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.

THANKSenriquedelamontana@gmail.com

We are very grateful to indigenous people of Dureno, Wajosara and Cuyabeno, and the next institutions: