IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v69y2016icp83-89.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shedding light on the self-consumption value of recreational hunting in European Mediterranean forests

Author

Listed:
  • Martínez-Jauregui, María
  • Herruzo, A. Casimiro
  • Campos, Pablo
  • Soliño, Mario

Abstract

This paper proposes a novel approach for simulating the price of hunting self-consumption by owners in the experimental Agroforestry Accounting System (AAS). The “enlightenment approach” allows allocating a competitive price or, alternatively, a price that matches the recreational hunting cost for driven hunts associated with self-consumption. The starting point is information gathered from two surveys of 740 owners of hunting estates (supply side) and 557 hunters (demand side) in Andalusian forests. The results show that 76% of the total driven hunt spots for big game were self-consumed by owners in the 2009–2010 hunting season. Regarding the traditional AAS framework, self-consumption is nearly one million euros less when the enlightenment approach is considered. This lower bound, compared to the upper bound imputed through market prices in the AAS, allows simulating a range of values for hunting self-consumption and expanding policy recommendations for hunting management.

Suggested Citation

  • Martínez-Jauregui, María & Herruzo, A. Casimiro & Campos, Pablo & Soliño, Mario, 2016. "Shedding light on the self-consumption value of recreational hunting in European Mediterranean forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 83-89.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:69:y:2016:i:c:p:83-89
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.05.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116300892
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.05.002?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. Shrestha, Ram K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2004. "Effect of Ranchland Attributes on Recreational Hunting in Florida: A Hedonic Price Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 763-772, December.
    2. M. K. Haener & D. Dosman & W.L. Adomowicz & P.C. Boxall, 2001. "Can Stated Preference Methods be used to Value Attributes of Subsistence Hunting by Aboriginal Peoples? A Case Study in Northern Saskatchewan," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1334-1340.
    3. Paula Horne & Leena Petäjistö, 2003. "Preferences for Alternative Moose Management Regimes among Finnish Landowners: A Choice Experiment Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 472-482.
    4. Dominika Dziegielewska & Robert Mendelsohn, 2007. "Does “No” mean “No”? A protest methodology," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 71-87, September.
    5. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    6. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    7. Shrestha, Ram K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2004. "Effect of Ranchland Attributes on Recreational Hunting in Florida: A Hedonic Price Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(3), pages 1-10, December.
    8. Messonier, Mark L. & Luzar, E. Jane, 1990. "A Hedonic Analysis of Private Hunting Land Attributes Using an Alternative Functional Form," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 129-135, December.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    10. Kerry R. Livengood, 1983. "Value of Big Game from Markets for Hunting Leases: The Hedonic Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 59(3), pages 287-291.
    11. Messonnier, Mark L. & Luzar, E. Jane, 1990. "A Hedonic Analysis Of Private Hunting Land Attributes Using An Alternative Functional Form," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-7, December.
    12. Herruzo, A.C. & Martínez-Jauregui, M. & Carranza, J. & Campos, P., 2016. "Commercial income and capital of hunting: an application to forest estates in Andalucía," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 53-61.
    13. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    14. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    15. Pope, C. Arden, III & Stoll, John R., 1985. "The Market Value Of Ingress Rights For White-Tailed Deer Hunting In Texas," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(1), pages 1-6, July.
    16. Andrew Daly & Stephane Hess & Kenneth Train, 2012. "Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 19-31, January.
    17. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    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. Lautrup, M. & Panduro, T.E. & Olsen, J.V. & Pedersen, M.F. & Jacobsen, J.B., 2023. "Is there more to trees than timber? Estimating the private amenity value of forests using a hedonic land model for combined agricultural properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    2. Mishra, Bijesh, 2022. "Economics and human dimension of active management of forest-grassland ecotone in South-central USA under changing climate," MPRA Paper 116200, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 30 Jul 2022.
    3. Morteza Chalak & Veronique Florec & Atakelty Hailu & Fiona Gibson & David Pannell, 2017. "Integrating non-market values in economic analyses of flood mitigation: a case study of the Brown Hill and Keswick creeks catchment in Adelaide," Working Papers 256513, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

    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. Lozano, Julian E. & Elofsson, Katarina & Surry, Yves, 2021. "Heterogeneous impacts of large carnivores on hunting lease prices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    2. Ian A. Munn & Anwar Hussain, 2010. "Factors Determining Differences in Local Hunting Lease Rates: Insights from Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(1), pages 66-78.
    3. Soliño, M. & Alía, R. & Agúndez, D., 2020. "Citizens' preferences for research programs on forest genetic resources: A case applied to Pinus pinaster Ait. in Spain," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    4. Mingie, James C. & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Bowker, J.M. & Mengak, Michael T. & Siry, Jacek P., 2017. "Big game hunter preferences for hunting club attributes: A choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 98-106.
    5. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    6. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    7. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    8. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    10. Miller, Sini & Tait, Peter & Saunders, Caroline, 2015. "Estimating indigenous cultural values of freshwater: A choice experiment approach to Māori values in New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 207-214.
    11. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Le Goffe, 2009. "Modèle bioéconomique appliqué à la gestion du sanglier, dégâts agricoles et prix des chasses en forêt domaniale," Post-Print hal-00730019, HAL.
    12. Kim, Yusun & Reeling, Carson & Widmar, Nicole J.O. & Lee, John G., 2023. "Estimating a model of forward-looking behavior with discrete choice experiments: The case of lifetime hunting license demand," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    13. Anders Dugstad & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2021. "Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(1), pages 21-57, September.
    14. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    15. Ropars-Collet, Carole & Le Goffe, Philippe, 2009. "La gestion du sanglier : modèle bioéconomique, dégâts agricoles et prix des chasses en forêt domaniale," Working Papers 210982, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    16. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    17. Nannan Kang & Erda Wang & Yang Yu, 2019. "Valuing forest park attributes by giving consideration to the tourist satisfaction," Tourism Economics, , vol. 25(5), pages 711-733, August.
    18. Luzar, E. Jane & Gan, Christopher E.C. & Kanjilal, Barun & Messonnier, Mark L., 1992. "Quality As A Latent Variable In Recreation Access Analysis," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-8, December.
    19. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2013. "Valuing Local Environmental Amenity with Discrete Choice Experiments: Spatial Scope Sensitivity and Heterogeneous Marginal Utility of Income," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 105-130, September.
    20. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2004. "Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: A choice experiment applied to water quality," Working Papers in Economics 126, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.

    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:forpol:v:69:y:2016:i:c:p:83-89. 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/forpol .

    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.