| Title |
The Allocation of Time and Risk of Lyme: A Case of Ecosystem Service Income and Substitution Effects
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental and Resource Economics, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10640-017-0142-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kevin Berry, Jude Bayham, Spencer R. Meyer, Eli P. Fenichel |
| Abstract |
Forests are often touted for their ecosystem services, including outdoor recreation. Historically forests were a source of danger and were avoided. Forests continue to be reservoirs for infectious diseases and their vectors - a disservice. We examine how this disservice undermines the potential recreational services by measuring the human response to environmental risk using exogenous variation in the risk of contracting Lyme Disease. We find evidence that individuals substitute away from spending time outdoors when there is greater risk of Lyme Disease infection. Individuals facing a higher risk of infection substitute away from outdoor leisure. On average individuals spent 1.54 fewer minutes outdoors at the average, 72 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), confirmed cases of Lyme Disease. We estimate lost outdoor recreation of 9.41 hours per year per person in an average county in the North Eastern United States and an aggregate welfare loss on the order $2.8 billion to $5.0 billion per year. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 17 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 11 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 7 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 20% |
| Unknown | 19 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 81. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 January 2020.
All research outputs
#519,860
of 25,175,727 outputs
Outputs from Environmental and Resource Economics
#14
of 1,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,896
of 315,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental and Resource Economics
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,175,727 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,040 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,756 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.