No abstract

As conservation resources decline and numbers of threatened species increase, prioritizing species for conservation is increasingly important, and prioritizing based on attributes may be the most efficient approach. Despite the importance of biodiversity as a legacy to future generations, children's preferences for species attributes have never been considered. We surveyed 3rd and 5th grade students, typically 8–10 years old, in North Carolina, USA, to determine how children prioritize conservation of species based on attributes. We asked the students to rank five species attributes, allocate money to species with each attribute, and choose between each species attribute and endemism in terms of their importance for conservation. Children prioritized species that are important in nature and those whose numbers are declining over species with other attributes, whereas research suggests that adults prioritize endemic species over most other types. Our results suggest children prioritize biodiversity conservation differently from adults, and in ways that may be more conducive to biodiversity conservation in cases where endemism is not directly related to species endangerment, and we suggest the perspectives of children be considered more fully within biodiversity conservation.

SUMMARYEfforts to prioritize wildlife for conservation benefit from an understanding of public preferences for particular species, yet no studies have integrated species preferences with key attributes of the conservation landscape such as whether species occur on islands (where invasive exotics are the primary extinction threat) or continents (where land use change is the primary extinction threat). In this paper, we compare wildlife species preferences among children from a continental location (North Carolina, USA, n = 433) and an island location (Andros Island, The Bahamas, n = 197). Children on the island preferred feral domesticated species and different types of taxa than mainland children, perhaps due to the strongly divergent species richness between the regions (e.g. island children showed greater preferences for invertebrates, lizards and aquatic species). Boys preferred fish, birds and lizards more than girls, whereas girls preferred mammals. The fact that island children showed strong preferences for invasive species suggests challenges for conservation efforts on islands, where controlling invasive exotic species is often of paramount importance, but can conflict with cultural preferences for these same species.

Wildlife‐related tourism represents an important and growing economic sector for many rural communities and may be inadequately considered during regional planning. Providing robust estimates of wildlife values can help address this challenge. We used both market and nonmarket valuation methods to estimate the value of tundra swans (Cygnus columbianus) in North Carolina, USA, and compared tundra swan values among hunters, wildlife watchers, and general public. Wildlife watchers reported the greatest willingness‐to‐pay (US$35.2/wildlife watcher/yr), followed by hunters (US$30.53/hunter/yr), and residents (US$16.27/resident/yr). We used the Impact Analysis for Planning system software to estimate market values or economic activity associated with tundra swans. Tundra swan hunters spent an average of US$408.34/hunter/year. Depending on assumptions over the substitutability of tundra swan hunting, we estimate that it generates value added of between US$306,155/year and US$920,161/year for the state economy. Wildlife watchers spent an average of US$171.25/wildlife watcher/year. We estimate that this generates value added of between US$14 million/year and US$42.9 million/year for the state economy, again depending on assumptions about whether watching tundra swans would be substituted with other leisure activities in eastern North Carolina or out‐of‐state. Compared with studies of international nature tourism, we found relatively low leakage rates (i.e., loss of economic benefits outside the study region), suggesting that enhancing opportunities for hunting and wildlife‐viewing may be an effective economic development strategy for rural areas in the United States. Presenting both market and nonmarket values provides a more complete picture of the value of wildlife and may facilitate more effective management decisions; therefore, we recommend that both market and nonmarket values be considered to optimize tradeoffs between development and wildlife recreation. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.