Advertisement

European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 60, Issue 6, pp 933–936 | Cite as

Hunting in European mountain systems: an economic assessment of game gross margins in nine case study areas

  • M. Martínez-Jauregui
  • M. Pardos
  • P. Balogh
  • C. Chauvin
  • M. Klopcic
  • E. Wilhelmsson
  • A. C. Herruzo
Short Communication

Abstract

Wildlife occupies a very relevant place in ecosystems by providing multiple goods and services to society, gaining an important role in mountain systems. In this manuscript, we calculate gross margin figures associated with game hunting activity in nine European mountainous case study areas. Information about local game population and their management were collected by means of a structured questionnaire completed by the managers in charge of game species in the case study areas. Results show that in most of the cases, gross margins per hectare are negative, indicating that in these instances, the current market apparently does not justify maintaining hunting in some European mountain systems. Although more sampling efforts should be done to confirm our findings at a wider scale, our analysis reinforces the idea that other social factors, such as cultural heritage or self-consumption associated with hunting, may be crucial to wholly understand hunting in mountain systems. So we urge scientists to estimate non-market values related to hunting to better explain society priorities and therefore to efficiently guide future conservation, management, and policies in marginal and least favored mountain systems.

Keywords

Multifunctionality of mountain forests Costs Revenues Game species Non-market values 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study is framed within the ARANGE-Project (FP7-KBBE-2011-5, Grant agreement no: 289437), led by Prof. Dr Manfred J. Lexer, and funded by the Seventh Framework Programme.

References

  1. Boman M, Mattsson L, Ericsson G, Kriström B (2011) Moose hunting values in Sweden now and two decades ago: the Swedish hunters revisited. Environ Resour Econ 50:515–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bush ER, Buesching CD, Slade EM, Macdonald DW (2012) Woodland recovery after suppression of deer: cascade effects for small mammals, wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus) and bank voles (Myodes glareolus). PLoS ONE 7(2):e31404PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campos P, Oviedo JL, Caparrós A, Huntsinger L, Coelho I (2009) Contingent valuation of woodland-owner private amenities in Spain, Portugal, and California. Rangel Ecol Manag 62:240–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coltman DW, O’Donoghue P, Jorgenson JT, Hogg JT, Strobeck C, Festa-Bianchet M (2003) Undesirable evolutionary consequences of trophy hunting. Nature 426:655–658PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Delibes-Mateos M, Giergiczny M, Caro J, Viñuela J, Riera P, Arroyo B (2014) Does hunters’willingness-to-pay match the best hunting options for biodiversity conservation? A choice experiment application for partridge hunting in Spain. Biol Cons 177:36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Domínguez-Torreiro M, Durán-Medraño R, Soliño M (2013) Social legitimacy issues in the provision of non-commodity outputs from rural development programs. Land Use Policy 34:42–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. European Environment Agency (2010) Europe’s ecological backbone: recognising the true value of our mountains. EEA Report No 6/2010. EEA, Copenhagen,Google Scholar
  8. Fischer A, Sandström C, Delibes-Mateos M, Arroyo B, Tadie D, Randall D, Majić A (2013) On the multifunctionality of hunting—an institutional analysis of eight cases from Europe and Africa. J Environ Plan Manag 56:531–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freeman AM (1993) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Resources for the Future, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  10. Gerhardt P, Arnold JM, Hackländer K, Hochbichler E (2013) Determinants of deer impact in European forests—a systematic literature analysis. For Ecol Manag 310:173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gortázar C, Ferroglio E, Höfle U, Frölich K, Vicente J (2007) Diseases shared between wildlife and livestock: a European perspective. Eur J Wildl Res 53:241–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Just RE, Hueth DL, Schmitz A (2004) The welfare economics of public policy: a practical approach to project and policy evaluation. Edward Elgar PublishingGoogle Scholar
  13. Langbein J, Putman R, Pokorny B (2010) Traffic collisions involving deer and other ungulates in Europe and available measures for mitigation. In: Apollonio M, Andersen R (eds) Ungulate management in Europe: problems and practices. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 215–259Google Scholar
  14. Macmillan DC, Phillip S (2008) Consumptive and non-consumptive values of wild mammals in Britain. Mammal Rev 38:189–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martínez-Jauregui M, Herruzo AC (2014) A note on the effectiveness of incorporating management objectives with ecological variables when modeling red deer abundance. Eur J Wildl Res 60:511–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Milner JM, Bonenfant C, Mysterud A, Michel-Gallard J, Csányi S, Stenseth NC (2006) Temporal and spatial development of red deer harvesting in Europe: biological and cultural factors. J Appl Ecol 43:721–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Milner-Gulland EJ, Mace R (1998) Conservation of biological resources. Blacwell ScienceGoogle Scholar
  18. Schley L, Roper TJ (2003) Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa in western Europe, with particular reference to consumption of agricultural crops. Mammal Rev 33:43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Martínez-Jauregui
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Pardos
    • 1
    • 2
  • P. Balogh
    • 3
  • C. Chauvin
    • 4
  • M. Klopcic
    • 5
  • E. Wilhelmsson
    • 6
  • A. C. Herruzo
    • 7
  1. 1.INIA-CIFORMadridSpain
  2. 2.Sustainable Forest Management Research InstituteUniversity of Valladolid and INIAValladolidSpain
  3. 3.PRO POPULO Poprad, s.r.o.Spišská TeplicaSlovakia
  4. 4.Irstea, Unité de Recherche Écosystèmes Montagnards, Centre de GrenobleSt. Martin d’HeresFrance
  5. 5.Biotechnical FacultyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  6. 6.SLU, Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  7. 7.ETSI MontesUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations