Figure 2 - uploaded by Lou Cornicelli
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sample choice scenario of 2 spring turkey season alternatives presented to spring wild turkey hunters in Minnesota, USA who participated in a 2014 survey.
Source publication
Recreational turkey hunting exemplifies the interdisciplinary nature of modern wildlife management. Turkey populations in Minnesota have reached social or biological carrying capacities in many areas, and changes to turkey hunting regulations have been proposed by stakeholders and wildlife managers. This study employed discrete stated choice modeli...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... and Outcomes Research 2010), and they provide optimal or near optimal designs for main-effects models (Chrzan and Orme 2000). Our design employed 10 survey versions with 10 scenarios/version for 100 choice tasks. Each scenario included 2 alternatives plus a none (i.e., "I would not hunt turkey in Minnesota with these seasons") option (Fig. 2). Alternatives presented in each scenario consisted of the attributes season structure, permit, hunter interference, and lottery. There were 4 possible levels for the season structure and lottery attributes, and 3 levels for both second permit and hunter interference attributes (Table ...
Context 2
... and Outcomes Research 2010), and they provide optimal or near optimal designs for main-effects models (Chrzan and Orme 2000). Our design employed 10 survey versions with 10 scenarios/version for 100 choice tasks. Each scenario included 2 alternatives plus a none (i.e., "I would not hunt turkey in Minnesota with these seasons") option (Fig. 2). Alternatives presented in each scenario consisted of the attributes season structure, permit, hunter interference, and lottery. There were 4 possible levels for the season structure and lottery attributes, and 3 levels for both second permit and hunter interference attributes (Table ...
Citations
... Stated-choice surveys are another good option for gathering necessary information from a large stakeholder group to make tradeoffs among objectives. These surveys ask respondents to choose from a hypothetical set of management actions that are described as ranges of objective measures (e.g., aspects of season choice for turkey hunting; Adamowicz et al. 1994, Schroeder et al. 2017). The range of predicted outcomes for each objective can be used to create a set of hypothetical actions. ...
... In this way, stakeholders state their preference for a range of predicted outcomes for their objectives, rather than choosing an action directly, eliminating (potentially incorrect) inferences on the part of the stakeholder (Hunt et al. 2010). These preferences then can be incorporated directly into the analysis of tradeoffs (Schroeder et al. 2017). Although stated-choice surveys effectively gather social science data needed to make tradeoffs, they are complex to construct and analyze (Fieburg et al. 2010), underscoring the necessity of engaging social scientists at the beginning of the decision-analytic process (Challenge 1). ...
The last 25 years have witnessed growing recognition that natural resource management decisions depend as much on understanding humans and their social interactions as on understanding the interactions between non-human organisms and their environment. Decision science provides a framework for integrating ecological and social factors into a decision, but challenges to integration remain. The decision-analytic framework elicits values and preferences to help articulate objectives, and then evaluates the outcomes of alternative management actions to achieve these objectives. Integrating social science into these steps can be hindered by failing to include social scientists as more than stakeholder-process facilitators, assuming that specific decision-analytic skills are commonplace for social scientists, misperceptions of social data as inherently qualitative, timescale mismatches for iterating through decision analysis and collecting relevant social data, difficulties in predicting human behavior, and failures of institutions to recognize the importance of this integration. We engage these challenges, and suggest solutions to them, helping move forward the integration of social and biological/ecological knowledge and considerations in decision-making.
