IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v30y2001i01p44-55_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining Deer Population Preferences: An Analysis of Farmers, Hunters and the General Public

Author

Listed:
  • Curtis, John
  • Lynch, Lori

Abstract

Wildlife managers must consider the public's preferences for wildlife population levels when determining management policies. In 1996, Maryland farmers, hunters and the general public were surveyed to determine their preferences for increasing, maintaining, or decreasing deer population numbers. Using a random utility theoretic framework with an ordered response probit model, the factors that explain preferences such as residential location, socioeconomic characteristics, landscape damage, agricultural yield loss and vehicle accidents were analyzed.

Suggested Citation

  • Curtis, John & Lynch, Lori, 2001. "Explaining Deer Population Preferences: An Analysis of Farmers, Hunters and the General Public," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 44-55, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:30:y:2001:i:01:p:44-55_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500000538/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Cooper, 1993. "A bioeconomic model for estimating the optimal level of deer and tag sales," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(6), pages 563-579, December.
    2. Roheim, Cathy A. & Kline, Jeffrey D. & Anderson, Joan Gray, 1996. "Seafood Safety Perceptions And Their Effects On Anticipated Consumption Under Varying Information Treatments," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 25(1), pages 1-10, April.
    3. Stephen K. Swallow & Thomas Weaver & James J. Opaluch & Thomas S. Michelman, 1994. "Heterogeneous Preferences and Aggregation in Environmental Policy Analysis: A Landfill Siting Case," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(3), pages 431-443.
    4. MacKenzie, John, 1990. "Conjoint Analysis Of Deer Hunting," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-9, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Holland, Daniel & Wessells, Cathy R., 1998. "Predicting Consumer Preferences for Fresh Salmon: The Influence of Safety Inspection and Production Method Attributes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 1-14, April.
    2. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    3. Chen, Xianwen & Alfnes, Frode & Rickertsen, Kyrre, 2014. "Consumer Preferences, Ecolabels, and the Effects of Negative Environmental Information," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 168094, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Sedjo, Roger & Swallow, Stephen, 1999. "Eco-Labeling and the Price Premium," RFF Working Paper Series dp-00-04, Resources for the Future.
    5. Torgler, Benno & García-Valiñas, María A. & Macintyre, Alison, 2011. "Participation in environmental organizations: an empirical analysis," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(5), pages 591-620, October.
    6. Meyer, Kevin Michael, 2017. "Three essays on environmental and resource economics," ISU General Staff Papers 201701010800006585, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Souter, Ray A. & Bowker, James Michael, 1996. "A Note On Nonlinearity Bias And Dichotomous Choice Cvm: Implications For Aggregate Benefits Estimation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 25(1), pages 1-6.
    8. Zhou, Li & Turvey, Calum & Hu, Wuyang & Ying, Ruiyao, 2015. "Fear and Trust: How Risk Perceptions of Avian Influenza Affect the Demand for Chicken," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202077, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Hiroki Wakamatsu & Yuki Maruyama, 2024. "Consumer Preference for Fisheries Improvement Project: Case of Bigeye Tuna in Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-11, March.
    10. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Alig, Ralph J. & Johnson, Rebecca L., 2000. "Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 29-43, April.
    11. Sergio Ardila & Ricardo Quiroga & William J. Vaughan, 1998. "A Review of the Use of Contingent Valuation Methods in Project Analysis at the Inter-American Development Bank," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 33298, Inter-American Development Bank.
    12. Dupont, Diane P., 2004. "Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 273-286, July.
    13. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey & Fields, Deacue, 2005. "Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 238-252, October.
    14. Jon Olaf Olaussen & Anders Skonhoft, 2005. "The economics of a stage-structured wildlife population model," Working Paper Series 6405, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, revised 31 May 2007.
    15. Benno Torgler & María A.García-Valiñas & Alison Macintyre, 2007. "Differences in Preferences Towards the Environment: The Impact of a Gender, Age and Parental Effect," CREMA Working Paper Series 2008-01, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    16. Chhandita Das & Christopher M. Anderson & Stephen K. Swallow, 2009. "Estimating Distributions of Willingness to Pay for Heterogeneous Populations," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(3), pages 593-610, January.
    17. Sayadi, Samir & Gonzalez Roa, M. Carmen & Calatrava Requena, Javier, 2005. "Ranking versus scale rating in conjoint analysis: Evaluating landscapes in mountainous regions in southeastern Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 539-550, December.
    18. Angulo, Ana Maria & Gil, Jose Maria, 2004. "Consequences of BSE on Consumers' Attitudes, Perceptions and Willingness to Pay for Certified Beef in Spain," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24999, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Stevens, Thomas H. & Barrett, Christopher B. & Willis, Cleve E., 1997. "Conjoint Analysis Of Groundwater Protection Programs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-8, October.
    20. Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Weaver, Thomas F., 1999. "Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 97-120, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:30:y:2001:i:01:p:44-55_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.