CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 158

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Things We Like: Human Preferences among Similar Organisms and Implications for Conservation

Stokes, David L.·2007·Human Ecology
DOI 10.1007/s10745-006-9056-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10745-006-9056-7

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Bishop, R. C., and Heberlein, T. A. (1979). Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61: 926–930. · DOI
  2. Boersma, P. D., and Stokes, D. L. (1995). Conservation: threats to penguin populations. In Williams, T. D. (ed.), The Penguins, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 127–139.
  3. Boyd, D. (1997). Eucalyptus removal on Angel Island. California Exotic Pest Plant Council 1997 Symposium Proceedings, 1–3.
  4. Brook, A., Zint, M., and De Young, R. (2003). Landowners’ Responses to An Endangered Species Act Listing and Implications for Encouraging Conservation. Conservation Biology 17: 1638–1649. · DOI
  5. Burghardt, G. M., and Herzog, H. A. Jr. (1980). Beyond Conspecifics: Is Brer Rabbit Our Brother? BioScience 30: 763–768. · DOI
  6. Chester, J. (1996). The World of the Penguin, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, California.
  7. Chester, J. (2001). The Nature of Penguins, Celestial Arts, Berkeley, California.
  8. Coursey, D. L. (1998). The Revealed Demand for A Public Good: Evidence from Endangered and Threatened Species. New York University Environmental Law Journal 6: 411–449.
  9. Czech, B., Krausman, P. R., and Borkhartaria, R. (1998). Social Construction, Political Power, and Allocation of Benefits to Endangered Species. Conservation Biology 12: 1103–1112. · DOI
  10. Davis, L. S., and Renner, M. (2003). Penguins, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
  11. Diamond, P. A., and Hausman, J. A. (1994). Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 45–64. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Gould, S. J. (1980). The Panda’s Thumb, W. W. Norton & Co., New York, pp. 95–107.
  13. Hirschman, E. C. (1994). Consumers and Their Animal Companions. Journal of Consumer Research 20: 616–632. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Horne, P., Boxall, P. C., and Adamowicz, W. L. (2005). Multiple-use Management of Forest Recreation Sites: A Spatially Explicit Choice Experiment. Forest Ecology and Management 207: 189–199. · DOI
  15. Hutchins, M. (1995). Olympic Mountain Goat Controversy Continues. Conservation Biology 9: 1324–1326. · DOI
  16. Kellert, S. R. (1993a). Value and Perception of Invertebrates. Conservation Biology 7: 845–855. · DOI
  17. Kellert, S. R. (1993b). The biological basis for human values of nature. In Kellert, S. R., and Wilson, E. O. (eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis, Island, Washington, DC, pp. 42–69.
  18. Kellert, S. R. (1996). The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society, Island, Washington, DC.
  19. Kellert, S. R., and Berry, J. K. (1980). Knowledge, affection, and basic attitudes toward animals in American society Phase III. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
  20. Kiester, R. A. (1997). Aesthetics of Biological Diversity. Human Ecology Review 3: 151–157.
  21. Lanting, F. P. (1999). Penguin, Benedikt Taschen Verlag, Köln, Germany.
  22. Lawrence, E. A. (1989). Neoteny in American perceptions of animals. In Hoage, R. J. (ed.), Perceptions of Animals in American Culture, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 57–76.
  23. Lorenz, K. (1943). Die angborenen Formen mõglicher Erfahrung. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 3: 235–409.
  24. Lorenz, K. (1971). Part and parcel in animal and human societies. In Studies in Animal and Human Behavior, vol. 2, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 115–195.
  25. Lynch, W. (1997). Penguins of the World, Firefly Books, Willowdale, Ontario, Canada.
  26. McNamara, W. (2005). Representation of imperiled plants in botanic gardens: the influence of conservation status and human preference. Masters thesis, Hutchins School, Sonoma State University.
  27. Montgomery, C. A. (2002). Ranking the Benefits of Biodiversity: An Exploration of Relative Values. Environmental Management 65: 313–326.
  28. Morris, D. (1967). The Naked Ape, McGraw-Hill, New York.
  29. Morris, D., and Morris, R. (1965). Men and Snakes, McGraw-Hill, New York.
  30. Morris, D., and Morris, R. (1966). Men and Pandas, McGraw-Hill, New York.
  31. Randall, A. (1986). Human preferences, economics, and the preservation of species. In Norton, B. G. (ed.), The Preservation of Species, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, pp. 79–109.
  32. Schafer, K. (2000). Penguin Planet: Their World, Our World, NorthWord, Minnetonka, Minnesota.
  33. Schuman, H., and Johnson, M. P. (1976). Attitudes and Behavior. Annual Review of Sociology 2: 161–207. · DOI
  34. Shepard, P. (1978). Thinking Animals, Viking, New York.
  35. Stokes, D. L. (2006). Conservators of Experience. BioScience 56: 6–7. · DOI
  36. Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In Kellert, S. R., and Wilson, E. O. (eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis, Island, Washington, DC, pp. 73–137.
  37. Ward, P. I., Mosberger, N., Kistler, C., and Fischer, O. (1998). The Relationship between Popularity and Body Size in Zoo Animals. Conservation Biology 12: 1408–1411. · DOI
  38. Williams, T. D. (1995). The Penguins, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  39. Wilson, E. O. (2002). The Future of Life, Knopf, New York.
  40. Zar, J. H. (1996). Biostatistical Analysis, 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 158

Metadata

Authors
Stokes, D. L.
Venue
Human Ecology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2006-12-14
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
361-369
ISSN
  • 0300-7839
  • 1572-9915
DOI
10.1007/s10745-006-9056-7
Cited by
158
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Things We Like: Human Preferences among Similar Organisms and Implications for Conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10745-006-9056-7
The paper
Stokes, D. L. (2007). Things We Like: Human Preferences among Similar Organisms and Implications for Conservation. Human Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-006-9056-7