IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

A Box-Cox Double-Hurdle model of wildlife valuation: The citizen's perspective

  • Martinez-Espineira, Roberto

A stated-preference approach is used to elicit the attitudes of the general public towards coyotes conservation. The payment vehicle is presented in a way that explicitly prompts individuals to adopt a citizen perspective, rather than a consumer perspective, when responding to the survey. To deal with the large numbers of zero responses, a Box- Cox Double Hurdle specification is used to model separately individuals’ choices about whether to support conservation or not and their choice about the degree of support. The results show that simpler analyses that do not account explicitly for this two different decisions would lead to misleading conclusions in the study of nuisance wildlife. The study uses a survey conducted in Prince Edward Island (Canada).

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

Volume (Year): 58 (2006)
Issue (Month): 1 (June)
Pages: 192-208

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:58:y:2006:i:1:p:192-208
Contact details of provider: Web page:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. R.K. Blamey & Mick S. Common & John C. Quiggin, 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 263-288, December.
  2. M. Common & I. Reid & R. Blamey, 1997. "Do existence values for cost benefit analysis exist?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(2), pages 225-238, March.
  3. Jones, Andrew M, 1989. "A Double-Hurdle Model of Cigarette Consumption," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(1), pages 23-39, Jan.-Mar..
  4. Loomis, John B. & White, Douglas S., 1996. "Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 197-206, September.
  5. Blamey, Russell, 1998. "Contingent valuation and the activation of environmental norms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 47-72, January.
  6. Jorgensen, Bradley S. & Wilson, Mathew A. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 2001. "Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 133-148, January.
  7. Garcia, Jaume & Labeaga, Jose M, 1996. "Alternative Approaches to Modelling Zero Expenditure: An Application to Spanish Demand for Tobacco," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 58(3), pages 489-506, August.
  8. Angulo, Ana Maria & Gil, Jose Maria & Gracia, Azucena, 2001. "The demand for alcoholic beverages in Spain," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 71-83, October.
  9. Deaton, Angus & Irish, Margaret, 1984. "Statistical models for zero expenditures in household budgets," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1-2), pages 59-80.
  10. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
  11. Jones, Andrew M & Yen, Steven T, 2000. "A Box-Cox Double-Hurdle Model," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 68(2), pages 203-21, March.
  12. Cragg, John G, 1971. "Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 829-44, September.
  13. Angulo, Ana Maria & Gil, Jose Maria & Gracia, Azucena, 2001. "The demand for alcoholic beverages in Spain," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 26(1), October.
  14. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
  15. Jensen, Helen H. & Yen, Steven, 1996. "U.S. Food Expenditures Away from Home by Type of Meal," Staff General Research Papers 922, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  16. Bengt Kristr�m, 1997. "Spike Models in Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 1013-1023.
  17. Ian Langford* & Areti Kontogianni & Mihalis Skourtos & Stavros Georgiou & Ian Bateman, 1998. "Multivariate Mixed Models for Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Data: Willingness To Pay For Conservation of Monk Seals," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(4), pages 443-456, December.
  18. David S. Brookshire & Larry S. Eubanks & Alan Randall, 1983. "Estimating Option Prices and Existence Values for Wildlife Resources," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 59(1), pages 1-15.
  19. Kristin Jakobsson & Andrew Dragun, 2001. "The Worth of a Possum: Valuing Species with the Contingent Valuation Method," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(3), pages 211-227, July.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:58:y:2006:i:1:p:192-208. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.