J. For. Sci., 2015, 61(7):282-290 | DOI: 10.17221/12/2015-JFS

Selected results of the survey focused on the economic assessment of forest ecosystem servicesOriginal Paper

P. Hlaváčková, D. Březina, J. Meňházová
Department of Forest and Wood Products Economics and Policy, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic

A survey was conducted in the Training Forest Enterprise called Masaryk Forest in Křtiny (TFE Křtiny) in order to determine the extent of recreational use of the area, visitors' travel costs and their willingness to pay for services provided by the forest ecosystem of TFE Křtiny in the years 2013-2014. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the partial results of the research from 2013 and 2014 which was focused on the economic assessment of the recreational potential of the TFE MF Křtiny. The busiest roads in the forest road network and bike trails located in the Bílovice nad Svitavou forest district were selected. The results can be used to assess the impact of the forest enterprise on the economic and social development of the area, to measure the attractiveness, quality and facilities offered in the forest.

Keywords: forestry; questionnaire survey; recreational functions; methods of valuation

Published: July 31, 2015  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Hlaváčková P, Březina D, Meňházová J. Selected results of the survey focused on the economic assessment of forest ecosystem services. J. For. Sci. 2015;61(7):282-290. doi: 10.17221/12/2015-JFS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Armbrecht J. (2014): Use value of cultural experience: A comparison of contingent valuation and travel cost. Tourism Management, 42: 141-148. Go to original source...
    2. Bartczak A., Lindhjem H., Navrud S., Zandersen M., Żylicz T. (2008): Valuing forest recreation on the national level in a transition economy: The case of Poland. Forest Policy and Economics, 10: 467-472. Go to original source...
    3. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanleys N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., Ozdemiroglu E., Pearce D., Sugden R., Swanson J. (2002): Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: a Manual. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar: 94. Go to original source...
    4. Bateman I.J., Willis K.G. (2001): Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in US, EU, and Developing Countries. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 668. Go to original source...
    5. Brezovská K., Holécy J. (2009): Oceněnie rekreačnej funkcie lesov Vysokých Tatier metódou cestovných nákladov. Acta Facultatie Forestalis Zvolen, 51: 151-163. Go to original source...
    6. Březina D., Šafařík D., Hlaváčková P. (2013): LM3 - Local Multiplier in Environmental Economics. In: Fialová J., Kubíčková H. (eds): Public Recreation and Landscape Protection-with man hand in hand. Sborník referátů. Brno, May 1-3, 2013: 77-81.
    7. Burgess T.F. (2001): A General Introduction to the Design of Questionnaire for Survey Research. Leeds, University of Leeds: 27.
    8. Busch M., La Notte A., Laporte V., Erhard M. (2012): Potentials of quantitative and qualitative approaches to assessing ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 20: 89-103. Go to original source...
    9. Carson R.T., Hanemann W.M. (2005): Contingent Valuation. In: Maler K.G., Vincent J.R. (eds): Handbook of Environmental Economics. Elsevier B.V.: 821-936. Go to original source...
    10. Champ P.A., Boyle K., Brown T.C. (2003): A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers: 576. Go to original source...
    11. European Commission (2013): Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; A New EU Forest Strategy: for Forests and the Forest-based Sector. Brussels, European Commission: 17.
    12. Fleming C.M., Cook A. (2008): The recreational value of Lake McKenzie, Fraser Island: an application of the travel cost method. Tourism Management, 29: 1197-1205. Go to original source...
    13. Garrod G., Willis K.G. (1999): Economic Valuation of the Environment: Methods and Case Studies. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar: 384.
    14. Garcia S., Harou P., Montagné C., Stenger A. (2009): Models for sample selection bias in kontingent valuation. Journal of Forest Economics, 15: 59-78. Go to original source...
    15. Haines-Young R., Potschin M. (2010): Proposal for a Common International Classification of Ecosystem Goods and Services (CICES) for Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (V1). Available at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/ceea/meetings/UNCEEA-5-7-Bk1.pdf (accessed May 26, 2014).
    16. Haines-Young R., Potschin M. (2013): Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). Report to the European Environment Agency. Available at http://cices.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/CICES-V43_RevisedFinal_Report_29012013.pdf (accessed May 26, 2014).
    17. Hlaváčková P., Šafařík D. (2013): Metodická východiska kvantifikace významu rekreační funkce lesa v lokální ekonomice - představení projektu. In: Financovanie 2013 Lesy-Drevo: Sborník referátů. Zvolen, Nov 21, 2013: 125-131.
    18. Mayor K., Scot S., Tol R.S.J. (2007): Comparing the Travel Cost Method and the Contingent Valuation Method: An Application on Convergent Validity THeory to the Recreational Value of Irish Forest. Working Paper No. 190. Dublin, The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI): 197.
    19. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T. (1989): Using Surveys to value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, Resources for the Future/Johns Hopkins University Press: 484.
    20. OECD (2005): Oslo Manual. Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Paris, OECD/European Commission: 163. Go to original source...
    21. Pearce D., Atkinson G., Mourato S. (2006): Cost-benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: 315.
    22. Peyron J.L., Harou P., Niedzwiedz A., Stenger A. (2002): National Survey on Demand for Recreation in French Forest. Nancy, Report for EUROSTAT: 44.
    23. Rollins K., Dumitras D.E. (2005): Estimation of median willingness to pay for a system of recreation area. International Review on Public and Non Profit Marketing, 2: 73-84. Go to original source...
    24. Šálka J., Trenčiansky M., Bahula P., Balážová E. (2008): Ekonómia životného prostredia. Zvolen, Technická univerzita vo Zvolene: 163.
    25. TEEB (2011): TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management. The Economics of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity. Available at http://www.teebweb.org/ (accessed May 10, 2014).
    26. TFE (2014): Training Forest Enterprise Masaryk Forest Křtiny. Available at http://www.slpkrtiny.cz/en/slp-krtiny/ about-us/ (accessed May 23, 2014).
    27. Trice A.H., Wood S.E. (1986): Measurement of Recreation Benefits. Land Economics. Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, XXXIV (8): 195-207.
    28. ÚHÚL (2015): Závěry a doporučení Koordinační rady k realizaci Národního lesnického programu II. Available at http://www.uhul.cz/images/NLP/5DoporuceniKA/Zavery_a_doporuceni_KR_k_realizaci_NLP_II.pdf. (accessed May 2, 2015).
    29. Verbič M., Slabe-Erker R. (2009): An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Volčji Potok landscape area. Ecological Economics, 68: 1316-1328. Go to original source...
    30. Willis K.G., Garrod G.D. (2008): An individual travel-cost method of evaluationg forest recreation. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 42: 33-42. Go to original source...
    31. Zandersen M., Tol R.S.J. (2009): A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe. Journal of Forest Economics, 15: 109-130. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content