Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 515–530 | Cite as

Moose Hunting Values in Sweden Now and Two Decades Ago: The Swedish Hunters Revisited

  • Mattias Boman
  • Leif Mattsson
  • Göran Ericsson
  • Bengt Kriström


This paper is based on two national contingent valuation studies dealing with the extent and economic values of hunting in Sweden. The first valuation study was conducted in 1987 and the second in 2006. Both the game resource and the hunter community have undergone changes in the two decades covered by the surveys. An important purpose of the latter survey was to repeat relevant parts of the former one, which created a rare opportunity to compare valuations covering a very long time span. Moose hunting value and its determinants were compared between the two studies, showing that significant changes have taken place. Our analysis suggests caution in using results from old contingent valuation studies for e.g. benefits transfer exercises.


Contingent valuation Temporal Intertemporal Comparison Hunting Moose Willingness to pay Value 



Contingent valuation method


Equivalent variation


Willingness to pay


Swedish kronor


Ordinary least squares


Maximum likelihood estimation


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Silva CL, Brookshire D, McKee M (2000) Contingent values for New Mexico instream flows: with tests of scope, group-size reminder and temporal reliability. J Environ Manag 58: 73–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brännlund R, Kriström B (1998) Miljöekonomi. Studentlitteratur, LundGoogle Scholar
  3. Brouwer R, Bateman IJ (2005) Temporal stability and transferability of models of willingness to pay for flood control and wetland conservation. Water Resour Res 41: W03017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cameron TA, Huppert DD (1989) OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. J Environ Econ Manag 17: 230–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carson RT (2004) Contingent valuation—a comprehensive bibliography and history. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  6. Carson RT, Wright JL, Carson N, Alberini A, Flores N (1996) A Bibliography of contingent valuation studies and papers. Natural Resource Damage Assessment Inc, La JollaGoogle Scholar
  7. Carson RT, Hanemann WM, Kopp RJ, Krosnick JA, Mitchell RC, Presser S, Ruud PA, Smith VK (1997) Temporal reliability of estimates from contingent valuation. Land Econ 73: 151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clawson M, Knetsch JL (1966) Economics of outdoor recreation. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  9. Danell K, Bergström R, Edenius L, Ericsson G (2003) Ungulates as drivers of tree population dynamics. F Ecol Manag 181: 67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Ericsson G, Boman M, Mattsson L (2000) Selective versus random moose harvesting: does it pay to be a prudent predator?. J Bioecon 2: 117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ericsson G, Eriksson T, Laitila T, Sandström C, Willebrand T, Öhlund G (2005) Delrapport om jakt och fiske—omfattning, betydelse och förvaltning. FjällMistra, Rapport nr. 14Google Scholar
  13. Ericsson G, Danell K, Boman M, Mattsson L, Weinberg U (2010) Viltet och människan. In: Danell K, Bergström R (eds) Vilt, Människa, Samhälle. Liber, Stockholm, Sweden, pp 169–182Google Scholar
  14. Field BC (2001) Natural resource economics. McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  15. Garrod G, Willis KG (1999) Economic valuation of the environment. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldstein H, Healy MJR (1995) The graphical presentation of a collection of means. J Roy Stat Soc A Sta 158(1): 175–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greene WH (1993) Econometric analysis. Macmillan Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66: 332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanemann WM, Kanninen BJ (1999) The statistical analysis of discrete response CV data. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU and developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp 302–441Google Scholar
  20. Heberlein T, Ericsson G (2005) Ties to the countryside: Urban attitudes toward hunting, wildlife and wolves. Hum Dimens Wildl 10: 213–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jägareförbundet (2006) Avskjutningsstatistik: Årsrapport jaktåret 2004/2005. Svenska Jägareförbundet, Nyköping, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  22. Johansson P-O (1993) Cost-benefit analysis of environmental change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johansson P-O, Kriström B, Mattsson L (1988) How is the willingness to pay for moose hunting affected by the stock of moose? An empirical study of moose-hunters in the county of Västerbotten. J Environ Manag 26: 163–171Google Scholar
  24. Kriström B (1987) The value of a hunting permit under rationing: an application to moose hunting in Sweden. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Institutionen för Skogsekonomi, Arbetsrapport 58Google Scholar
  25. Kriström B, Riera P (1996) Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one?. Environ Resour Econ 7: 45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krutilla JV (1967) Conservation reconsidered. Am Econ Rev 57: 777–786Google Scholar
  27. Mattsson L (1985) Älgens ekonomiska betydelse—En förstudie. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Institutionen för Skogsekonomi. Utredning på uppdrag av Naturvårdsverket. MimeoGoogle Scholar
  28. Mattsson L (1989a) Viltets jaktvärde – En ekonomisk analys. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Institutionen för Skogsekonomi, Arbetsrapport 86Google Scholar
  29. Mattsson L (1989b) The economic value of wildlife for hunting. Scandinavian forest economics. Multiple use of forests—economics and policy No. 30: pp 42–61Google Scholar
  30. Mattsson L (1990a) Hunting in Sweden: extent, economic values and structural problems. Scand J For Res 5: 563–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mattsson L (1990b) Moose management and the economic value of hunting—towards bioeconomic analysis. Scand J For Res 5: 574–581Google Scholar
  32. Mattsson L, Kriström B (1987) Älgens jaktvärde – En ekonomisk analys baserad på 1985 års älgjakt i Västerbottens län. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Institutionen för Skogsekonomi, Arbetsrapport 60Google Scholar
  33. Mattsson L, Boman M, Ericsson G (2008) Jakten i Sverige—Ekonomiska värden och attityder jaktåret 2005/06. Adaptiv Förvaltning av Vilt och Fisk, Rapport Nr. 1Google Scholar
  34. McConnell KE, Strand IE, Valdés S (1998) Testing temporal reliability and carry-over effect: The Role of correlated responses in test–retest reliability studies. Environ Resour Econ 12: 357–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Pearce D, Atkinson G, Mourato S (2006) Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent developments. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  37. Reiling SD, Boyle KJ, Phillips ML, Anderson MW (1990) Temporal reliability of contingent values. Land Econ 66(2): 129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Russo R (2003) Statistics for the behavioural sciences. Taylor and Francis, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  39. SCB (2007) Statistisk Årsbok för Sverige. Statistiska Centralbyrån, BoråsGoogle Scholar
  40. Seiler A (2005) Predicting locations of moose—vehicle collisions in Sweden. J Appl Ecol 42: 371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Söderqvist T (1996) Ekonomisk värdering av miljön: Metoder och svenska erfarenheter. In SOU 1996: 117, Expertrapport från Skatteväxlingskommitten. Fritzes, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  42. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 3rd edn. W. Freeman and Co, New York USAGoogle Scholar
  43. Stevens TH, More TA, Glass RJ (1994) Interpretation and temporal stability of CV bids for wildlife existence: a panel study. Land Econ 70(3): 355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency: (2004) Common sense and the right of public access. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  45. von Essen H, Ericsson G (1999) Älgjakt och skadskjutning under den första älgjaktsveckan. Viltforum, 2Google Scholar
  46. Whitehead JC, Hoban TJ (1999) Testing for temporal reliability in contingent valuation with time for changes in factors affecting demand. Land Econ 75(3): 453–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilson AM, Hoehn JP (2006) Valuing environmental goods and services using benefit transfer: the state-of-the-art and science. Ecol Econ 60: 335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zandersen M, Termansen M, Jensen FS (2007) Testing benefits transfer of forest recreation values over a twenty-year time horizon. Land Econ 83(3): 412–440Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mattias Boman
    • 1
  • Leif Mattsson
    • 1
  • Göran Ericsson
    • 2
  • Bengt Kriström
    • 3
  1. 1.Southern Swedish Forest Research CentreSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)AlnarpSweden
  2. 2.Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental StudiesSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)UmeåSweden
  3. 3.CERE, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) and Umeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations