Effect of decision rules in choice experiments on hunting and bushmeat trade

© 2020 Society for Conservation Biology.

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology. - 1999. - 34(2020), 6 vom: 16. Dez., Seite 1393-1403
1. Verfasser: Nielsen, Martin Reinhardt (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 2020
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology
Schlagworte:Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Tanzania arrepentimiento cacería furtiva carne de animales silvestres latent class model modelo de clase latente poaching regret mehr... wild meat  野味 偷猎 坦桑尼亚 潜在类别模型 遗憾
LEADER 01000naa a22002652 4500
001 NLM318122820
003 DE-627
005 20231225164709.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231225s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1111/cobi.13628  |2 doi 
028 5 2 |a pubmed24n1060.xml 
035 |a (DE-627)NLM318122820 
035 |a (NLM)33245808 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Nielsen, Martin Reinhardt  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Effect of decision rules in choice experiments on hunting and bushmeat trade 
264 1 |c 2020 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a ƒaComputermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a ƒa Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
500 |a Date Completed 26.02.2021 
500 |a Date Revised 26.02.2021 
500 |a published: Print 
500 |a Citation Status MEDLINE 
520 |a © 2020 Society for Conservation Biology. 
520 |a Providing insight on decisions to hunt and trade bushmeat can facilitate improved management interventions that typically include enforcement, alternative employment, and donation of livestock. Conservation interventions to regulate bushmeat hunting and trade have hitherto been based on assumptions of utility- (i.e., personal benefits) maximizing behavior, which influences the types of incentives designed. However, if individuals instead strive to minimize regret, interventions may be misguided. We tested support for 3 hypotheses regarding decision rules through a choice experiment in Tanzania. We estimated models based on the assumptions of random utility maximization (RUM) and pure random regret maximization (P-RRM) and combinations thereof. One of these models had an attribute-specific decision rule and another had a class-specific decision rule. The RUM model outperformed the P-RRM model, but the attribute-specific model performed better. Allowing respondents with different decision rules and preference heterogeneity within each decision rule in a class-specific model performed best, revealing that 55% of the sample used a P-RRM decision rule. Individuals using a P-RRM decision rule responded less to enforcement, salary, and livestock donation than did individuals using the RUM decision rule. Hence, 3 common strategies, enforcement, alternative income-generating activities, and providing livestock as a substitute protein, are likely less effective in changing the behavior of more than half of respondents. Only salary elicited a large (i.e. elastic) response, and only for one RUM class. Policies to regulate the bushmeat trade based solely on the assumption of individuals maximizing utility, may fail for a significant proportion of the sample. Despite the superior performance of models that allow both RUM and P-RRM decision rules there are drawbacks that must be considered before use in the Global South, where very little is known about the social-psychology of decision making 
650 4 |a Journal Article 
650 4 |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't 
650 4 |a Tanzania 
650 4 |a arrepentimiento 
650 4 |a cacería furtiva 
650 4 |a carne de animales silvestres 
650 4 |a latent class model 
650 4 |a modelo de clase latente 
650 4 |a poaching 
650 4 |a regret 
650 4 |a wild meat 
650 4 |a  野味 
650 4 |a 偷猎 
650 4 |a 坦桑尼亚 
650 4 |a 潜在类别模型 
650 4 |a 遗憾 
700 1 |a Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology  |d 1999  |g 34(2020), 6 vom: 16. Dez., Seite 1393-1403  |w (DE-627)NLM098176803  |x 1523-1739  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:34  |g year:2020  |g number:6  |g day:16  |g month:12  |g pages:1393-1403 
856 4 0 |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13628  |3 Volltext 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_NLM 
912 |a GBV_ILN_350 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 34  |j 2020  |e 6  |b 16  |c 12  |h 1393-1403