Public preference for endemism over other conservation-related species attributes

Conservation Biology

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 1041-1046

  Meuser, Emily ^a   Harshaw, Howard W ^b   Mooers, Arne Ø ^a  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Atributos de las especies; Canad ; Columbia Brit nica; Endemismo; Prioridades de conservaci n

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION PLANNING; ENDEMISM; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; POLICY MAKING; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; PRIORITIZATION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; SPECIES CONSERVATION;

ARTICLE; CANADA; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; PUBLIC OPINION;

BRITISH COLUMBIA; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PUBLIC OPINION;

BRITISH COLUMBIA; CANADA; NORTH AMERICA;

EID: 67650444320     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01257.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Avise, J. C. 2005. Phylogenetic units and currencies above and below the species level. Pages 76 101 in A. Purvis, J. L. Gittleman, and T. Brooks, editors. Phylogeny and conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
2. Benjamini, Y., and Y. Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 157 : 289 300.
3. Bunnell, F. L., W. Campbell, and K. A. Squire. 2004. Conservation priorities for peripheral species: the example of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34 : 2240 2247. (Pubitemid 40335645)
4. Czech, B., P. R. Krausman, and R. Borkhataria. 1998. Social construction, political power, and the allocation of benefits to endangered species. Conservation Biology 12 : 1103 1112. (Pubitemid 28476456)
5. Czech, B., P. K. Devers, and P. R. Krausman. 2001. The relationship of gender to species conservation attitudes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29 : 187 194. (Pubitemid 32368431)
6. Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, Toronto.
7. Dunlap, R. E., and W. R. Catton. 1979. Environmental sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 5 : 243 273.
8. Findlay, C. S., S. Elgie, B. Giles, and L. Burr. 2009. Species listing under Canada's Species at Risk Act: a follow-up to Mooers et al. 2007. Conservation Biology 23 : in press. DOI :.
9. Green, D. M. 2005. Designatable units for status assessment of endangered species. Conservation Biology 19 : 1813 1820. (Pubitemid 43278046)
10. Harshaw, H. W. 2008. British Columbia species at risk public opinion survey 2008: final technical report. University of British Columbia Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning, Vancouver, British Columbia. Available from http://www.sar-pos.ca/BC-SaR-POS-Final-Technical-Report-08 - 06-24.pdf (accessed April 2008).
11. Inglehart, R. 1977. The silent revolution: changing values and political styles among western publics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
12. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2006. IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
13. Kellert, S. K. 1996. The value of life. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
14. Knegtering, E., L. Hendrickx, H. J. van der Windt, and A. J. M. Schoot Uiterkamp. 2002. Effects of species' characteristics on nongovernmental organizations' attitudes toward species conservation policy. Environment and Behavior 34 : 378 400. (Pubitemid 34490367)
15. Martín-López, B., C. Montes, and J. Benayas. 2007. Influence of user characteristics on valuation of ecosystem services in Doñana Natural Protected Area (south-west Spain). Environmental Conservation 34 : 215 224. (Pubitemid 350211174)
16. Martín-López, B., C. Montes, and J. Benayas. 2008. Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: the meaning of numbers. Conservation Biology 22 : 624 635. (Pubitemid 351813440)
17. McKinney, M. L. 1997. Extinction vulnerability and selectivity: combining ecological and paleontological views. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 28 : 495 516. (Pubitemid 28012301)
18. Mooers, A. Ø. 2007. The diversity of biodiversity. Nature 445 : 717 718.
19. Mooers, A. Ø., Prugh, L. R., Festa-Bianchet, M., and J. A. Hutchings. 2007. Biases in legal listing under Canadian endangered species legislation. Conservation Biology 21 : 572 575. (Pubitemid 46802213)
20. Montgomery, C. A. 2002. Ranking the benefits of biodiversity: an exploration of relative values. Journal of Environmental Management 65 : 313 326.
21. NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (accessed November 2008).
22. Purvis, A., P. M. Agapow, J. L. Gittleman, and G. M. Mace. 2000. Nonrandom extinction and the loss of evolutionary history. Science 288 : 328 330. (Pubitemid 30226192)
23. Species at Risk Act (SARA). 2002. Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. Statutes of Canada, Ottawa. Available from http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/ government/C-5/C-5-4/C-5TOCE.html (accessed May 2007).
24. Tisdell, C., and C. Wilson. 2006. Information, wildlife valuation, conservation: experiments and policy. Contemporary Economic Policy 24 : 144 159. (Pubitemid 43007173)
25. Tisdell, C., H. S. Nantha, and C. Wilson. 2007. Endangerment and likeability of wildlife species: how important are they for payments proposed for conservation? Ecological Economics 60 : 627 633. (Pubitemid 44960681)