Hunters’ preferences and willingness to pay for driven hunts in southern Europe
Mario Soliño A B D , Begoña A. Farizo C and Pablo Campos CA National Institute for Agriculture and Food Research and Technology (INIA), Forest Research Centre (CIFOR), Ctra de La Coruña km 7.5, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
B Sustainable Forest Management Research Institute, University of Valladolid and INIA, Avda de Madrid 57, 34004 Palencia, Spain.
C Institute for Public Goods and Policies (IPP), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), C/Albasanz 26–28, 28037 Madrid, Spain.
D Corresponding author. Email: solino.mario@inia.es
Wildlife Research 43(8) 649-654 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR16044
Submitted: 29 July 2015 Accepted: 14 November 2016 Published: 21 February 2017
Abstract
Context: Driven hunts exemplify the most representative form of big-game hunting in southern Europe.
Aims: We analysed hunter preferences for driven hunts and the marginal willingness to pay for their characteristics.
Methods: We conducted a discrete-choice experiment for driven hunts, taking into account the number of deer that could be hunted, the possibility of free-range wild-boar hunting, the presence of trophies, and other characteristics of driven hunts, such as congestion and travel time.
Key results: The highest influential driven-hunt characteristic on the utility of big-game hunters is the presence of trophy specimens, whereas for the small-game hunter it would be free-range wild-boar hunting.
Conclusions: Small-game hunters are reluctant to participate in the big-game market because of cultural factors and not because of budgetary restrictions.
Implications: Wildlife management and marketing of driven hunts can be improved taking into account the hunter preferences.
Additional keywords: deer, discrete choice experiment, trophies, wild boar.
References
Boxall, P. C., Adamowicz, W., Swait, J., Wiliams, M., and Louviere, J. (1996). A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 18, 243–253.| A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bullock, C. H., Elston, D. A., and Chalmers, N. A. (1998). An application of economic choice experiments to a traditional land use: deer hunting and landscape change in the Scottish Highlands. Journal of Environmental Management 52, 335–351.
| An application of economic choice experiments to a traditional land use: deer hunting and landscape change in the Scottish Highlands.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cornicelli, L., Fulton, D. C., Grund, M. D., and Fieberg, J. (2011). Hunter perceptions and acceptance of alternative deer management regulations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 35, 323–329.
| Hunter perceptions and acceptance of alternative deer management regulations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Delibes-Mateos, M., Giergiczny, M., Caro, J., Viñuela, J., Riera, P., and Arroyo, B. (2014). Does hunters willingness to pay match the best hunting options for biodiversity conservation? A choice experiment application for red-legged partridge hunting in Spain. Biological Conservation 177, 36–42.
| Does hunters willingness to pay match the best hunting options for biodiversity conservation? A choice experiment application for red-legged partridge hunting in Spain.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fix, P. J., Manfredom, M. J., and Loomis, J. B. (2005). Assesing validity of elk and deer license sales estimated by contingent valuation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33, 633–642.
| Assesing validity of elk and deer license sales estimated by contingent valuation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Haener, M. K., Dosman, D., Adamowicz, W. L., and Boxall, P. C. (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 83, 1334–1340.
| Can stated preference methods be used to value attributes of subsistence hunting by aboriginal peoples? A case study in northern Saskatchewan.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Horne, P., and Petäjistö, L. (2003). Preferences for alternative moose management regimes among finnish landowners: a choice experiment approach. Land Economics 79, 472–482.
| Preferences for alternative moose management regimes among finnish landowners: a choice experiment approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hussain, A., Munn, I. A., Hudson, D., and West, B. (2010). Attribute-based analysis of hunters’ lease preferences. Journal of Environmental Management 91, 2565–2571.
| Attribute-based analysis of hunters’ lease preferences.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Johansson, P.-O., Kriström, B., and Mattsson, L. (1988). How is the willingness to pay for moose hunting affected by the stock of moose? An empirical study of moose-hunters in the county of Västerbotten. Journal of Environmental Management 26, 163–171.
Kerr, G. N., and Abell, W. (2016). What are they hunting for? Investigating heterogeneity among sika deer (Cervus nippon) hunters. Wildlife Research 43, 69–79.
| What are they hunting for? Investigating heterogeneity among sika deer (Cervus nippon) hunters.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Livengood, K. R. (1983). Value of big game from markets for hunting leases: the hedonic approach. Land Economics 59, 287–291.
| Value of big game from markets for hunting leases: the hedonic approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Louviere, J. J., Hensher, A., and Swait, J. (2000). ‘Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.)
Lundhede, T. H., Jacobsen, J. B., and Thorsen, B. J. (2015). A hedonic analysis of the complex hunting experience. Journal of Forest Economics 21, 51–66.
| A hedonic analysis of the complex hunting experience.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Martínez-Jauregui, M., Herruzo, A. C., and Campos, P. (2015). What does hunting market price reflect? The role of species, landscape and management. Wildlife Research 42, 280–289.
| What does hunting market price reflect? The role of species, landscape and management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mattsson, L. (1989). The economic value of wildlife for hunting. Scandinavian Forest Economics 30, 42–61.
Meilby, H., Strange, N., Thorsen, B. J., and Helles, F. (2006). Determinants of hunting rental prices: a hedonic analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 21, 63–72.
| Determinants of hunting rental prices: a hedonic analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moro, M., Fischer, A., Czajkowski, M., Brennan, D., Lowassa, A., Naiman, L. C., and Hanley, N. (2012). An investigation using the choice experiment method into options for reducing illegal bushmeat hunting in western Serengeti. Conservation Letters 6, 37–45.
| An investigation using the choice experiment method into options for reducing illegal bushmeat hunting in western Serengeti.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nielsen, M. R., Jacobsen, J. B., and Thorsen, B. J. (2014). Factors determining the choice of hunting and trading bushmeat in the Kilombero Valley, Tanzania. Conservation Biology 28, 382–391.
| Factors determining the choice of hunting and trading bushmeat in the Kilombero Valley, Tanzania.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Street, D. J., and Burgess, L. (2007). ‘The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments.’ (John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ.)
Train, K. E. (2003). ‘Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.)
