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

By L. Richardson, Jackson Loomis. 2009

366 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9df268e7340c263ba83a62c376e07b2f06924dc8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation (2015, background): “, 1992; Zandersen and Tol, 2009), threatened and endangered species (Loomis and White, 1996; Richardson and Loomis, 2009), services provided by wetlands (Brander et al.”
Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: Charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects (2012, unknown): “…domestic) wildlife, the literature indicates that respondents are sensitive to certain types of wildlife, in particular, respondents are willing to pay significantly more for 'charismatic' or 'flagship' species compared with uncharismatic ones (see Richardson and Loomis, 2009; White et al., 2001).”
A Meta-Analysis of Geographical Indication Food Valuation Studies: What Drives the Premium for Origin-Based Labels? (2013, background): “…studies are therefore rare in our field: Lusk et al. (2005) compiled twenty-five studies and seventy-six observations (WTP for GM foods), Richardson and Loomis (2009) compiled thirty-one studies and sixty-seven observations (WTP for endangered species), and Murphy et al. (2005) compiled…”
Giant panda distributional and habitat‐use shifts in a changing landscape (2018, background): “Species conservation may be experiencing a resurgence in conservation circles following new evaluations of their importance to ecosystem function (Hooper et al., 2012), and other values to scientific and lay communities (Gascon et al., 2015; Richardson & Loomis, 2009).”
External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation (2011, unknown): “3 In a meta-analysis of threatened and endangered species non-market valuation studies, Richardson and Loomis (2009) note that only one study (Layton et al. 2001) did not use the CV method.”
A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies (2010, methodology): “Following Richardson and Loomis (2008) a test of linear restrictions is used to check if the error variance from one model, (baseline model) removing the variables with more correlation, is significantly larger than the error variance when the variables are included in the model.”
Biological effects, conservation potential, and research priorities of shark diving tourism. (2015, background): “…been demonstrated to be linked to variables including the size of a species population, the relative costs of conservation, the type of species, whether it has both ‘‘use’’ and ‘‘non-consumptive’’ value, and whether the species constitutes ‘‘charismatic megafauna’’ (Richardson and Loomis, 2009).”
Would Border Carbon Adjustments Prevent Carbon Leakage and Heavy Industry Competitiveness Losses? Insights From a Meta-Analysis of Recent Economic Studies (2014, unknown): “In the ﬁeld of environment and resource economics, the majority of meta-analyses summarize the results of diﬀerent nonmarket valuation studies (Van Houtven et al., 2007; Brander and Koetse, 2011; Barrio and Loureiro, 2010; Ojea and Loureiro, 2011; Richardson and Loomis, 2009).”