TY - JOUR

T1 - Wildlife reserves, populations, and hunting outcome with smart wildlife

AU - Jensen, Frank

AU - Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl

AU - Strange, Niels

AU - Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - We consider a hunting area and a wildlife reserve and answer the question: How does clever migration decision affect the social optimal and the private optimal hunting levels and population stocks? We analyze this in a model allowing for two-way migration between hunting and reserve areas, where the populations’ migration decisions depend on both hunting pressure and relative population densities. In the social optimum a pure stress effect on the behavior of smart wildlife exists. This implies that the population level in the wildlife reserve tends to increase and the population level in the hunting area and hunting levels tend to decrease. On the other hand, the effect on stock tends to reduce the population in the wildlife reserve and increase the population in the hunting area and thereby also increase hunting. In the case of the private optimum, open-access is assumed and we find that the same qualitative results arise when comparing a situation with and without stress effects, but of course at a higher level of hunting. We also show that when net social benefits of hunting dominate the net social benefits of populations, wildlife reserves are optimally placed in areas of low carrying capacity and vice versa.

AB - We consider a hunting area and a wildlife reserve and answer the question: How does clever migration decision affect the social optimal and the private optimal hunting levels and population stocks? We analyze this in a model allowing for two-way migration between hunting and reserve areas, where the populations’ migration decisions depend on both hunting pressure and relative population densities. In the social optimum a pure stress effect on the behavior of smart wildlife exists. This implies that the population level in the wildlife reserve tends to increase and the population level in the hunting area and hunting levels tend to decrease. On the other hand, the effect on stock tends to reduce the population in the wildlife reserve and increase the population in the hunting area and thereby also increase hunting. In the case of the private optimum, open-access is assumed and we find that the same qualitative results arise when comparing a situation with and without stress effects, but of course at a higher level of hunting. We also show that when net social benefits of hunting dominate the net social benefits of populations, wildlife reserves are optimally placed in areas of low carrying capacity and vice versa.

KW - Hunting stress

KW - migration behavior

KW - social optimum

KW - open access

U2 - 10.1111/nrm.12039

DO - 10.1111/nrm.12039

M3 - Journal article

VL - 27

SP - 376

EP - 395

JO - Natural Resource Modelling

JF - Natural Resource Modelling

SN - 0890-8575

IS - 3

ER -