1932

Abstract

Wildlife species generate significant economic value through recreational opportunities, ecosystem services, and their existence and preservation for future generations. Policymaker decisions about fish and wildlife conservation, population management, hunting and fishing limits, and damage assessments all rely to some extent on nonmarket valuation estimates of the species in question. Focusing on individual species, we present a comprehensive review of the nonmarket valuation literature from 1990 to 2023. We quantify studies by species and synthesize the characteristics of these species. We examine why certain species or uses have been the historical focus. Finally, we offer some insights into gaps in our knowledge and directions for future research. While the wildlife valuation literature is extensive, we question the scope of coverage and speculate on the reasons for such heavy coverage of some species and limited coverage of others. Charisma, endemism, and rarity play a large role, as do species with large use values.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-101623-093149
2024-10-07
2025-01-07
The full text of this item is not currently available.

Literature Cited

  1. Aiken R. 2009.. Net economic values of wildlife-related recreation in 2006: addendum to the 2006 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. Rep. 2006-5, Wildl. Sport Fish Restor. Prog. , US Fish Wildl. Serv., Washington, DC.: https://digitalmedia.fws.gov/digital/collection/document/id/2267/
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Albert C, Luque GM, Courchamp F. 2018.. The twenty most charismatic species. . PLOS ONE 13:(7):e0199149
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arlinghaus R, Tillner R, Bork M. 2015.. Explaining participation rates in recreational fishing across industrialised countries. . Fish. Manag. Ecol. 22:(1):4555
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baylis K, Lichtenberg EM, Lichtenberg E. 2021.. Economics of pollination. . Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 13::33554
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bellon AM. 2019.. Does animal charisma influence conservation funding for vertebrate species under the US Endangered Species Act?. Environ. Econ. Policy Stud. 21:(3):399411
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bennett J, Whitten S. 2003.. Duck hunting and wetland conservation: compromise or synergy?. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 51:(2):16173
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bergstrom JC, Cordell HK. 1991.. An analysis of the demand for and value of outdoor recreation in the United States. . J. Leis. Res. 23:(1):6786
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Borg BL, Arthur SM, Bromen NA, Cassidy KA, McIntyre R, et al. 2016.. Implications of harvest on the boundaries of protected areas for large carnivore viewing opportunities. . PLOS ONE 11:(4):e0153808
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  9. Boyle KJ, Reiling SD, Phillips ML. 1990.. Species substitution and question sequencing in contingent valuation surveys evaluating the hunting of several types of wildlife. . Leis. Sci. 12:(1):10318
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bruskotter JT, Nelson MP, Vucetich JA. 2015.. Does nature possess intrinsic value? An empirical assessment of American's beliefs. Rep. , Ohio State Univ., Columbus:. http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1867.3129
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bulte EH, van Kooten GC. 1999.. Marginal valuation of charismatic species: implications for conservation. . Environ. Resour. Econ. 14::11930
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cerda C, Losada T. 2013.. Assessing the value of species: a case study on the willingness to pay for species protection in Chile. . Environ. Monit. Assess. 185:(12):1047993
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  13. Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC, eds. 2017.. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, Vol. 13. Dordrecht, Neth.:: Springer. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chapagain BP, Poudyal NC. 2020.. Economic benefit of wildlife reintroduction: a case of elk hunting in Tennessee, USA. . J. Environ. Manag. 269::110808
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cooper J, Loomis J. 1991.. Economic value of wildlife resources in the San Joaquin Valley: hunting and viewing values. . In The Economics and Management of Water and Drainage in Agriculture, Vol. 2, ed. A Dinar, D Zilberman , pp. 44762. Boston, MA:: Springer US
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cooper J, Loomis J. 1993.. Testing whether waterfowl hunting benefits increase with greater water deliveries to wetlands. . Environ. Resour. Econ. 3:(6):54561
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cory DC, Martin WE. 1985.. Valuing wildlife for efficient multiple use: elk versus cattle. . West. J. Agric. Econ. 10:(2):28293
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Costello C, Lewis L, Lynham J, Richardson L. 2023.. The charisma premium: iconic individuals and wildlife values. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 122::102872
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. Davis RK. 1963.. The value of outdoor recreation: an economic study of the Maine woods. PhD Thesis , Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Delibes-Mateos M, Giergiczny M, Caro J, Viñuela J, Riera P, Arroyo B. 2014.. Does hunters’ willingness to pay match the best hunting options for biodiversity conservation? A choice experiment application for small-game hunting in Spain. . Biol. Conserv. 177::3642
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  21. Duffield J, Neher C. 1991.. Montana waterfowl hunting: a contingent valuation assessment of economic benefits and hunter attitudes. Rep. , Mont. Dep. Fish Wildl. Parks, Missoula.: https://archive.org/details/1991contingentvaluatduffrich
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Duffield J, Neher C. 2022.. Incorporating deer and turtle total value in collision mitigation benefit-cost calculations. Transp. Pooled Fund Study TPF-5(358) , Nev. Dep. Transp., Carson City:. http://doi.org/10.15788/ndot2021.09.1
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Eby LA, Roach WJ, Crowder LB, Stanford JA. 2006.. Effects of stocking-up freshwater food webs. . Trends Ecol. Evol. 21:(10):57684
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  24. ÉcoRessour. Consult. Environ. Can. 2011.. Evidence of the Socio-Economic Importance of Polar Bears for Canada. Ottawa:: Environ. Can. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/ec/CW66-291-2011-eng.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Embke HS, Nyboer EA, Robertson AM, Arlinghaus R, Akintola SL, et al. 2022.. Global dataset of species-specific inland recreational fisheries harvest for consumption. . Sci. Data 9::488
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  26. Enriquez AJ, Finnoff DC. 2021.. Managing mortality of multi-use megafauna. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 107::102441
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. Environ. Can. 2000.. The Importance of Nature to Canadians: The Economic Significance of Nature-Related Activities. Ottawa:: Minist. Public Works Gov. Serv. Can. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/En47-312-2000E.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Fischer A, Weldesemaet YT, Czajkowski M, Tadie D, Hanley N. 2015.. Trophy hunters’ willingness to pay for wildlife conservation and community benefits. . Conserv. Biol. 29:(4):111121
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  29. Frank EG, Sudarshan A. 2023.. The social costs of keystone species collapse: evidence from the decline of vultures in India. Work. Pap. 2022-165 , Becker Friedman Inst. Econ., Univ. Chicago:
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Fried BM, Adams RM, Berrens RP, Bergland O. 1995.. Willingness to pay for a change in elk hunting quality. . Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23:(4):68086
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gascoigne W, Hill R, Haefele M, Loomis J, Hyberg S. 2021.. Economics of the Conservation Reserve Program and the wildlife it supports: a case study of upland birds in South Dakota. . J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 35::100385
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. Gascoigne WR, Hoag D, Koontz L, Tangen BA, Shaffer TL, Gleason RA. 2011.. Valuing ecosystem and economic services across land-use scenarios in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Dakotas, USA. . Ecol. Econ. 70:(10):171525
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. Glass RJ, More TA. 1992.. Equity preferences in the allocation of goose hunting opportunities. . J. Environ. Manag. 35::27179
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. Gren I-M, Marbuah G. 2021.. Climate change and the value of fishing in the Arctic. Work. Pap. 4, Dep. Econ. , Swed. Univ. Agric. Econ., Uppsala:. https://res.slu.se/id/publ/113525
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gren I-M, Marbuah G. 2022.. A meta-analysis of the recreational value of fishing. Work. Pap. 1, Dep. Econ. , Swed. Univ. Agric. Econ., Uppsala:. https://res.slu.se/id/publ/115259
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hammack J, Brown GM Jr. 1974.. Waterfowl and Wetlands. Washington, DC:: Resour. Fut.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hansen L, Feather P, Shank D. 1999.. Valuation of agriculture's multi-site environmental impacts: an application to pheasant hunting. . Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 28:(2):199207
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  38. Huber C, Meldrum J, Richardson L. 2018.. Improving confidence by embracing uncertainty: a meta-analysis of U.S. hunting values for benefit transfer. . Ecosyst. Serv. 33::22536
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  39. Hyder K, Weltersbach MS, Armstrong M, Ferter K, Townhill B, et al. 2018.. Recreational sea fishing in Europe in a global context—participation rates, fishing effort, expenditure, and implications for monitoring and assessment. . Fish Fish. 19:(2):22543
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Jacobsen JB, Boiesen JH, Thorsen BJ, Strange N. 2008.. What's in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity. . Environ. Resour. Econ. 39:(3):24763
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. Johnston RJ, Ranson MH, Besedin EY, Helm EC. 2006.. What determines willingness to pay per fish? A meta-analysis of recreational fishing values. . Mar. Resour. Econ. 21:(1):132
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  42. Kenward R, Sharp R. 2008.. Use nationally of wildlife resources across Europe. . In GEM-CON-BIO: Governance and Ecosystems Management for the Conservation of Biodiversity, ed. B Manos, J Papathanasiou , pp. 11732. Brussels:: Eur. Comm.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Kerr GN. 2019.. Efficiency of a recreational deer hunting bag limit. . Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 65::15
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  44. Knetsch JL, Davis RK. 1966.. Comparison of methods for resource evaluation. . In Water Research, ed. AV Kneese, SC Smith , pp. 12542. Baltimore, MD:: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kroeger T, Manalo P. 2006.. A review of the economic benefits of species and habitat conservation. Conserv. Econ. Work. Pap. 4 , Doris Duke Charit. Found., Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Loomis J, Donnelly D, Sorg-Swanson C. 1989.. Comparing the economic value of forage on public lands for wildlife and livestock. . J. Range Manag. 42:(2):13438
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. Loomis JB, White DS. 1996.. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. . Ecol. Econ. 18:(3):197206
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. Lorenzen K. 2014.. Understanding and managing enhancements: why fisheries scientists should care. . J. Fish Biol. 85:(6):180729
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. Ma K, Liu D, Wei R, Zhang G, Xie H, et al. 2016.. Giant panda reintroduction: factors affecting public support. . Biodivers. Conserv. 25:(14):29873004
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. Martín-López B, Montes C, Benayas J. 2008.. Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: the meaning of numbers. . Conserv. Biol. 22:(3):62435
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  51. Martino S, Kenter JO. 2023.. Economic valuation of wildlife conservation. . Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 69:(2):32
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. McCollum DW, Peterson GL, Arnold JR, Markstrom DC, Hellerstein DM. 1990.. The Net Economic Value of Recreation on the National Forests: Twelve Types of Primary Activity Trips across Nine Forest Service Regions, Vol. 289. Fort Collins, CO:: US Dep. Agric.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Mensah JT, Elofsson K. 2017.. An empirical analysis of hunting lease pricing and value of game in Sweden. . Land Econ. 93:(2):292308
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  54. Meuser E, Harshaw HW, Mooers AØ. 2009.. Public preference for endemism over other conservation-related species attributes. . Conserv. Biol. 23:(4):104146
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  55. Middleton A, Salerno V, Bunnefeld N. 2014.. The economics of hunting in Europe: towards a conceptual framework. Final Rep. , Fed. Assoc. Hunt. Conserv. EU, Brussels:. https://face.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/framework_for_assessing_the_economics_of_hunting_final_.en_.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Morse-Jones S, Bateman IJ, Kontoleon A, Ferrini S, Burgess ND, Turner RK. 2012.. Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects. . Ecol. Econ. 78::918
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. Munn I, Hussain A, Hudson D, West BC. 2011.. Hunter preferences and willingness to pay for hunting leases. . For. Sci. 57:(3):189200
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Or. State Univ. 2016.. Recreation use values database. Coll. For. , Or. State Univ., Corvallis:, accessed on June 22, 2023. http://recvaluation.forestry.oregonstate.edu
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Raynor JL, Grainger CA, Parker DP. 2021.. Wolves make roadways safer, generating large economic returns to predator conservation. . PNAS 118:(22):e2023251118
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  60. Rea AW, Munns WR Jr. 2017.. The value of nature: economic, intrinsic, or both?. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 13:(5):95355
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. Ressurreição A, Gibbons J, Dentinho TP, Kaiser M, Santos RS, Edwards-Jones G. 2011.. Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea. . Ecol. Econ. 70:(4):72939
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. Richardson L, Lewis L. 2022.. Getting to know you: individual animals, wildlife webcams, and willingness to pay for brown bear preservation. . Am. J. Agric. Econ. 104:(2):67392
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. Richardson L, Loomis J. 2009.. The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. . Ecol. Econ. 68:(5):153548
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  64. Rubin J, Helfand G, Loomis J. 1991.. A benefit-cost analysis of the northern spotted owl: results from a contingent valuation survey. . J. For. 12::2530
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Saayman M. 2014.. The non-consumptive value of selected marine species at Table Mountain National Park: an exploratory study. . S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 17:(2):18493
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. Segerson K. 2017.. Valuing environmental goods and services: an economic perspective. . In A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, Vol. 13, ed. PA Champ, KJ Boyle, TC Brown , pp. 125. Dordrecht, Neth:.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Subroy V, Gunawardena A, Polyakov M, Pandit R, Pannell DJ. 2019.. The worth of wildlife: a meta-analysis of global non-market values of threatened species. . Ecol. Econ. 164::106374
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  68. Tietenberg TH, Lewis L. 2024.. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. New York:: Routledge. , 12th ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Tisdell C, Nantha HS, Wilson C. 2007.. Endangerment and likeability of wildlife species: How important are they for payments proposed for conservation?. Ecol. Econ. 60::62733
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  70. Tisdell C, Wilson C, Nantha HS. 2005a.. Association of public support for survival of wildlife species with their likeability. . Anthrozoös 18:(2):16074
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  71. Tisdell C, Wilson C, Nantha HS. 2005b.. Policies for saving a rare Australian glider: economics and ecology. . Biol. Conserv. 123:(2):23748
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. United Nations. 2023.. Secretary-General's message 2023. United Nations, New York:. https://www.un.org/en/observances/biological-diversity-day/message
    [Google Scholar]
  73. USFWS (US Fish Wildl. Serv.). 2021.. 2021 fish distribution totals. US Fish Wildl. Serv., Washington, DC:. https://www.fws.gov/story/2021-fish-distribution-totals
    [Google Scholar]
  74. USFWS (US Fish Wildl. Serv.). 2022.. Budget justifications and performance information fiscal year 2022. FY Budget Justif. , US Fish Wildl. Serv., Washington, DC.: https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/fy2022-fws-budget-justification.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  75. USFWS (US Fish Wildl. Serv.). 2023.. 2022 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. Rep. , US Fish Wildl. Serv., Washington, DC.: https://digitalmedia.fws.gov/digital/collection/document/id/2321/rec/1
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Wadewitz L. 2011.. Are fish wildlife?. Environ. Hist. 16:(3):42327
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. Wallmo K, Lew DK. 2015.. Public preferences for endangered species recovery: an examination of geospatial scale and non-market values. . Front. Mar. Sci. 2::55
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. Whitten SM, Bennett JW. 2002.. A travel cost study of duck hunting in the Upper South East of South Australia. . Aust. Geogr. 33:(2):20721
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  79. Yang J, Su K, Zhou Z, Huang Y, Hou Y, Wen Y. 2022.. The impact of tourist cognition on willing to pay for rare species conservation: base on the questionnaire survey in protected areas of the Qinling region in China. . Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 33::e01952
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Zhou X, MacMillan DC, Zhang W, Wang Q, Jin Y, Verissimo D. 2021.. Understanding the public debate about trophy hunting in China as a rural development mechanism. . Anim. Conserv. 24:(3):34654
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-101623-093149
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-101623-093149
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Materials

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error