The market value of rarity

Koford, Kenneth; Tschoegl, Adrian E.

doi:10.1016/s0167-2681(97)00084-x

Cited by 52 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Perhaps unsurprisingly, we tend to think about, care for, and manage rare species much more than common ones, even though the functional value of rare species (and other rare things) is rarely in line with their scientific importance in an ecosystem ( Metrick and Weitzman, 1996 , Koford and Tschoegl, 1998 , Gerber, 2016 ; but see Bracken and Low, 2012 and Jain et al., 2014 for counter-examples). Even among rare species, most resources directed at implementing recovery plans for their populations or protecting necessary “habitat” (which may include a foundation species) for their continued persistence are showered on only a handful of taxa ( Metrick and Weitzman, 1996 , Gerber, 2016 ).…”

Section: Conservation Value Of Foundation Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ecological systems consist of a mixture of rare and common species, and the general shape of the frequency distribution of abundance of individual species is that of a “reverse-J”: a few very abundant species and many with low abundance ( Fisher et al., 1943 , Preston, 1948 , MacArthur, 1960 , Ulrich et al., 2010 ; Figure 4 ). If rarity alone confers value ( Koford and Tschoegl, 1998 ), then the rarity of commonness should be valued ( Gaston and Fuller, 2007 , Gaston and Fuller, 2008 ) and common species—especially those with clearly important ecosystem functions—should be worth preserving in their common state. Gerber (2016) and others have argued that conservation “triage” should be used to better allocate resources from rare and endangered species that are receiving most conservation funding but are still declining to other rare and endangered species that are currently underfunded but have better odds for recovery ( Cornwall, 2018 ).…”

Section: Conservation Value Of Foundation Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Foundation Species, Non-trophic Interactions, and the Value of Being Common

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foundation species define ecosystems, control the biological diversity of associated species, modulate critical ecosystem processes, and often have important cultural values and resonance. This review summarizes current understanding of the characteristics and traits of foundation species and how to distinguish them from other “important” species in ecological systems (e.g., keystone, dominant, and core species); illustrates how analysis of the structure and function of ecological networks can be improved and enriched by explicit incorporation of foundation species and their non-trophic interactions; discusses the importance of pro-active identification and management of foundation species as a cost-effective and efficient method of sustaining valuable ecosystem processes and services and securing populations of associated rare, threatened, or endangered species; and suggests broader engagement of citizen-scientists and non-specialists in the identification and study of foundation species and their biological and cultural values.

show abstract

Section: Conservation Value Of Foundation Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conservation Value Of Foundation Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foundation Species, Non-trophic Interactions, and the Value of Being Common

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some researchers think that scarce commodities have higher prices because scarcity or unavailability can serve as a heuristic cue (Koford and Tschoegl, 1998). Lynn (1989) points out that scarcity enhances the desire for art prints but only when subjects had previously been primed to think about the expensiveness of art prints in general.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of product scarcity and consumers' need for uniqueness on purchase intention

Ying-yin

et al. 2011

Int J Consumer Studies

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scarcity strategies are employed by marketers to influence consumer decision making. Many famous brands have been designed and produced for the purpose of as being marketed as limited-edition products to intensify consumer desire and intention to purchase them. However, very few studies have simultaneously integrated relevant constructs to explain the phenomenon of scarcity purchasing. To fill this void, this study develops a comprehensive research model in order to fully understand how scarcity affects consumer value perception and purchase intention. Simultaneously, two competing models are developed to compare the explanation power of Lynn's Scarcity-Expensiveness-Desirability (S-E-D) model and Synde and Fromkin's desire for uniqueness model. The results suggest that the effects of scarcity on purchase intention through perceived uniqueness, perceived sacrifice and perceived value are stronger than the scarcity effects through assumed expensiveness, perceived quality, perceived sacrifice and perceived value.

show abstract

“…Other studies have confirmed scarcity effects on price for different collectible items, such as coins (Koford & Tschoegl, 1997; see also Lynn, 1991). It appears that sellers are also aware of this preference.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Why men collect things? A case study of fossilised dinosaur eggs

Apostolou

2011

Journal of Economic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The market value of rarity

Cited by 52 publications

References 24 publications

Foundation Species, Non-trophic Interactions, and the Value of Being Common

Foundation Species, Non-trophic Interactions, and the Value of Being Common

The effects of product scarcity and consumers' need for uniqueness on purchase intention

Why men collect things? A case study of fossilised dinosaur eggs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About