↓ Skip to main content

The economics of roadside bear viewing

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Environmental Management, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The economics of roadside bear viewing
Published in
Journal of Environmental Management, July 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.051
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leslie Richardson, Tatjana Rosen, Kerry Gunther, Chuck Schwartz

Abstract

Viewing bears along roadside habitats is a popular recreational activity in certain national parks throughout the United States. However, safely managing visitors during traffic jams that result from this activity often requires the use of limited park resources. Using unique visitor survey data, this study quantifies economic values associated with roadside bear viewing in Yellowstone National Park, monetary values that could be used to determine whether this continued use of park resources is warranted on economic grounds. Based on visitor expenditure data and results of a contingent visitation question, it is estimated that summer Park visitation would decrease if bears were no longer allowed to stay along roadside habitats, resulting in a loss of 155 jobs in the local economy. Results from a nonmarket valuation survey question indicate that on average, visitors to Yellowstone National Park are willing to pay around $41 more in Park entrance fees to ensure that bears are allowed to remain along roads within the Park. Generalizing this value to the relevant population of visitors indicates that the economic benefits of allowing this wildlife viewing opportunity to continue could outweigh the costs of using additional resources to effectively manage these traffic jams.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Student > Master 5 8%
Professor 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 14 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 23%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 10%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Computer Science 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 13 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 18 May 2017.
All research outputs
#503,046
of 12,033,966 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Environmental Management
#61
of 1,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,313
of 192,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Environmental Management
#1
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,033,966 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,948 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 192,417 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 95% of its contemporaries.