Endangerment and likeability of wildlife species: How important are they for proposed payments for conservation

Examines empirically the relative influence of the degree of endangerment of wildlife species and their stated likeability on individuals’ willingness to pay (WTP) for their conservation. To do this, it utilises data obtained from the IUCN Red List and likeability and WTP data obtained from two serial surveys of a sample of the Australian public who were requested to assess 24 Australian wildlife species in each of three animal classes: mammals, birds and reptiles. Between the first and second survey, respondents were provided with extra information about the focal species. This information resulted in the clear dominance of endangerment as the major influence on the WTP of respondents for the conservation of the focal wildlife species. Our results throw doubts on the proposition in the literature that the likeability of species is the dominant influence on WTP for conservation of wildlife species. Furthermore, our results suggest that the relationship between WTP for the conservation of wildlife in relation to their population levels may be more complex and different to that suggested in some of the literature on ecological economics.

Dependence of public support for survival of wildlife species on their likeability

We surveyed a sample of 204 individuals selected from the public in Brisbane, Australia, to ascertain the extent to which they like or dislike 24 species of wildlife present in tropical Australia. The species belong to three classes: mammals, birds and reptiles. We calculated likeability indices for each of these species. We also asked respondents if they favoured the survival of each of these species and so the percentage of respondents favouring survival of each of these species could be calculated. Thus, using linear regression analysis, the percentage of respondents favouring survival of each of the species was related to their indices of likeability. In addition, the data enables the average likeability of species in the three classes (mammals, birds and reptiles) to be compared with the average support for survival of species in each of these three classes. As a result, we are able to assess how important stated likeability seems to be for preferences for survival of species, and to reconsider the hypothesis in the literature that there is likely to be more public support for the survival of mammals than for birds than for reptiles.

Association of public support for survival of wildlife species with their likeability

We surveyed 204 individuals from the general public in Brisbane, Australia, to ascertain the extent to which they liked or disliked 24 species of wildlife (belonging to three classes: mammals, birds and reptiles) present in tropical Australia. We calculated likeability indices for each species. We also asked respondents if they favored the survival of each of these species, and were able to calculate the percentage of respondents favoring survival of each. Using linear regression analysis, we could relate the percentage of respondents favoring survival of each of the species to their indices of likeability. In addition, we compared the mean likeability of species in the three classes (mammals, birds and reptiles) with the respondents' allocation of funds (hypothetical 1,000 Australian dollars) between conservation of species and a human charity. From this, we were able to assess how important stated likeability is for preferences to conserve species by animal class, and reconsidered the hypothesis in the literature that there is likely to be more public support for the survival of mammals than for birds, and more support for the survival of birds than for reptiles.

Public support for sustainable commercial harvesting of wildlife: An Australian case study

This paper surveys a sample of 204 members of the Australian public to determine their attitude to the sustainable commercial harvesting of wildlife generally, and considers their specific support for the sustainable commercial harvesting of each of 24 Australian native species. The general attitude of the sample to wildlife harvesting is related to their attitude to nature conservation. The relationship between respondents’ support for the sustainable commercial harvesting of each of the species and their degree of endangerment based on IUCN Red List rankings is established and found to be an inverse one. Support for the commercial sustainable use of each of the species is compared with the willingness of respondents to pay for their conservation. Support for sustainable commercial harvesting of species is found to be inversely related to the willingness of respondents to pay is for a particular species’ conservation. In turn, this willingness to pay is found to rise with the degree of endangerment of species. While the likeability of a species has some influence on whether there is support or not for its commercial harvesting, it does not seem to be the predominant influence— the degree of endangerment of a species appears to be the major influence here. Even so, this does not imply majority support for the harvest of all species that are not threatened; rather, majority support for harvest was observed only for some species known to be abundant. None of the species that appear in the Red List have majority support for harvesting. Implications are outlined of the results for the policy of promoting wildlife conservation by means of sustainable use.

Comparative public support for conserving reptile species is high: Australian evidence and its implications

This paper investigates factors influencing the public’s support for conservation of tropical reptile species in a focal group drawing on Australian data and an experiment involving a sample of the Australian public. The influences of the likeability of the species, their degree of endangerment, ethical considerations as well as knowledge are examined and found to be important. Likeability is found to be much less important than the existing literature suggests. This is highlighted by comparing the likeability of the focal group of reptiles with that for a group of birds and a group of mammals with differences in willingness to pay for their conservation.

Public choice of species for the ark: Phylogenetic similarity and preferred wildlife species for survival

Humans play a role in deciding the fate of species in the current extinction wave. Because of the previous Similarity Principle, physical attractiveness and likeability, it has been argued that public choice favours the survival of species that satisfy these criteria at the expense of other species. This paper empirically tests this argument by considering a hypothetical ‘Ark’ situation. Surveys of 204 members of the Australian public inquired whether they are in favour of the survival of each of 24 native mammal, bird and reptile species (prior to and after information provision about each species). The species were ranked by percentage of ‘yes’ votes received. Species composition by taxon in various fractions of the ranking was determined. If the previous Similarity Principle holds, mammals should rank highly and dominate the top fractions of animals saved in the hierarchical list. We find that although mammals would be over-represented in the ‘Ark’, birds and reptiles are unlikely to be excluded when social choice is based on numbers ‘voting’ for the survival of each species. Support for the previous Similarity Principle is apparent particularly after information provision. Public policy implications of this are noted and recommendations are given.

Public choice of species for the 'Ark': Phylogenetic similarity and preferred wildlife species for survival

Humans play a role in deciding the fate of species in the current extinction wave. Because of the previous Similarity Principle, physical attractiveness and likeability, it has been argued that public choice favours the survival of species that satisfy these criteria at the expense of other species. This paper empirically tests this argument by considering a hypothetical ‘Ark’ situation. Surveys of 204 members of the Australian public inquired whether they are in favour of the survival of each of 24 native mammal, bird and reptile species (prior to and after information provision about each species). The species were ranked by percentage of ‘yes’ votes received. Species composition by taxon in various fractions of the ranking was determined. If the previous Similarity Principle holds, mammals should rank highly and dominate the top fractions of animals saved in the hierarchical list. We find that although mammals would be over-represented in the ‘Ark’, birds and reptiles are unlikely to be excluded when social choice is based on numbers ‘voting’ for the survival of each species. Support for the previous Similarity Principle is apparent particularly after information provision. Public policy implications of this are noted and recommendations are given.