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from the model pushed the hunter density towards its upper limit, because the gain of selling one more permit generally superseded the loss in hunter satisfaction (expressed as willingness-to-pay).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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Wam, Hilde Karine, 2010. "Economists, time to team up with the ecologists!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 675-679, February.
    5. Liljas, Bengt & Blumenschein, Karen, 2000. "On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 53-70, May.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Day, Brett & Pinto Prades, Jose-Luis, 2010. "Ordering anomalies in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 271-285, May.
    10. 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).
    11. Noboru Hidano & Takaaki Kato, 2008. "Determining variability of willingness to pay for Japan’s antiglobal-warming policies: a comparison of contingent valuation surveys," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 9(4), pages 259-281, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Parsons, George & Yan, Lingxiao, 2021. "Anchoring on visual cues in a stated preference survey: The case of siting offshore wind power projects," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    14. John C. Whitehead, 2000. "“Anchoring and Shift in Multiple Bound Contingent Valuation,”," Working Papers 0004, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    15. W. Viscusi & Joel Huber & Jason Bell, 2008. "The Economic Value of Water Quality," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(2), pages 169-187, October.
    16. Gergaud, Olivier & Plantinga, Andrew J. & Ringeval-Deluze, Aurelie, 2017. "Anchored in the past: Persistent price effects of obsolete vineyard ratings in France," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 39-51.
    17. Marcella Veronesi & Anna Alberini & Joseph Cooper, 2011. "Implications of Bid Design and Willingness-To-Pay Distribution for Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(2), pages 199-215, June.
    18. 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).
    19. Soltani, Arezoo & Sankhayan, Prem L. & Hofstad, Ole, 2014. "A dynamic bio-economic model for community management of goat and oak forests in Zagros, Iran," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 174-185.
    20. 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.

    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.