of Charismatic Species: Implications for Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 119-130, July.
    3. Léonard,Daniel & Long,Ngo van, 1992. "Optimal Control Theory and Static Optimization in Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521331586, October.
    4. 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.
    5. David J. Bjornstad & James R. Kahn (ed.), 1996. "The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 731.
    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. Abbott, Brant & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2011. "Can domestication of wildlife lead to conservation? The economics of tiger farming in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 721-728, February.
    2. Naald, Brian Vander & Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2011. "Willingness to pay for other species' well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1325-1335, May.
    3. Donovan, Pierce & Springborn, Michael, 2022. "Balancing conservation and commerce: A shadow value viability approach for governing bycatch," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    4. Yuzhakov, Vladimir (Южаков, Владимир) & Startsev, Y (Старцев, Я.), 2015. "Development of a Concept of an Interdisciplinary Research Program of Formation of Complex Methodologies and Techniques of Management Development in Public Administration [Разработка Концепции Межди," Published Papers mn37, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    5. Adrian A. Lopes & Shady S. Atallah, 2020. "Worshipping the Tiger: Modeling Non-use Existence Values of Wildlife Spiritual Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(1), pages 69-90, May.

    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. 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.
    2. Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2001. "The role of economics in global management of whales: re-forming or re-founding IWC?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 205-221, February.
    3. 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.
    4. van Kooten, G. Cornelis & Withey, Patrick & Wong, Linda, 2011. "Climate Change Impacts on Waterfowl Habitat in Western Canada," Working Papers 107094, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    5. Nikita Lyssenko & Roberto Mart󹑺-Espiñeira, 2012. "Respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: the case of whale conservation in Newfoundland and Labrador," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(15), pages 1911-1930, May.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Erwin Bulte & G. van Kooten, 1999. "Marginal Valuation of Charismatic Species: Implications for Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 119-130, July.
    9. 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.
    10. Poe, Gregory L. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Bergstrom, John C., 2000. "A Meta Analysis Of Contingent Values For Groundwater Quality In The United States," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21871, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Hjerpe, Evan & Hussain, Anwar & Phillips, Spencer, 2015. "Valuing type and scope of ecosystem conservation: A meta-analysis," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 32-50.
    12. Martinez-Espineira, Roberto, 2006. "A Box-Cox Double-Hurdle model of wildlife valuation: The citizen's perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 192-208, June.
    13. Charles Sims & David Finnoff & Alan Hastings & Jacob Hochard, 2017. "Listing and Delisting Thresholds under the Endangered Species Act," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(3), pages 549-570.
    14. Frédéric Gannon & Vincent Touzé, 2006. "Insurance and Optimal Growth," Post-Print halshs-00085181, HAL.
    15. Outeiro, Luis & Häussermann, Vreni & Viddi, Francisco & Hucke-Gaete, Rodrigo & Försterra, Günter & Oyarzo, Hugo & Kosiel, Klaus & Villasante, Sebastian, 2015. "Using ecosystem services mapping for marine spatial planning in southern Chile under scenario assessment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 341-353.
    16. Alice Issanchou & Karine Daniel & Pierre Dupraz & Carole Ropars-Collet, 2018. "Soil resource and the profitability and sustainability of farms: A soil quality investment model," Working Papers SMART 18-01, INRAE UMR SMART.
    17. Benchekroun, Hassan & van Long, Ngo, 1998. "Efficiency inducing taxation for polluting oligopolists," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 325-342, November.
    18. Manuel A. Gómez, 2022. "The good, the bad and the worse: current, past and future consumption externalities and equilibrium efficiency," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 137(3), pages 195-228, December.
    19. Jason P. Brown & Dayton M. Lambert & Raymond J. G. M. Florax, 2013. "The Birth, Death, and Persistence of Firms: Creative Destruction and the Spatial Distribution of U.S. Manufacturing Establishments, 2000–2006," Economic Geography, Clark University, vol. 89(3), pages 203-226, July.
    20. Adam Finn & Stuart McFadyen & Colin Hoskins, 2003. "Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 177-192, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Marginal willingness to pay Endangered species and extinction Minimum viable population;

    JEL classification:

    • Q20 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - General
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis

    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:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:7:p:2129-2136. 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.