IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bic/journl/v6y2007i2p57-78.html

An Economic Analysis of the Influence of Different Attitudes Toward Game Animals: Emphasizing the Significance of Large Carnivores

Author

Listed:
  • Yukichika Kawata

    (Keio University,Faculty of Economics)

Abstract

This paper investigates the influence of a change in attitude toward the sustainableresource use of wild animals that exist under a prey–predator relationship. We builda theoretical model in which use value (price value) and non-use value (for example,existence value) are incorporated; we then conduct a numerical simulation to examineseveral cases with varying values. The primary results are as follows. Firstly, we reaffirmthat it is important for people to value prey as well as predators in order to maintain aviable population. Secondly, as the willingness to pay for the prey increases relative tothe price of the prey, the amount of the resource will be prioritized over the amount of theharvest. Thirdly, the minimum/maximum price may be required for resource conservationand conservation rather than protection is required even if the willingness to pay for theprey increases. Finally, the existence of the predator is desirable in that it improves theoptimal resource level of the prey.

Suggested Citation

  • Yukichika Kawata, 2007. "An Economic Analysis of the Influence of Different Attitudes Toward Game Animals: Emphasizing the Significance of Large Carnivores," Baltic Journal of Economics, Baltic International Centre for Economic Policy Studies, vol. 6(2), pages 57-78, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bic:journl:v:6:y:2007:i:2:p:57-78
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/1406099X.2007.10840436
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Finnoff & John Tschirhart, 2003. "Protecting an Endangered Species While Harvesting Its Prey in a General Equilibrium Ecosystem Model," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(2), pages 160-180.
    2. H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Chennat Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics, chapter 9, pages 178-203, Palgrave Macmillan.
    3. Alexander, Robert R., 2000. "Modelling species extinction: the case for non-consumptive values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 259-269, November.
    4. Hoekstra, Jeljer & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2005. "Harvesting and conservation in a predator-prey system," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 1097-1120, June.
    5. H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(2), pages 124-124.
    6. Clark, Colin W, 1973. "Profit Maximization and the Extinction of Animal Species," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(4), pages 950-961, July-Aug..
    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. Lineta Ramoniene & Dovydas Brazys, 2007. "Euro Introduction Effects on Individuals’ Economic Decisions: Testing the Presence of Difference Assessment Account among Lithuanian and Latvian Consumers," Baltic Journal of Economics, Baltic International Centre for Economic Policy Studies, vol. 6(2), pages 29-55, January.
    2. Eppink, Florian V. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2007. "Ecological theories and indicators in economic models of biodiversity loss and conservation: A critical review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 284-293, March.
    3. Fleming, Christopher M. & Alexander, Robert R., 2002. "The Economic Implications of a Multiple Species Approach to Bioeconomic Modelling," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 125082, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Alexander, Robert R. & Shields, David W., 2002. "Using Land As A Control Variable In Density-Dependent Bioeconomic Models," Discussion Papers in Natural Resource and Environmental Economics 23694, Massey University, Centre for Applied Economics and Policy Studies.
    5. John Lynham, 2012. "Ecomarkets For Conservation And Sustainable Development in the Coastal Zone," Working Papers 201218, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    6. Squires, Dale & Vestergaard, Niels, 2013. "Technical change in fisheries," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 286-292.
    7. Alexander, Robert R., 2000. "Modelling species extinction: the case for non-consumptive values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 259-269, November.
    8. Tarui, Nori & Mason, Charles F. & Polasky, Stephen & Ellis, Greg, 2008. "Cooperation in the commons with unobservable actions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 37-51, January.
    9. Ben White, 2000. "A Review of the Economics of Biological Natural Resources," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 419-462, September.
    10. Quaas, Martin F. & Winkler, Ralph, 2025. "A market mechanism for sustainable and efficient resource use under uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    11. Fleming, Christopher M. & Alexander, Robert R., 2002. "Single Species Versus Multiple Species Models: The Economic Implications," Discussion Papers in Natural Resource and Environmental Economics 23693, Massey University, Centre for Applied Economics and Policy Studies.
    12. Finnoff, David & Gong, Min & Tschirhart, John, 2012. "Perspectives on Ecosystem Based Management for Delivering Ecosystem Services with an Example from an Eighteen-Species Marine Model," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 6(1), pages 79-118, January.
    13. Wilen, James E., 2000. "Renewable Resource Economists and Policy: What Differences Have We Made?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 306-327, May.
    14. Sarkar, Sudipto, 2009. "Optimal fishery harvesting rules under uncertainty," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 272-286, November.
    15. Manuel Coelho & Jose Antonio Filipe & Manuel Alberto M. Ferreira & Rui Junqueira Lopes, 2013. "Extinction Revisited: “Allee Effect” and Irreversibility in “Schooling” Fisheries," International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, vol. 3(1), pages 405-405.
    16. Troy Tassier, 2013. "Handbook of Research on Complexity, by J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. and Edward Elgar," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 39(1), pages 132-133.
    17. Colin Rowat & Jayasri Dutta, 2007. "The Commons with Capital Markets," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 31(2), pages 225-254, May.
    18. Gardner Brown, 2000. "Renewable Natural Resource Management and Use Without Markets," Working Papers 0025, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
    19. Eggert, Håkan, 2006. "Fisheries Economics and 20 years with Marine Resource Economics: A Citation Analysis," Working Papers in Economics 203, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    20. Naima Farah & John R Boyce, "undated". "Elephants and Mammoths," Working Papers 2015-26, Department of Economics, University of Calgary, revised 28 Jan 2016.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q27 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Issues in International Trade
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    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:bic:journl:v:6:y:2007:i:2:p:57-78. 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: Anna Zasova (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/biceplv.html .

    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.