IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jenpmg/v58y2015i5p819-836.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public perceptions of planning objectives for regional level management of wild reindeer in Norway

Author

Listed:
  • Bj�rn P. Kaltenborn
  • Eirin Hongslo
  • Vegard Gundersen
  • Oddgeir Andersen

Abstract

We examined community perceptions of preferred objectives for wild reindeer management in Southern Norway as the former population-based model is being replaced with an area-based, multi-level regional management model spanning large mountain regions. Communally oriented objectives are favoured over economic benefits to landowners. Environmental attitudes discriminate on many of the issues and can be useful factors in sorting out levels of support for proposed management actions and compromises in land use decisions. The regional reindeer plans create a new political context for land use management across large mountain areas which will require better cooperation among municipalities.

Suggested Citation

  • Bj�rn P. Kaltenborn & Eirin Hongslo & Vegard Gundersen & Oddgeir Andersen, 2015. "Public perceptions of planning objectives for regional level management of wild reindeer in Norway," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(5), pages 819-836, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:58:y:2015:i:5:p:819-836
    DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2014.898204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09640568.2014.898204
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09640568.2014.898204?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. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    2. Bergseng, Even & Vatn, Arild, 2009. "Why protection of biodiversity creates conflict - Some evidence from the Nordic countries," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 147-165, August.
    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. Kelvin Balcombe & Michail Bitzios & Iain Fraser & Janet Haddock-Fraser, 2014. "Using Attribute Importance Rankings Within Discrete Choice Experiments: An Application to Valuing Bread Attributes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(2), pages 446-462, June.
    2. Bergstén, Sabina & Stjernström, Olof & Pettersson, Örjan, 2018. "Experiences and emotions among private forest owners versus public interests: Why ownership matters," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 801-811.
    3. Zawojska, Ewa & Czajkowski, Mikotaj, 2017. "Are preferences stated in web vs. personal interviews different? A comparison of willingness to pay results for a large multi-country study of the Baltic Sea eutrophication reduction," Annual Meeting, 2017, June 18-21, Montreal, Canada 258604, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society.
    4. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    5. Hensher, David A. & Ho, Chinh & Mulley, Corinne, 2015. "Identifying resident preferences for bus-based and rail-based investments as a complementary buy in perspective to inform project planning prioritisation," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 1-9.
    6. Mulley, Corinne & Ho, Chinh & Ho, Loan & Hensher, David & Rose, John, 2018. "Will bus travellers walk further for a more frequent service? An international study using a stated preference approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 88-97.
    7. Mulley, Corinne & Clifton, Geoffrey Tilden & Balbontin, Camila & Ma, Liang, 2017. "Information for travelling: Awareness and usage of the various sources of information available to public transport users in NSW," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 111-132.
    8. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    9. Kaitlynn Sandstrom‐Mistry & Frank Lupi & Hyunjung Kim & Joseph A. Herriges, 2023. "Comparing water quality valuation across probability and non‐probability samples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 744-761, June.
    10. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Krupnick, Alan & Lampi, Elina & Löfgren, Åsa & Qin, Ping & Sterner, Thomas & Yang, Xiaojun, 2021. "The climate decade: Changing attitudes on three continents," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    11. John C. Whitehead & Andrew Ropicki & John Loomis & Sherry Larkin & Tim Haab & Sergio Alvarez, 2023. "Estimating the benefits to Florida households from avoiding another Gulf oil spill using the contingent valuation method: Internal validity tests with probability‐based and opt‐in samples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 705-720, June.
    12. Richert, Claire & Rogers, Abbie & Burton, Michael, 2015. "Measuring the extent of a Social License to Operate: The influence of marine biodiversity offsets in the oil and gas sector in Western Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 121-129.
    13. Katarina Haugen, 2016. "Contested Lands? Dissonance and Common Ground in Stakeholder Views on Forest Values," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 107(4), pages 421-434, September.
    14. Malte Oehlmann & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2017. "Stated preferences towards renewable energy alternatives in Germany – do the consequentiality of the survey and trust in institutions matter?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, January.
    15. Hensher, David A. & Ho, Chinh & Mulley, Corinne, 2015. "Identifying preferences for public transport investments under a constrained budget," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-46.
    16. Bhattacharyya, Aditi & Kutlu, Levent & Sickles, Robin C., 2018. "Pricing Inputs and Outputs: Market prices versus shadow prices, market power, and welfare analysis," Working Papers 18-009, Rice University, Department of Economics.
    17. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina & Martinsson, Peter, 2021. "Past and present outage costs – A follow-up study of households’ willingness to pay to avoid power outages," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    18. Porro, Roberto & Porro, Noemi Sakiara Miyasaka, 2022. "State-led social and environmental policy failure in a Brazilian forest frontier: Sustainable Development Project in Anapu, Pará," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    19. Cortés-Capano, Gonzalo & Hanley, Nick & Sheremet, Oleg & Hausmann, Anna & Toivonen, Tuuli & Garibotto-Carton, Gustavo & Soutullo, Alvaro & Di Minin, Enrico, 2021. "Assessing landowners’ preferences to inform voluntary private land conservation: The role of non-monetary incentives," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    20. Iker Etxano & Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Oihana Garcia, 2018. "Conflicting Values in Rural Planning: A Multifunctionality Approach through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.

    More about this item

    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:taf:jenpmg:v:58:y:2015:i:5:p:819-836. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20 .

    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.