Content uploaded by Clement Allan Tisdell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Clement Allan Tisdell on Oct 31, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Public Support for Conserving Reptile Species: Stated Values for
Different Species and Comparative Support for Their
Conservation
Chapter 10 in Clement A. Tisdell (2014) Human Values and Biodiversity
Conservation: The Survival of Wild Species, Cheltenham UK and Northampton,
MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
10.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a comparative analysis of the stated degree of support (reported by a
sample of the Australian public) for the conservation and survival of five different reptile
species. In doing so, it takes account of the public's knowledge of these species, how much
individuals like each of the focal reptile species, and other factors such as the degree to which
each species is endangered. Consequently, it extends the discussion of the previous two
chapters. A feature of the discussion is the particular attention given to the importance of
social influences as determinants of how much individuals value different wildlife species
and care about their conservation.
Most economists in studying the human valuation of wildlife do not account for the influence
of social factors on these values. They take the stated or reported values placed by individuals
on objects as given and do not explore the genesis of such values. While this may be
acceptable from a pragmatic policy point of view, because it determines what individuals
want or demand, it lacks depth. By studying how values are generated (and the dynamics of
this process), substance can be added to the analysis. Furthermore, studies of social
influences on valuation can throw doubts on the moral worth or integrity of some values
expressed by individuals about objects, in this particular case about the value of different
wildlife species (Kelso, 1977; Tisdell, 2005, p. 10).
Social influences on values are not static, even though they are to some extent path
dependent. For example, John Passmore (1974) has documented (within the Western
historical context) social changes in the valuation of wildlife and alterations in human
attitudes towards the treatment and conservation of nature generally. Furthermore, the
importance of social path dependence in the valuation of natural resources has been
recognized by Kelso (1977; see also Tisdell, 1996, pp. 49-50, 143). Social influences seem to
be especially significant in shaping individuals' valuation of reptile species, even though they
are not the sole determinants of these values. They help to explain why in many societies (but
not all) negative attitudes exist towards snakes and crocodiles, but positive ones are expressed
towards turtles; an issue explored later in this chapter.
2
This raises the question of why one should study the human valuation of reptiles and the
support for their conservation. First, it might be noted that reptiles often receive less
conservation funding from governments than do mammals and birds (Metrick and Weitzman,
1996). In fact, conservation research is biased towards mammals and birds (Clark and May,
2002). Furthermore, Australian economists studying the economics of conserving Australian
wildlife have usually focused on mammal or bird species, for example, the assessment of
Hundloe and Hamilton (1997) of the economic value to Australia of conserving the koala
(Phascolarctos cinereus) and Jakobsson and Dragun's (2001) assessment of the economic
value of con- serving the Leadbeater's possum (Gymnobelideus leadbeateri). In addition, the
economic use value of reptiles (their use for consumptive and non-consumptive purposes) has
been emphasized to the relative neglect of their non-use (passive) economic values, such as
bequest and existence values (see Pearce and Moran, 1994, pp. 19-21 for a discussion of use
and non-use values; see also Chapter 2 in this book). However, an exception to this is the
valuation of turtle species, mainly marine ones. Furthermore, those economists who have
studied the economic conservation of reptiles have favoured the economic valuation of
marine turtles (for example, Whitehead, 1992; Engeman et al., 2002). These are a highly
liked species of reptiles. Rarely have lizards and snakes, which constitute more than 90 per
cent of all reptile species (Uetz, 2013), and crocodilians been subjects of economic valuation.
Part of the reason for the above-mentioned bias may be that people, on the whole, like
mammals and birds more than reptiles (Tisdell et al., 2005; see also Chapters 13 and 14 in
this book). Studies indicate that people are inclined to protect animals that are larger in size,
physically attractive, or more humanoid in appearance, or that have greater inferred capacity
for feeling and cognition (Kellert, 1980, 1985; Pious, 1993; Metrick and Weitzman, 1998;
Gunnthorsdottir, 2001). In general, these factors favour mammal species and to a lesser
extent, birds. Hence, the conservation of reptiles is likely to be less strongly supported by the
public than that of 'the furries and the featheries' (May, 2002, p. 1330).
As mentioned above, this chapter investigates, on the basis of a sample, the factors
influencing the public's support for the conservation of each of the five Australian reptile
species (listed in Table 10.2). More specifically, it draws on results from experimental
surveys of a sample of the public:
• to provide information about the public's knowledge of the focal species, and
considers how experimentally increasing the knowledge of respondents about each of
these species changes their reported likeability of each of the species and their support
for its conservation;
• to supply information about how the likeability of a species is related to the degree of
support for its continued survival/existence;
• to investigate how the stated willingness of individuals to allocate funds for the
conservation of each of the reptile species is related to its reported likeability,
endangerment and factors such as moral considerations; and
• to consider the extent to which these results accord with those that might be expected
given Western religious and social traditions.
Note that the second point is different from the third (as will become apparent), even though
3
they are related.
Coverage of the subject matter of this chapter has the following sequence: first, general
information is provided about the conservation status and prevalence of reptile species
generally, with particular attention being given to the nature of the five Australian species
focused on in this chapter. This is followed by a brief outline of the methodology adopted for
the experimental study and a discussion of the most important results from this study. Then,
before concluding, the possible effects of social factors (for example, religious and cultural)
on attitudes of individuals to and their valuation of reptile species are given substantial
consideration.
Table of Contents of Chapter 10
10. Public Support for Conserving Reptile Species: Stated Values for Different
Species and Comparative Support for Their Conservation 209
10.1. Introduction 209
10.2. Notes on the Conservation Status and Prevalence of Reptile Species and the
Nature of the Five Species of Reptiles Assessed in this Chapter 211
The nature of the five tropical reptile species central to this chapter 212
10.3. Methodology 214
Choice of reptile species 214
Method of measuring respondents’ knowledge of the species and
their likeability 215
Method of measuring support for survival of each of the reptile
species 216
Method of estimating relative demand to finance conservation
programmes for each of the species 216
10.4. Results: Knowledge of the Focal Species, Their Likeability, Support for
Their Survival, Willingness to Pay for Their Conservation 217
Knowledge of the species and their stated likeability 217
Support for the survival of species related to their stated likeability 218
The association between the likeability of reptile species and
willingness to allocate funds for their conservation 220
Endangerment as a possible influence on willingness to allocate
funds for the conservation of reptile species 222
10.5. Discussion of the Survey Results 224
Likeability and support for the continued existence of reptile species 224
10.6. Social Influences on the Valuation of Species: Impacts of Religious
and Cultural Traditions on Support for the Conservation of Reptiles 225
10.7. Concluding Observations 228
References 230
4
List of Figures and Tables in Chapter 10
Figure 10.1 Likeability versus average percentage allocation of funds for the
conservation of reptile species in Survey I 221
Figure 10.2 Likeability versus average percentage allocation of funds for the
conservation or reptile species in Survey II 222
Table 10.1 List of countries with the largest number of threatened reptile
species, the number of their reptile species, and the percentage of
these species threatened 212
Table 10.2 List of tropical Australian reptile species covered in this study 213
Table 10.3 The list of reptile species assessed and the allocation column for
respondents to fill out 216
Table 10.4 The percentage of respondents in Survey I who said they knew the
focal reptile species 217
Table 10.5 Knowledge and likeability indices (Survey I and Survey II) for the
focal reptile species, and changes in these 218
Table 10.6 Percentage of participants who responded ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘unsure’ to
the question of whether they favoured the survival of each of the
reptile species 219