We review a selection of published papers that rely on choice experiments, as well as some studies that use contingent valuation, as non-market valuation methods that can be helpful for understanding the tradeoffs that people are willing to make to protect either individual wild bird species, categories of species (guilds), or the habitats upon which these species rely. Our review focuses on the features of these studies that make them more or less suitable for ‘benefits-function transfer,’ where the policy-related usefulness of the original research can be multiplied by transferring the estimated models to predict benefits associated with other types of wild birds in other regions. Stated preference studies are usually designed based on the objectives of the original study and may or may not be crafted to anticipate their use in subsequent benefit-function transfer exercises. Agency analysts often must draw from a limited number of studies and location-specific values when conducting benefit-transfer exercises for programs, regulations, or policies involving conservation benefits. We find that very few of the studies in this inventory optimize their prospects for future benefits-function transfers, so we look very closely at study features which limit these prospects in each case. Most of the studies we review here were intended to value just one species, or a few species, in a particular area. We use these examples to highlight how researchers can design future studies to satisfy the demands of the initial narrowly defined valuation task, but simultaneously strive to produce a study that will have follow-on usefulness for other related valuation exercises.
Supplementary materials: spreadsheet mentioned in paper