Predicting hunting behavior among indigenous communities in Ecuador: insights from a bioeconomic...
18
Predicting hunting behavior among indigenous communities in Ecuador: insights from a bioeconomic model Enrique de la Montaña Eloy Alfaro University (Manta, Ecuador)
description
Presentation by Enrique de la Montaña at the symposium, "Innovative ways for conserving the ecosystem services provided by bushmeat" in the 51th Annual Meeting ATBC 2014 in Cairns, Australia.
Transcript of Predicting hunting behavior among indigenous communities in Ecuador: insights from a bioeconomic...
Predicting hunting behavior amongindigenous communities in Ecuador:insights from a bioeconomic model
Enrique de la Montaña
Eloy Alfaro University (Manta, Ecuador)
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Bushmeat hunting in Ecuador
Sources: de la Montaña 2013; Fa and Peres 2001
Number of consumers
Per
cap
ita
mam
mal
sb
iom
asss
har
vest
kg/p
erso
n/y
ear
TRADICIONALLY EMPIRICAL
Economic approaches in the region
OUR AIM
To develop a bioeconomic model of hunter’sbehavior to analyze the impact of key economicparameters on bushmeat hunting
- Wildlife consumption
- Hunting
- Game abundance
- Bushmeat demand
- Income
- Price
- Wealth
COLOMBIA
PERÚ
CUYABENORESERVE
Study area
WAJOSARA
DURENO
CUYABENO
ECUADOR
6 months of surveys
Indigenous field assistant
II. Socioeconomic weekly survey
III. Hunter’s survey
I. Hunting and fishing daily survey
Methodology: three structured surveys
Household sample 55 out of 75:OUTSIDERESERVE
RESERVE BORDER
INSIDE RESERVE
29/42 10/11 16/22
Hunted individuals 837
Hunted biomass (pounds) 12382
Fished biomass (pounds) 3749
- Biomass harvest per week/household
Survey Results: Wildlife harvest- Total harvest in 6 months
Pounds
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
OUTSIDE BORDER INSIDE
BUSHMEAT
FISH
Survey Results: Income received
38,780,290,5
OUTSIDE INSIDEBORDER
Total income per week/household (US$)
Distribution of income per household SOURCES
LABOURER
AGRICULTURAL
FORESTRY
HUNTING
FISHING
ARTISTRY
OUTSIDE INSIDEBORDER
Survey Results: Expenditure
0
1
2
3
4
5
US$/week BUSHMEAT
BEEF
PIG
FISH
TUNA
EGG
CHICKEN
Household expenditure in protein per week
Dynamic model of hunter’s behaviour (see Damania et al. 2005)
Household utility is represented by a Cobb-Douglas function:
-Three productive activities:Bushmeat huntingFishingOff-farm activities
-All species are considered together like only one species
= household consumption of goodsγ= proportion of bushmeat consumed
= biomass of the animals hunted = proportion of fish consumed
= biomass of the fish caught
The Model
α α γ α
w = wageLoff = labor time dedicated to off-farm workPr = price of goodCh and Cy = unit cost of hunting and fishing inputs θ = probability that the hunter will be caught selling bushmeatK = fine
I. Budgetary constraint:
Lh = labor time dedicated to huntingN = biomass of the game species (stock) A = hunting areag = group size of the species and = technical parameter
The Model: Constraints
II. Hunting production function:
IV. Labor constraint:
III. Fishing production function:
= effect of fish stock on capture Ly = labor time dedicated to fishingδ = productivity of the labor force dedicated to fishing
Loff = labor dedicated to off-farm workLh = labor dedicated to huntingLy = labor dedicated to fishing
The Model: Constraints
Simulation results: Bushmeat prices
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
OUTSIDE BORDER INSIDE
Benchmark Price variation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
OUTSIDE BORDER INSIDE
Benchmark Price variation
+25% INCREASE prices +50% INCREASE prices
Hu
nti
ng
tim
e (
ho
ur/
wee
k/h
ou
seh
old
)
OVERHUNTING AND DECREASE IN WELL-BEING
+52%
+110%
+131% +115%
+50%
+60%
Simulation results: Bushmeat prices
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
OUTSIDE BORDER INSIDE
Benchmark Price variation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
OUTSIDE BORDER INSIDE
Benchmark Price variation
-42%-47%-73%
-74%-80%
-41%
-25% DECREASE prices -50% DECREASE prices
Hu
nti
ng
tim
e (
ho
ur/
wee
k/h
ou
seh
old
)
Simulation results: Hunting costs
+50% INCREASE costs
0
5
10
15
20
OUTSIDE BORDER INSIDE
Before After
-8%-19%
-5%H
un
tin
gti
me
(h
ou
r/w
eek/
ho
use
ho
ld)
Simulation results: Wages off-farm
0
5
10
15
20
OUTSIDE BORDER INSIDE
Before After
+25% INCREASE wages +50% INCREASE wages
-32%-32%
0
5
10
15
20
OUTSIDE BORDER INSIDE
Before After
-51%
-51%-51%
-33%
Hu
nti
ng
tim
e (
ho
ur/
wee
k/h
ou
seh
old
)
Simulation results: Penalty
0
5
10
15
20
OUTSIDE BORDER INSIDE
Before After
0
5
10
15
20
OUTSIDE BORDER INSIDE
Before After
FINE= US$11,4 Confiscation = US$4Probability of detection = 20%
-100%-99,8%
-50%
-59%-52%-99,1%
Hu
nti
ng
tim
e (
ho
ur/
wee
k/h
ou
seh
old
)
NO FINE Confiscation = US$4Probability of detection = 20%
ConclusionsRising bushmeat prices increase time dedicated to hunting,
which will likely lead to declines in game and thereby threaten the well-being of the indigenous population.
Conversely, declining bushmeat prices improve wildlife conservation and cultural survival.
Hunting costs is the parameter with the least impact in time dedicated to hunting.
Increased wages lead to a proportional reduction in time dedicated to hunting.
A robust system of rules and enforcement represents the best strategy for regulating hunting activity and controlling illegal trade in bushmeat.
We are very grateful to indigenous people of Dureno, Wajosara and Cuyabeno, and the next institutions:
