Individual Species-State Analysis of Natureserve’s “At-Risk” Categories: Hunting and Fishing’s Role

12 Pages Posted: 8 Oct 2009

See all articles by Michael Nieswiadomy

Michael Nieswiadomy

University of North Texas - Department of Economics

David N. Laband

Auburn University

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 Classification: Q57

Suggested Citation

Nieswiadomy, Michael and Laband, David, Individual Species-State Analysis of Natureserve’s “At-Risk” Categories: Hunting and Fishing’s Role. Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 390-401, July 2009. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1484107 or http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2008.00144.x

Michael Nieswiadomy (Contact Author)

University of North Texas - Department of Economics ( email )

Denton, TX 76203-1457
United States
940-565-2244 (Phone)
940-565-4426 (Fax)

David Laband

Auburn University ( email )

415 West Magnolia Avenue
College of Business, Department of Economics Room 203
Auburn, AL 36849
United States
334-844-4910 (Phone)
334-844-4615 (Fax)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
2
Abstract Views
197
PlumX Metrics