IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea00/21783.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Double Hurdle Approach To Evaluating Non-Residential Wildlife Watching In The United States

Author

Listed:
  • Diagne, Assane
  • Lavergne, David R.
  • Olatubi, Williams O.

Abstract

In 1996, over 62 million U.S. residents participated in wildlife watching and spent in excess of 29 billion dollars in this recreational activity. Wildlife watching can be defined as the observation, study, and enjoyment of natural areas and its wild fauna and flora. Residential wildlife watching takes place within one mile of the participant's residence and is often an incidental or secondary activity. Non-residential wildlife watching refers to recreation taking place at a distance of at least one mile from the participant's residence. In recent years, a sharp decline in the number of wildlife watchers has been noted. Between 1991 and 1996, the number of wildlife watchers decreased by 17 percent. During this time interval, the largest decline in participation was observed in non-residential viewing. The number of non-residential wildlife watchers declined by 21 percent. This trend is damaging to towns and communities, especially rural communities which largely depend on recreation dollars. The mitigation or reversal of this trend hinges upon the identification of factors affecting participation and expenditures on wildlife viewing. The determining role of several socioeconomic attributes in explaining participation and expenditures on nature-related recreation has been widely studied in the leisure and recreation literature. However, most of these past studies have focused on fishing and hunting activities rather than the equally important non-residential wildlife watching. Hence, this study evaluates participation decisions and the extent of the participation in non-residential wildlife watching in the United States.

Suggested Citation

  • Diagne, Assane & Lavergne, David R. & Olatubi, Williams O., 2000. "A Double Hurdle Approach To Evaluating Non-Residential Wildlife Watching In The United States," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21783, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea00:21783
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.21783
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/21783/files/sp00di02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.21783?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    2. 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 174-177, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Harriet A. Stranahan & Mary O. Borg, 1998. "Separating the Decisions of Lottery Expenditures and Participation: a Truncated Tobit Approach," Public Finance Review, , vol. 26(2), pages 99-117, March.
    2. Zheng Liu & Ron Fleming & Angelos Pagoulatos & Wuyang Hu, 2010. "The Supply of Private Acreage for Public Recreational Use in Southern and Central Appalachia," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(4), pages 540-555, December.
    3. N’cho, Simon Akahoua & Mourits, Monique & Rodenburg, Jonne & Demont, Matty & Oude Lansink, Alfons, 2014. "Determinants of parasitic weed infestation in rainfed lowland rice in Benin," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 105-115.
    4. Feng Zhang & Chung L. Huang & Biing-Hwan Lin & James E. Epperson, 2008. "Modeling fresh organic produce consumption with scanner data: a generalized double hurdle model approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(4), pages 510-522.
    5. Guntram Wolff, 2007. "Foreign Direct Investment in the Enlarged EU: Do Taxes Matter and to What Extent?," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 327-346, July.
    6. Tan, Andrew K. G. & Yen, Steven T. & Hasan, Abdul Rahman & Muhamed, Kamarudin, 2015. "Determinants of Purchase Likelihoods and Amounts Spent on Meat in Malaysia: A Sample Selection System Approach," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 44(1), pages 1-16, April.
    7. Timothy Chue & David Cook, 2004. "Sudden Stops and Liability Dollarization: Evidence from East Asian Financial Intermediaries," Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings 646, Econometric Society.
    8. Kohei Enami & John Mullahy, 2009. "Tobit at fifty: a brief history of Tobin's remarkable estimator, of related empirical methods, and of limited dependent variable econometrics in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(6), pages 619-628, June.
    9. Ernest M. Zampelli & Steven T. Yen, 2017. "The Impact Of Tax Price Changes On Charitable Contributions To The Needy," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 35(1), pages 113-124, January.
    10. Brouhle, Keith & Khanna, Madhu, 2012. "Determinants of participation versus consumption in the Nordic Swan eco-labeled market," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 142-151.
    11. Song, Weixing & Zhang, Yi, 2012. "Empirical L2-distance lack-of-fit tests for Tobit regression models," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 380-396.
    12. Finocchiaro Castro Massimo & Lisi Domenico & Romeo Domenica, 2024. "An Experimental Analysis of Patient Dumping Under Different Payment Systems," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 24(1), pages 205-258, January.
    13. William J Burke, 2019. "Evidence against Imposing Restrictions on Hurdle Models as a Test for Simultaneous versus Sequential Decision Making," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1473-1481.
    14. Marta Suárez-Varela & Ariel Dinar, 2020. "The Role of Curtailment Versus Efficiency on Spillovers Among Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Evidence from Two Towns in Granada, Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, January.
    15. Jane Kolodinsky & Garret Kimberly & Jonathan Isham, 2003. "The Effects of Volunteering for Non-profit Organizations on Social Capital Formation: Evidence from a Statewide Survey," Middlebury College Working Paper Series 0305, Middlebury College, Department of Economics.
    16. Cook, Douglas O. & Kieschnick, Robert & McCullough, B.D., 2008. "Regression analysis of proportions in finance with self selection," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 860-867, December.
    17. Steven T Yen & Ernest M Zampelli, 2017. "Charitable Contributions of Time and Money: A Multivariate Sample Selection Approach," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 43(1), pages 43-63, January.
    18. Kohei Enami & John Mullahy, 2008. "Tobit at Fifty: A Brief History of Tobin's Remarkable Estimator, of Related Empirical Methods, and of Limited Dependent Variable Econometrics in Health Economics," NBER Working Papers 14512, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Zhang, Xuelin & Morissette, Rene, 2001. "Quelles entreprises ont des taux de vacance eleves au Canada?," Direction des études analytiques : documents de recherche 2001176f, Statistics Canada, Direction des études analytiques.
    20. Rosa, Julio & Morissette, Rene, 2003. "Alternative Work Practices and Quit Rates: Methodological Issues and Empirical Evidence for Canada," Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series 2003199e, Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea00:21783. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.