IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/slueko/2015_001.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A review of the literature on benefits, costs, and policies for wildlife management

Author

Listed:
  • Häggmark-Svensson, Tobias

    () (Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)

  • Elofsson, Katarina

    () (Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)

  • Engelmann, Marc

    () (Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)

  • Gren, Ing-Marie

    () (Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)

Abstract

Wildlife management is a source of conflict in many countries because of the asymmetric allocation of benefits and costs among stakeholders. A review of studies on benefits, costs, and policies shows most valuation studies estimate recreational values of hunting, which can range between 13 and 545 USD/hunting day (in 2013 prices). A majority of the studies on costs calculate losses from livestock predation and crop destruction, and show that they can correspond to 40% of profits in the agricultural sector in wildlife rich regions in the US. Most of the studies are carried out for animals in developed economies, in particular in the US. This is in contrast to studies on costs of wildlife, which to a large extent are born by farmers neighboring national parks in developing and emerging economies. However, a common feature of both valuation and cost studies is the exclusion of several costs and benefits items and of indirect effects in the economies, which can be considerable for economies with high reliance on tourism and agriculture sectors. With respect to policy choice, the literature suggests economic incentives for conflict resolutions, where the winners from wildlife compensate the losses, but studies evaluating such policies in practice are lacking.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:slueko:2015_001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.slu.se/PageFiles/112312/Economics%20of%20wildlife%20management.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2010. "Performance payments: A new strategy to conserve large carnivores in the tropics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 405-412, December.
    2. Lili Sun & G. Cornelis Van Kooten & Graham M. Voss, 2005. "Demand for Wildlife Hunting in British Columbia," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 25-46, March.
    3. Paul J. Ferraro & R. David Simpson, 2002. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Conservation Payments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(3), pages 339-353.
    4. 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.
    5. Olaussen, Jon Olaf & Skonhoft, Anders, 2011. "A cost-benefit analysis of moose harvesting in Scandinavia. A stage structured modelling approach," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 589-611, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Gibson, Clark C. & Marks, Stuart A., 1995. "Transforming rural hunters into conservationists: An assessment of community-based wildlife management programs in Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 941-957, June.
    8. Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2001. "A Travel Cost Study of Duck Hunting in the Upper South East of South Australia," 2001 Conference (45th), January 23-25, 2001, Adelaide, Australia 126064, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Bulte, Erwin & Rondeau, Daniel, 2007. "Compensation for wildlife damages: Habitat conversion, species preservation and local welfare," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 311-322, November.
    10. Astrid Zabel & Karen Pittel & Göran Bostedt & Stefanie Engel, 2011. "Comparing Conventional and New Policy Approaches for Carnivore Conservation: Theoretical Results and Application to Tiger Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 287-301, February.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. S. V. Ciriacy-Wantrup, 1947. "Capital Returns from Soil-Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4_Part_II), pages 1181-1196.
    14. Lisa A. Offenbach & Barry K. Goodwin, 1994. "A Travel-Cost Analysis of the Demand for Hunting Trips in Kansas," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 16(1), pages 55-61.
    15. Zabel, Astrid & Pittel, Karen & Bostedt, Göran & Engel, Stefanie, 2011. "Comparing conventional and new policy approaches for carnivore conservation: Theoretical results and application to tiger conservation," Munich Reprints in Economics 19669, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Jeff Bennett & Stuart Whitten, 2003. "Duck Hunting and Wetland Conservation: Compromise or Synergy?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 51(2), pages 161-173, July.
    19. 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.
    20. Skonhoft, Anders, 2007. "Economic modeling approaches for wildlife and species conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 223-231, April.
    21. Morton, K. & Adamowicz, W.L. & Boxall, P.C., 1994. "Economic Effects of Environmental Quality Change on Recreational Hunting in Northern Saskatchewan," Project Report Series 232385, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    22. Mattias Boman & Leif Mattsson & Göran Ericsson & Bengt Kriström, 2011. "Moose Hunting Values in Sweden Now and Two Decades Ago: The Swedish Hunters Revisited," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 515-530, December.
    23. William D. Schulze & Ralph C. d'Arge & David S. Brookshire, 1981. "Valuing Environmental Commodities: Some Recent Experiments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(2), pages 151-172.
    24. 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.
    25. Bishop, Richard C. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 1979. "Measuring Values Of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    26. Rollins, Kimberly & Briggs, Hugh III, 1996. "Moral Hazard, Externalities, and Compensation for Crop Damages from Wildlife," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 368-386, November.
    27. 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.
    28. Daniel Rondeau & Erwin Bulte, 2007. "Wildlife Damage and Agriculture: A Dynamic Analysis of Compensation Schemes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 490-507.
    29. Karen Mayor & Susan Scott & Richard S.J. Tol, 2007. "Comparing the Travel Cost Method and the Contingent Valuation Method ? An application of Convergent Validity Theory to the Recreational Value of Irish Forests," Papers WP190, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    30. Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Abell, Walter L., 2014. "Hunting for optimality: preferences for Sika deer hunting experiences," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165845, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    31. Skonhoft, Anders, 2006. "The costs and benefits of animal predation: An analysis of Scandinavian wolf re-colonization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 830-841, July.
    32. McConnell, K. E., 1990. "Models for referendum data: The structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 19-34, January.
    33. Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Abell, Walter L., 2014. "What’s your game? Heterogeneity amongst New Zealand hunters," 2014 Conference, August 28-29, 2014, Nelson, New Zealand 187501, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    34. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown, 2000. "Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(4), pages 616-624, November.
    35. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    36. Häggmark Svensson, Tobias & Gren, Ing-Marie & Andersson, Hans & Jansson, Gunnar & Jägerbrand, Annika, 2014. "Costs of traffic accidents with wild boar populations in Sweden," Working Paper Series 2014:5, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department Economics.
    37. Cory, Dennis C. & Martin, William E., 1985. "Valuing Wildlife For Efficient Multiple Use: Elk Versus Cattle," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 10(2), pages 1-12, December.
    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. Widman, Marit & Elofsson, Katarina, 2018. "Costs of Livestock Depredation by Large Carnivores in Sweden 2001 to 2013," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 188-198.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    costs; benefits; policies; wildlife; review;

    JEL classification:

    • Q29 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Other
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hhs:slueko:2015_001. 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: (Elizabeth Hillerius). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/iesluse.html .

    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.