INDIVIDUAL SPECIES‐STATE ANALYSIS OF NATURESERVE’S “AT‐RISK” CATEGORIES: HUNTING AND FISHING’S ROLE

Michael Nieswiadomy and David Laband ()

Contemporary Economic Policy, 2009, vol. 27, issue 3, 390-401

Abstract: We examine the impact of hunting and fishing on rankings in NatureServe’s 2005 “at‐risk” list using 24,291 observations on individual vertebrate animal species for 47 states (we omit Alaska, Hawaii, and Missouri). We use 1) a probit analysis of the binary “at‐risk” designation and 2) an ordered probit analysis of the five categories of endangerment. We control for species type (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and turtles), population density, farming area, forest cover, coastline existence, endemism, and per capita income. We find that states with higher hunting and fishing participation (or higher per capita expenditures) have fewer “at‐risk” species. States with larger per capita big game spending have fewer “at‐risk” non–big game species. States with larger wildlife agency budgets have fewer endangered species.(JEL Q57)

Date: 2009
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2008.00144.x

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:coecpo:v:27:y:2009:i:3:p:390-401

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://ordering.onl ... 5-7287&ref=1465-7287

Access Statistics for this article

Contemporary Economic Policy is currently edited by Brad R. Humphreys

More articles in Contemporary Economic Policy from Western Economic Association International Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().