IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

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

Listed author(s):
  • 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: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(05)00306-X
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

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:58:y:2006:i:1:p:192-208
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

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. MacKinnon, James G & Magee, Lonnie, 1990. "Transforming the Dependent Variable in Regression Models," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 31(2), pages 315-339, May.
  2. Helen H. Jensen & Steven T. Yen, 1996. "Food Expenditures Away From Home by Type of Meal," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 44(1), pages 67-80, March.
  3. David M. Drukker, 2002. "Bootstrapping a conditional moments test for normality after tobit estimation," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 2(2), pages 125-139, May.
  4. 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, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(4), pages 443-456, December.
  5. Yen, Steven T & Jensen, Helen H & Wang, Qingbin, 1996. "Cholesterol Information and Egg Consumption in the US: A Nonnormal and Hetroscedastic Double-Hurdle Model," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 23(3), pages 343-356.
  6. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
  7. Jones, Andrew M & Yen, Steven T, 2000. "A Box-Cox Double-Hurdle Model," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 68(2), pages 203-221, March.
  8. Steven T. Yen & Andrew M. Jones, 1997. "Household Consumption of Cheese: An Inverse Hyperbolic Sine Double-Hurdle Model with Dependent Errors," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 246-251.
  9. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
  10. Helen H. Jensen & Steven T. Yen, 1995. "U.S. Food Expenditures Away From Home by Type of Meal," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 95-wp143, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
  11. Sagoff, M., 1998. "Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 213-230, February.
  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 829-844, September.
  13. 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.
  14. Tauchen, George, 1985. "Diagnostic testing and evaluation of maximum likelihood models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1-2), pages 415-443.
  15. Kristin Jakobsson & Andrew Dragun, 2001. "The Worth of a Possum: Valuing Species with the Contingent Valuation Method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(3), pages 211-227, July.
  16. 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.
  17. Steven T. Yen, 1993. "Working Wives and Food away from Home: The Box-Cox Double Hurdle Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(4), pages 884-895.
  18. 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.
  19. Carol Newman & Maeve Henchion, 2001. "Infrequency of purchase and double-hurdle models of Irish households' meat expenditure," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 28(4), pages 393-420, December.
  20. Yen, Steven T. & Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 1997. "An Econometric Analysis Of Donations For Environmental Conservation In Canada," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(02), December.
  21. Ready Richard C. & Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C., 1995. "Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 181-196, September.
  22. Sagoff, Mark, 2003. "On the relation between preference and choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 587-598.
  23. 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.
  24. Blamey, Russell, 1998. "Contingent valuation and the activation of environmental norms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 47-72, January.
  25. 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.
  26. M. Common & I. Reid & R. Blamey, 1997. "Do existence values for cost benefit analysis exist?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(2), pages 225-238, March.
  27. Flores, Nicholas E. & Carson, Richard T., 1997. "The Relationship between the Income Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 287-295, July.
  28. Maki, Atsushi & Nishiyama, Shigeru, 1996. "An analysis of under-reporting for micro-data sets: The misreporting or double-hurdle model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 211-220, September.
  29. Nyborg, Karine, 2000. "Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 305-322, July.
  30. John Crooker & Joseph Herriges, 2004. "Parametric and Semi-Nonparametric Estimation of Willingness-to-Pay in the Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Framework," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(4), pages 451-480, April.
  31. Yen, Steven T. & Huang, Chung L., 1996. "Household Demand For Finfish: A Generalized Double-Hurdle Model," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(02), December.
  32. 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.
  33. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
  34. Thomas H. Stevens & Jaime Echeverria & Ronald J. Glass & Tim Hager & Thomas A. More, 1991. "Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 390-400.
  35. Amemiya, Takeshi & Powell, James L., 1981. "A comparison of the Box-Cox maximum likelihood estimator and the non-linear two-stage least squares estimator," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 351-381, December.
  36. 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.
  37. Mary Jo Kealy & Robert W. Turner, 1993. "A Test of the Equality of Closed-Ended and Open-Ended Contingent Valuations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(2), pages 321-331.
  38. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum & William H. Desvousges & Richard W. Dunford & Sara P. Hudson, 1996. "Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 381-396.
  39. 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.
  40. Richard C. Ready & Jean C. Buzby & Dayuan Hu, 1996. "Differences between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 397-411.
  41. 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..
  42. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
  43. Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J., 1996. "Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 265-267, December.
  44. Newey, Whitney K, 1985. "Maximum Likelihood Specification Testing and Conditional Moment Tests," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(5), pages 1047-1070, September.
  45. Holmes Thomas P. & Kramer Randall A., 1995. "An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 121-132, July.
  46. Steven T. Yen & Helen H. Jensen, 1995. "Determinants of Household Expenditures on Alcohol," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 95-wp144, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
  47. 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.
  48. Guy Garrod & Kenneth G. Willis, 1999. "Economic Valuation of the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1368.
  49. Whitehead, John C. & Groothuis, Peter A. & Blomquist, Glenn C., 1993. "Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation : Analysis of a combination phone/mail survey," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 215-220.
  50. Skeels, Christopher L. & Vella, Francis, 1999. "A Monte Carlo investigation of the sampling behavior of conditional moment tests in Tobit and Probit models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 275-294, October.
  51. Bengt Kriström, 1997. "Spike Models in Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 1013-1023.
  52. Pagan, Adrian & Vella, Frank, 1989. "Diagnostic Tests for Models Based on Individual Data: A Survey," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(S), pages 29-59, Supplemen.
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: (Dana Niculescu)

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.