sh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • harvard-anglia-ruskin-university
  • apa-old-doi-prefix.csl
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Shoot, fence or feed? Managing agricultural crop damages by twoecologically interdependent deer species
Södertörn University, School of Social Sciences, Economics.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1653-3437
2019 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation only (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Wildlife such as large grazers are associated with positive hunting values, but also with negative effects in terms of browsing damage to agricultural and forest crops. Hunters’ and land owners’ decisions on wildlife management and land use therefore affects the total gains from the management of the resources. Several tools are available to these decision-makers, such as population control, crop choice, diversion feeding and fencing. The issue is further complicated by the presence of multiple deer species that differ with respect to hunting values and crop damages, while also being ecologically interdependent, i.e. through interspecific competition for food. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the economically optimal management of land use and wildlife, in a situation with two ecologically interdependent deer species causing browsing damage to agricultural crops. Using a numerical optimization model, the Nash equilibrium for two separate agents is compared with the socially optimal outcome. Conditions are identified for diversion feeding and fencing being included in the solutions. Results suggest that fencing is included in the socially optimal solution for fencing investment costs being up to 3.5 times reference values obtained from business calculations. For diversion feeding to be included, the diversion effect needs to be 500 to 600 times the reference value, which was calculated based on species energy intake. The Nash equilibrium implies minor deviations from the socially optimal solution as long as fencing is reasonably cheap. If fencing is expensive, and therefore not applicable, the Nash equilibrium scenario implies an 8 percent reduction in the joint net present value, together with a 38 percent reduction in yield, and a doubling of fallow deer harvests and population.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019.
National Category
Economics
Research subject
Politics, Economy and the Organization of Society
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-38189OAI: oai:DiVA.org:sh-38189DiVA, id: diva2:1317828
Conference
Third Nordic Annual Environmental and Resource Economics (NAERE) Workshop, Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, April 11-12, 2019
Funder
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 14/90Available from: 2019-05-24 Created: 2019-05-24 Last updated: 2019-05-24Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Authority records BETA

Elofsson, Katarina

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Elofsson, Katarina
By organisation
Economics
Economics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 57 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • harvard-anglia-ruskin-university
  • apa-old-doi-prefix.csl
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf