Cited by 193Wildlife Conservation and Criminology AnalysesWildlife Ecology and ConservationSocioeconomics of Resources and Conservation

Endangering the endangered: The effects of perceived rarity on species exploitation

Hall, Richard J., Milner‐Gulland, E. J., Courchamp, F.·2008·Conservation Letters

Abstract

Classifying species by threat status can result in conservation benefits such as increased protection, but can also be an incentive to hunters responding to increased consumer demand for goods perceived to be rare, and therefore valuable. Bioeconomic theory provides a framework for examining the population consequences of differing responses of consumers (demand) and hunters (supply) to perceived rarity. We present a series of illustrative case studies of how perceived rarity affects consumer behavior and hunting pressure, and use a model to explore the scenario of most conservation concern (where rarity itself fuels increased exploitation). Rarity‐fuelled demand can have two undesirable outcomes: the species may become trapped at a low population size, or escalating hunting effort may drive the species to extinction. Understanding the response of consumers and hunters to perceived rarity is vital for predicting the impact of intervention strategies that seek to minimize extinction risk.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1755-263x.2008.00013.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Rareness may also result in an increased demand for certain species (e.g., pet trade), resulting in removal of individuals from the wild.

    “Rareness may also result in an increased demand for certain species (e.g., pet trade), resulting in removal of individuals from the wild (Hall et al., 2008).”
  • The perceived rarity of an individual's appearance may promote their removal from wild populations.

    “In other instances, the perceived rarity of an individual's appearance may promote their removal from wild populations (Courchamp et al., 2006;Hall et al., 2008;Palazy et al., 2012).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hall, R. J., Milner‐Gulland, E. J., & Courchamp, F.
Affiliations
  • Université Paris-Sud (FR)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Hall, Richard J.
Venue
Conservation Letters
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-06
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
75-81
ISSN
1755-263X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2139282185
Cited by
193
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Conservation Letters (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Wildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
Keywords
hunting pressure, consumer demand, bioeconomic model, extinction risk, wildlife trade, population dynamics

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