IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v79y2003i4p472-482.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences for Alternative Moose Management Regimes among Finnish Landowners: A Choice Experiment Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Paula Horne
  • Leena Petäjistö

Abstract

The moose was endangered in Finland, but under a strict control of limited usufruct rights has successfully increased its population. Landowners derive use value through hunting rights, but also face the cost of browsing damage in forest stands. We applied choice experiment method to study the heterogeneous views of landowners on moose management. The results show that the majority of respondents would prefer a lower population level. Although at the current population level, the value of bag exceeds the cost of browsing damage, even the group that had both interests preferred lower population levels.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:79:y:2003:i:4:p:472-482
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/79/4/472
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    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. Robert Innes & Stephen Polasky & John Tschirhart, 1998. "Takings, Compensation and Endangered Species Protection on Private Lands," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 35-52, Summer.
    2. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    3. Brown, G. & Layton, D. & Lazo, J., 1994. "Valuing Habitat and Endangered Species," Discussion Papers in Economics at the University of Washington 94-1, Department of Economics at the University of Washington.
    4. David S. Brookshire & Larry S. Eubanks & Alan Randall, 1983. "Estimating Option Prices and Existence Values for Wildlife Resources," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 59(1), pages 1-15.
    5. Polasky, Stephen & Doremus, Holly, 1998. "When the Truth Hurts: Endangered Species Policy on Private Land with Imperfect Information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 22-47, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    8. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    9. Tanguay, Mark & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C., 1995. "An Economic Evaluation of Woodland Caribou Conservation Programs in Northwestern Saskatchewan," Project Report Series 24039, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    10. Thomas H. Stevens & Jaime Echeverria & Ronald J. Glass & Tim Hager & Thomas A. More, 1991. "Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 390-400.
    11. Skonhoft, Anders, 1997. "On the principles of conservation and utilization of wild living resources," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 39-110, February.
    12. Brown, G. & Layton, D. & Lazo, J., 1994. "Valuing Habitat and Endangered Species," Working Papers 94-1, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
    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. Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nick, 2007. "What Determines Prediction Errors In "Benefits Transfer" Models?," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7967, Agricultural Economics Society.
    2. 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).
    3. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri & Yiannis Kountouris, 2008. "Applications of the Choice Experiment Method in Europe: A Review," DEOS Working Papers 0803, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    4. 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.
    5. Engelman, Marc & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2018. "Hunters' trade-off in valuation of different game animals in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 73-81.
    6. 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.
    7. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    8. Jayalath, Tharaka A. & Grala, Robert K. & Grado, Stephen C. & Evans, David L., 2021. "Increasing provision of ecosystem services through participation in a conservation program," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    9. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Amy W. Ando, 2014. "Valuing Grassland Restoration: Proximity to Substitutes and Trade-offs among Conservation Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 237-259.
    10. Birol, Ekin & Phoebe, Koundouri & Yiannis, Kountouris, 2008. "Using the Choice Experiment Method to Inform River Management in Poland: Flood Risk Reduction vs. Habitat Conservation in the Upper Silesia Region," MPRA Paper 41906, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Ouvrard, Benjamin & Abildtrup, Jens & Bostedt, Göran & Stenger, Anne, 2019. "Determinants of forest owners attitudes towards wood ash recycling in Sweden - Can the nutrient cycle be closed?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    12. 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.
    13. Broch, Stine Wamberg & Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth, 6. "Contract design from a landowner perspective," Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, issue 42, April.
    14. Bart Neuts, 2016. "An econometric approach to crowding in touristic city centres," Tourism Economics, , vol. 22(5), pages 1055-1074, October.
    15. Linas Balčiauskas & Yukichika Kawata & Laima Balčiauskienė, 2020. "Moose Management Strategies under Changing Legal and Institutional Frameworks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-18, October.
    16. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2008. "How Can We Reduce the Errors from Benefits Transfer? An Investigation Using the Choice Experiment Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 128-147.

    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. 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).
    2. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401, April.
    3. Ressurreição, Adriana & Gibbons, James & Dentinho, Tomaz Ponce & Kaiser, Michel & Santos, Ricardo S. & Edwards-Jones, Gareth, 2011. "Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 729-739, February.
    4. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Banerjee, Swagata (Ban) & Martin, Steven W. & Hudson, Darren, 2006. "A Choice-Based Conjoint Experiment with Genetically Engineered Cotton in the Mississippi Delta," 2006 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2006, Orlando, Florida 35389, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. Teratanavat, Ratapol P. & Hooker, Neal H., 2005. "Exploring Consumer Valuation and Preference Heterogeneity for Functional Foods Using a Choice Experiment: A Case Study of Tomato Juice Containing Soy in Ohio," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19556, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    8. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2001. "Logit Models For Pooled Contingent Valuation And Contingent Rating And Ranking Data: Valuing Benefits From Forest Biodiversity Conservation," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20616, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Niroomand, Naghmeh & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2018. "A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 138-149.
    10. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    11. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
    12. Polasky, Stephen & Costello, Christopher & Solow, Andrew, 2005. "The Economics of Biodiversity," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 29, pages 1517-1560, Elsevier.
    13. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    14. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    15. Mike Christie & Christopher D. Azevedo, 2009. "Testing the Consistency Between Standard Contingent Valuation, Repeated Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 154-170, February.
    16. Kjartan Sælensminde, 2002. "The Impact of Choice Inconsistencies in Stated Choice Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 403-420, December.
    17. Justin Visagie & Dorrit Posel, 2013. "A reconsideration of what and who is middle class in South Africa," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 149-167, June.
    18. Newell, Laurie W. & Swallow, Stephen K., 2013. "Real-payment choice experiments: Valuing forested wetlands and spatial attributes within a landscape context," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 37-47.
    19. Michael P. McGonagle & Stephen K. Swallow, 2005. "Open Space and Public Access: A Contingent Choice Application to Coastal Preservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(4).
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q22 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Fishery

    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:uwp:landec:v:79:y:2003:i:4:p:472-482. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.