IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v79y2012icp89-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balancing hunting regulations and hunter satisfaction: An integrated biosocioeconomic model to aid in sustainable management

Author

Listed:
  • Wam, Hilde Karine
  • Pedersen, Hans Chr.
  • Hjeljord, Olav

Abstract

Hunting of game animals needs to be regulated, either through the number of permits or the bag size allowed per hunter. Such regulations may, however, jeopardize hunter satisfaction, on which game managers depend. Consequently, finding the optimal hunting intensity is not straightforward. Using data from Norwegian grouse hunting, we show that an integrated approach combining sociology and bioeconomics can give markedly different priorities than an optimization based exclusively on bioeconomics. Three grouse hunter typologies with contrasting stated preferences regarding bag size and crowding were used to account for varying hunter behavior. Omitting the social constructs from the model pushed the hunter density towards its upper limit, because the gain of selling one more permit generally superseded the loss in hunter satisfaction (expressed as willingness-to-pay). Although this strategy multiplied the overall profit, it produced a daily bag size that would be unacceptable to practically all hunters. We conclude that biosocioeconomic modeling is a valuable tool in the pursuit of sustainable game management.

Suggested Citation

  • Wam, Hilde Karine & Pedersen, Hans Chr. & Hjeljord, Olav, 2012. "Balancing hunting regulations and hunter satisfaction: An integrated biosocioeconomic model to aid in sustainable management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 89-96.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:79:y:2012:i:c:p:89-96
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800912001905
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liljas, Bengt & Blumenschein, Karen, 2000. "On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 53-70, May.
    2. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    3. Colin Cameron, A. & Windmeijer, Frank A. G., 1997. "An R-squared measure of goodness of fit for some common nonlinear regression models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 329-342, April.
    4. Wam, Hilde Karine & Hofstad, Ole, 2007. "Taking timber browsing damage into account: A density dependant matrix model for the optimal harvest of moose in Scandinavia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 45-55, April.
    5. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop & Michael P. Welsh, 1985. "Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 188-194.
    6. Marilena Pollicino & David Maddison, 2001. "Valuing the Benefits of Cleaning Lincoln Cathedral," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 25(2), pages 131-148, May.
    7. Wam, Hilde Karine, 2010. "Economists, time to team up with the ecologists!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 675-679, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2017. "Marginal Satisfaction of Recreational Hunters’ Red Deer Harvests," 2017 Conference (61st), February 7-10, 2017, Brisbane, Australia 258670, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Pang, Arwin, 2017. "Incorporating the effect of successfully bagging big game into recreational hunting: An examination of deer, moose and elk hunting," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 12-17.
    3. Se-Hyuk Kim & James W Mjelde & Tae-Kyun Kim & Choong-Ki Lee & Byunggil Chun, 2023. "Willingness to pay for attributes of Templestay and implications on marginal utility of different meditation forms," Tourism Economics, , vol. 29(4), pages 1100-1120, June.

    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. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    2. Deborah Bentivoglio & Adele Finco & Giorgia Bucci & Giacomo Staffolani, 2020. "Is There a Promising Market for the A2 Milk? Analysis of Italian Consumer Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-16, August.
    3. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
    4. Kassahun, Habtamu Tilahun & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Nicholson, Charles F., 2020. "Revisiting money and labor for valuing environmental goods and services in developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    5. Michael Farmer & Eric Belasco, 2011. "A finite mixture model of heterogeneous anchoring with distinct anchoring patterns," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 137-141.
    6. John C. Whitehead, 2000. "“Anchoring and Shift in Multiple Bound Contingent Valuation,”," Working Papers 0004, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    7. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    8. Chien, Yu-Lan & Huang, Cliff J. & Shaw, Daigee, 2005. "A general model of starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 362-377, September.
    9. Ben McNair & David Hensher & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Modelling Heterogeneity in Response Behaviour Towards a Sequence of Discrete Choice Questions: A Probabilistic Decision Process Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 599-616, April.
    10. Gergaud, Olivier & Plantinga, Andrew J. & Ringeval-Deluze, Aurelie, 2015. "Anchoring and Property Prices: The Influence of Echelle Des Crus Ratings on Land Sales in the Champagne Region of France," Working Papers 231136, American Association of Wine Economists.
    11. Wam, Hilde Karine & Bunnefeld, Nils & Clarke, Nicholas & Hofstad, Ole, 2016. "Conflicting interests of ecosystem services: Multi-criteria modelling and indirect evaluation of trade-offs between monetary and non-monetary measures," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 280-288.
    12. Hurley, Terrance M. & Otto, Daniel M. & Holtkamp, Janice, 1999. "Valuation Of Water Quality In Livestock Regions: An Application To Rural Watersheds In Iowa," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages 1-8, April.
    13. Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Akaichi, Faical & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2019. "Revisiting cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 135-155.
    14. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
    15. Richard O‘Conor & Magnus Johannesson & Per-Olov Johansson, 1999. "Stated Preferences, Real Behaviour and Anchoring: Some Empirical Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 235-248, March.
    16. McNair, Ben J. & Bennett, Jeff & Hensher, David A., 2011. "A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 554-571, September.
    17. McNair, Ben J. & Hensher, David A. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Modelling heterogeneity in response behaviour towards a sequence of discrete choice questions: a latent class approach," MPRA Paper 23427, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Richard D. Smith, 2008. "Contingent valuation in health care: does it matter how the ‘good’ is described?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 607-617, May.
    19. Satoshi Yamazaki & Steven Rust & Sarah Jennings & Jeremy Lyle & Sven Frijlink, 2013. "Valuing recreational fishing in Tasmania and assessment of response bias in contingent valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(2), pages 193-213, April.
    20. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:79:y:2012:i:c:p:89-96. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.