IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v78y2017icp98-106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Big game hunter preferences for hunting club attributes: A choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Mingie, James C.
  • Poudyal, Neelam C.
  • Bowker, J.M.
  • Mengak, Michael T.
  • Siry, Jacek P.

Abstract

Big game hunting on private leased forestland is popular in Georgia and other parts of the southern United States. Very often, the leasing arrangement takes the form of a club, wherein a specified number of members pay an annual fee to either a landowner or the club's manager to have a certain bundle of access rights in accordance with other club regulations or attributes. Currently, little is formally known about hunter preferences for club characteristics. The objective of this study was to identify hunter preferences for attributes related to big game hunting clubs and to derive measures of economic value for these attributes. This was accomplished by conducting a choice experiment (CE) via a mail survey in 2012 of licensed big game hunters in Georgia. The CE presented respondents with alternative hunting clubs representing different combinations of attributes including acreage, membership number, harvest regulations, recent forest management activity, and annual club dues. Responses were analyzed with conditional logit and multinomial probit regression models. Consistent with economic theory, hunters preferred more acreage and fewer members. The least preferred harvest regulation was a one buck limit without size restriction while recent clearcutting was the least preferred forest management activity. Results should provide a better understanding of big game hunters' preferences and trade-offs for club attributes and should help landowners and club managers make management decisions that enhance the value of their resources.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:78:y:2017:i:c:p:98-106
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116302106
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    2. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1978. "A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(2), pages 403-426, March.
    3. Michael D. Creel & John B. Loomis, 1990. "Theoretical and Empirical Advantages of Truncated Count Data Estimators for Analysis of Deer Hunting in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(2), pages 434-441.
    4. Roe, Brian & Boyle, Kevin J. & Teisl, Mario F., 1996. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159, September.
    5. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    6. 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.
    7. White,Halbert, 1996. "Estimation, Inference and Specification Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521574464, June.
    8. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    9. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    10. McFadden, Daniel, 1980. "Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice among Products," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 13-29, July.
    11. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    12. Anwar Hussain & Ian A. Munn & Jerry Brashier & W. Daryl Jones & James E. Henderson, 2013. "Capitalization of Hunting Lease Income into Northern Mississippi Forestland Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 137-153.
    13. 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.
    14. Mark L. Rockel & Mary Jo Kealy, 1991. "The Value of Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation in the United States," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 422-434.
    15. Gan, Christopher E.C. & Luzar, E. Jane, 1993. "A Conjoint Analysis Of Waterfowl Hunting In Louisiana," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-10, December.
    16. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    17. MacKenzie, John, 1990. "Conjoint Analysis Of Deer Hunting," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-9, October.
    18. 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.
    19. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Gary Koop, 2002. "Modelling Recreation Demand Using Choice Experiments: Climbing in Scotland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(3), pages 449-466, July.
    20. 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.
    21. Pope, C. Arden & Stoll, John R., 1985. "The Market Value of Ingress Rights for White-Tailed Deer Hunting in Texas," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 177-182, July.
    22. Hwa Nyeon Kim & W. Douglass Shaw & Richard T. Woodward, 2007. "The Distributional Impacts of Recreational Fees: A Discrete Choice Model with Incomplete Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 561-574.
    23. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    24. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    25. Gan, Christopher & Luzar, E. Jane, 1993. "A Conjoint Analysis of Waterfowl Hunting in Louisiana," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 36-45, December.
    26. 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.
    27. Juutinen, Artti & Mitani, Yohei & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Shoji, Yasushi & Siikamäki, Pirkko & Svento, Rauli, 2011. "Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1231-1239, 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. Huber, Christopher & Meldrum, James & Richardson, Leslie, 2018. "Improving confidence by embracing uncertainty: A meta-analysis of U.S. hunting values for benefit transfer," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PB), pages 225-236.
    2. Permadi, Dwiko B. & Burton, Michael & Pandit, Ram & Race, Digby & Walker, Iain, 2018. "Local community's preferences for accepting a forestry partnership contract to grow pulpwood in Indonesia: A choice experiment study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 73-83.

    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. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2012. "Preferences, rational choices and economic valuation: Some empirical tests," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 198-206.
    2. 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.
    3. Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2015. "A hedonic analysis of the complex hunting experience," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 51-66.
    4. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    5. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    6. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    7. Grafeld, Shanna & Oleson, Kirsten & Barnes, Michele & Peng, Marcus & Chan, Catherine & Weijerman, Mariska, 2016. "Divers' willingness to pay for improved coral reef conditions in Guam: An untapped source of funding for management and conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 202-213.
    8. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Gary Koop, 2002. "Modelling Recreation Demand Using Choice Experiments: Climbing in Scotland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(3), pages 449-466, July.
    9. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    10. Rose Fiamohe & Tebila Nakelse & Aliou Diagne & Papa A. Seck, 2015. "Assessing the Effect of Consumer Purchasing Criteria for Types of Rice in Togo: A Choice Modeling Approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 433-452, June.
    11. Kennedy Otieno, Pambo, 2013. "Analysis of Consumer Awareness and Preferences for Fortified Sugar in Kenya," Research Theses 243455, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    12. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    13. Carol A. Jones & Katherine A. Pease, 1997. "Restoration‐Based Compensation Measures In Natural Resource Liability Statutes," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 111-122, October.
    14. Häggmark-Svensson, Tobias & Elofsson, Katarina & Engelmann, Marc & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2015. "A review of the literature on benefits, costs, and policies for wildlife management," Working Paper Series 2015:1, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department Economics.
    15. 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.
    16. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    17. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    18. Yosr Abid Fourati & Cathal O'Donoghue, 2009. "Eliciting Individual Preferences for Pension Reform," Working Papers 0150, National University of Ireland Galway, Department of Economics, revised 2009.
    19. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    20. Phoebe Koundouri & Yannis Kountouris & Mavra Stithou, "undated". "A Choice Experiments Application in Transport Infrastructure: A Case Study on Travel Time Savings, Accidents and Pollution Reduction," DEOS Working Papers 1227, Athens University of Economics and Business.

    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:78:y:2017:i:c:p:98-106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.