References contributed by ward-24715
- Abbitt, R. J. F., and J. M. Scott. 2001. Examining Differences Between Recovered and Declining Endangered Species. Conservation Biology 15: 1274–84. .
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Angrist, J. D. 2001. Estimation of Limited Dependent Variable Models with Dummy Endogenous Regressors: Simple Strategies for Empirical Practice. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 19: 2–16.
- Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies. 2007. State Wildlife Action Plans. http://www. wildlifeactionplans.org/. Accessed August 2008.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Bean, M. J. 1991. Issues and Controversies in the Forthcoming Reauthorization Battle. Endangered Species Update 9: 1–4.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Beissinger, S. R., and J. D. Perrine. 2001. Extinction, Recovery, and the Endangered Species Act. In Protecting Endangered Species in the United States: Biological Needs, Political Realities, and Economic Choices, ed. J. Shogren and J. Tschirhart. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 51–71.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Booth, A. L., and J. C. van Ours. 2007. Job Satisfaction and Family Happiness: The Part-Time Work Puzzle. Discussion Paper, Tilburg University, the Netherlands.
Brown, G. M Jr., and J. F. Shogren. 1998. Economics of the Endangered Species Act. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(3): 3–20.
- Cameron,C.A.,and P. K.Trivedi. 2005.Microeconometrics. Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Cash, D. W. 2001. Beyond Cute and Fuzzy: Science and Politics in the U.S. Endangered Species Act. In Protecting Endangered Species in the United States: Biological Needs, Political Realities, and Economic Choices, ed. J. Shogren and J. Tschirhart. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 106–37.
- Cash, D. W., J. R. DeShazo, A. Metrick, S. Shapiro, T. Schatzki, and M. Weitzman. 1998. Database on the Economics and Management of Endangered Species (DEMES). Harvard University: Department of Economics.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Chamberlain, G. 1980. Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data. Review of Economic Studies 47: 225–38.
Dawson, D., and J. F. Shogren. 2001. An Update on Priorities and Expenditures Under the Endangered SpeciesAct. Land Economics 77: 527–32.
- DeShazo, J.R., and J. Freeman. 2006. Congressional Politics. In The Endangered Species Act at Thirty. Renewing the Conservation Promise.Vol. 1,ed. D. D. Goble,J. M. Scott, and F.W. Davis. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 68–74.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Doremus, H. 2006. Lessons Learned. In The Endangered Species Act at Thirty. Renewing the Conservation Promise. Vol. 1, ed. D.D. Goble, J.M. Scott, and F.W. Davis. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 195–207.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Ferraro, P. J., C. McIntosh, and M. Ospina. 2007. The Effectiveness of the US Endangered Species Act: An Econometric Analysis Using Matching Methods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 54: 245–61.
Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., and P. Frijters. 2004. How Important Is Methodology for the Estimates of the Determinants of Happiness? Economic Journal 114: 641–59.
Gourierox, C., A. Monfort, E. Renault, and A. Trognon. 1987. Generalized Residuals. Journal of Econometrics 34: 5–32.
- Greene, W. H., L. Knapp Greene, and T. G. Seaks. 1995. Estimating the Functional Form of the Independent Variables in Probit Models.Applied Economics 27: 193–6.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Kerkvliet, J., and C. Langpap. 2007. Learning from Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Programs: A Case Study Using U.S. Endangered Species Act Recovery Scores. Ecological Economics 63: 499–510.
Krinsky, I., and A. L. Robb. 1986. On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics 68: 715–19.
- League of Conservation Voters (LCV). 1990– 2004. National Environmental Scorecard. http://www.lcv.org/scorecard/.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Luck, G. W. 2007. A Review of the Relationships Between Human Population Density and Biodiversity. Biological Reviews 82: 607–45.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Male, T. D., and M. J. Bean. 2005. Measuring Progress in U.S. Endangered Species Conservation. Ecology Letters 8: 986–92.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Mann, C. C., and M. L. Plummer. 1995. Noah’s Choice. The Future of Endangered Species. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Metrick, A., and M. L. Weitzman. 1996. Patterns of Behavior in Endangered Species Preservation. Land Economics 72: 1–16.
- Metrick, A., and M. L. Weitzman. 1998. Conflicts and Choices in Biodiversity Preservation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(3): 21–34.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Miller, J. K, J. M. Scott, C. R. Miller, and L. R. Waits. 2002. The Endangered Species Act: Dollars and Sense. BioScience 52: 163–68.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- National Wildlife Federation (NWF). Learn About Endangered Species. http://www. nwf.org/endangered/index.cfm, accessed November 26, 2007.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Pimm, S. L., H. L. Jones, and J. Diamond. 1988. On the Risk of Extinction.American Naturalist 132: 757–85.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Polasky, S., and A. R. Solow. 1999. Conserving Biological Diversity with Scarce Resources. In Landscape Ecological Analysis:Issues andApplications,ed. J. Klopatik and R. Gardner. New York: SpringerVerlag, pp. 154–74.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Rachlinski, J. J. 1997. Noah by the Numbers: An Empirical Evaluation of the Endangered Species Act. Cornell Law Review 82: 356–89.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Restani, M., and J. M. Marzluff. 2001. Avian Conservation Under the Endangered Species Act: Expenditures versus Recovery Priorities. Conservation Biology 15: 1292–99.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Restani, M., and J. M. Marzluff. 2002. Funding Extinction? Biological Needs and Political Realities in the Allocation of Resources to Endangered Species Recovery. Bioscience 52: 169–77.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Schwartz, M. W. 1999. Choosing the Appropriate Scale of Reserve for Conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 83–108.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Schwartz, M. W. 2008. The Performance of the Endangered Species Act. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39: 279–99.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Scott, J. M., D. D. Goble, L. K. Svancara, and A. Pidgorna. 2006. By the Numbers. InThe Endangered Species Act at Thirty. Renewing the Conservation Promise. Vol. 1, ed. D. D. Goble, J. M. Scott, and F. W. Davis. Washington, DC: Island Press, 16–35.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Shimshack, J. P., and M. B. Ward. 2005. Regulator Reputation, Enforcement, and Environmental Compliance. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50: 519–40.
Simon,B. M.,C. S. Leff,and H. Doerksen. 1995. Allocating Scarce Resources for Endangered Species Recovery. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 14: 415–32.
- Smith,A. A., M. A. Moote, and C. R. Schwalbe. 1993. The Endangered Species Act at Twenty: An Analytical Survey of Federal Endangered Species Protection. Natural Resources Journal 33: 1027–75.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Stokstad, E. 2005. What’s Wrong with the Endangered Species Act? Science 309: 2150–52.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Taylor, M. F. J., K. F. Suckling, and J. R. Rachlinski. 2005. The Effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: A Quantitative Analysis. BioScience 55: 360–67.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA). 1990– 2004. Agricultural Land Values and Cash Rents: Annual Summary, Economics, Statistics, and Market Information System. Washington, DC: Government Printing Ofï¬ce.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1989– 2004b. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures. Washington, DC: FWS.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1990a– 2004a. Report to Congress on the Recovery Program for Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: FWS.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- U.S. Government Accountability Ofï¬ce (GAO). 2005. Endangered Species. Fish and Wildlife Service Generally Focuses Recovery Funding on High-Priority Species, But Needs to Periodically Assess Its Funding Decisions. Washington, DC: GAO.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Weitzman, M. L. 1998. The Noah’s Ark Problem. Econometrica 66: 1279–98.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Wooldridge, J. M. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now