IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

‘Adopt a Hypothetical Pup’: A Count Data Approach to the Valuation of Wildlife

  • R. Martínez-Espiñeira

    ()

The willingness to pay (WTP) for a coyote conservation program is estimated using a novel payment-vehicle, based on how many ‚problem’ coyotes respondents would be willing to sponsor for a year. This hypothetical scenario mimics an increasingly popular type of actual market. Data from a phone survey conducted in Prince Edward Island are analyzed using count data models that consider different processes explaining zero responses and the level of positive responses. This is particularly important in the case of coyotes, often regarded as an economic bad. Estimates of WTP per coyote per year around $18–$22 and annual WTP per contributor of about $46–$57 are obtained. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

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://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10640-006-9051-x
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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 European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental and Resource Economics.

Volume (Year): 37 (2007)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Pages: 335-360

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:37:y:2007:i:2:p:335-360
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263

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. Jeffrey Englin & Klaus Moeltner, 2004. "The Value of Snowfall to Skiers and Boarders," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(1), pages 123-136, September.
  2. Andreas Kontoleon & Timothy Swanson, 2003. "The Willingness to Pay for Property Rights for the Giant Panda: Can a Charismatic Species Be an Instrument for Nature Conservation?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 483-499.
  3. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-33, March.
  4. William H. Greene, 1994. "Accounting for Excess Zeros and Sample Selection in Poisson and Negative Binomial Regression Models," Working Papers 94-10, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Gourieroux, Christian & Monfort, Alain & Trognon, Alain, 1984. "Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Methods: Applications to Poisson Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 701-20, May.
  9. 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.
  10. Roberto G. Gutierrez & Shana Carter & David M. Drukker, 2001. "On boundary-value likelihood-ratio tests," Stata Technical Bulletin, StataCorp LP, vol. 10(60).
  11. Joseph Hilbe, 1999. "Zero-truncated Poisson and negative binomial regression," Stata Technical Bulletin, StataCorp LP, vol. 8(47).
  12. John W. Duffield & David A. Patterson, 1991. "Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(2), pages 225-239.
  13. Göran Bostedt, 1999. "Threatened Species as Public Goods and Public Bads," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(1), pages 59-73, January.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Gurmu, Shiferaw & Trivedi, Pravin K, 1996. "Excess Zeros in Count Models for Recreational Trips," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 14(4), pages 469-77, October.
  17. Laura Nahuelhual-Muñoz & Maria Loureiro & John Loomis, 2004. "Addressing Heterogeneous Preferences Using Parametric Extended Spike Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(3), pages 297-311, March.
  18. Nancy E. Bockstael & Ivar E. Strand, Jr., 1987. "The Effect of Common Sources of Regression Error on Benefit Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(1), pages 11-20.
  19. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
  20. Mullahy, John, 1986. "Specification and testing of some modified count data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 341-365, December.
  21. Shonkwiler, John Scott & Shaw, W. Douglass, 1996. "Hurdle Count-Data Models In Recreation Demand Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(02), December.
  22. 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.
  23. Allen McDowell, 2003. "From the help desk: hurdle models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(2), pages 178-184, June.
  24. Clem Tisdell & Clevo Wilson, 2006. "Information, Wildlife Valuation, Conservation: Experiments And Policy," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 144-159, 01.
  25. Jeffrey Englin & Trudy Cameron, 1996. "Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 133-147, March.
  26. Halvorsen, Robert & Palmquist, Raymond, 1980. "The Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 474-75, June.
  27. Robert Mitchell, 2002. "On Designing Constructed Markets in Valuation Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 297-321, June.
  28. Englin, Jeffrey & Shonkwiler, J S, 1995. "Estimating Social Welfare Using Count Data Models: An Application to Long-Run Recreation Demand under Conditions of Endogenous Stratification and Truncation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(1), pages 104-12, February.
  29. Hellerstein, Daniel & Mendelsohn, Robert, 1993. "A Theoretical Foundation for Count Data Models," MPRA Paper 25265, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  30. Lin, Tsai-Fen & Schmidt, Peter, 1984. "A Test of the Tobit Specification against an Alternative Suggested by Cragg," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 66(1), pages 174-77, February.
  31. Carter Betz & John Bergstrom & J. M. Bowker, 2003. "A Contingent Trip Model for Estimating Rail-trail Demand," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(1), pages 79-96.
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:kap:enreec:v:37:y:2007:i:2:p:335-360. 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: (Sonal Shukla)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

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.