J. For. Sci., 2016, 62(9):389-398 | DOI: 10.17221/30/2016-JFS

Economic evaluation of the recreational use of forests: A case study of the Training Forest Enterprise Masaryk Forest KřtinyOriginal Paper

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

The objective of the article is to evaluate the results of a questionnaire survey carried out in forest districts of the Training Forest Enterprise Masaryk Forest Křtiny (TFE Křtiny) within research focused on economic evaluation of the recreational potential of the TFE Křtiny. The article is aimed at surveying the willingness of visitors to the area to pay for the use of the recreational function of forests and evaluation of the used method. The evaluated part of the questionnaire survey was based on the contingent valuation method examining the willingness of respondents to pay for recreational function. It was found by the results of the questionnaire survey that visitors are not very willing to pay for recreational function and it is so especially because forests in the area of the TFE Křtiny are perceived as public assets and thus access to them should be free. Furthermore, there were some problems with the method used. Thus it is necessary to find a new way of evaluating the recreational potential of the area.

Keywords: economics; forestry; questionnaire survey; recreational function; methods of valuation; willingness to pay

Published: September 30, 2016  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Hlaváčková P, Březina D. Economic evaluation of the recreational use of forests: A case study of the Training Forest Enterprise Masaryk Forest Křtiny. J. For. Sci. 2016;62(9):389-398. doi: 10.17221/30/2016-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. Anonymous (1995): Economic impacts of protecting rivers, trails, and greenway corridors. Available at https://www.nps.gov/pwro/rtca/econ_index.htm (accessed Apr 10, 2014).
    2. 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...
    3. 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...
    4. 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 Publishing, Ltd.: 94. Go to original source...
    5. Brezovská K., Holécy J. (2009): Oceněnie rekreačnej funkcie lesov Vysokých Tatier metódou cestovných nákladov. Acta Facultatis Forestalis Zvolen, 1: 151-163.
    6. Burgess T.F. (2001): A General Introduction to the Design of Questionnaire for Survey Research. Leeds, University of Leeds: 27.
    7. 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...
    8. Carson R.T., Hanemann W.M. (2005): Contingent valuation. In: Mäler K.G., Vincent J.R. (eds): Handbook of Environmental Economics. Vol. 2. Amsterdam, Elsevier: 821-936. Go to original source...
    9. Champ P.A., Boyle K., Brown T.C. (2003): A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers: 576. Go to original source...
    10. Clawson M. (1959): Methods of Measuring Demand for a Value of Outdoor Recreation. Reprint No. 10. Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future: 36.
    11. 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...
    12. Früh W. (1991): Inhaltsanalyse: Teorie und Praxis. 3rd Ed. München, Ölschläger: 264.
    13. Garcia S., Harou P., Montagné C., Stenger A. (2009): Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Application to forest biodiversity. Journal of Forest Economics, 15: 59-78. Go to original source...
    14. Glover D. (2010): Valuing the Environment. Economics for a Sustainable Future. Ottawa, International Development Research Centre: 120.
    15. Haines-Young R.H., Potschin M.P. (2013): CICES. Report to the European Environment Agency. Available at http://test.matth.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2012/07/CICESV43_Revised-Final_Report_29012013.pdf (accessed Apr 6, 2016).
    16. Harris J.M. (2006): Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: A Contemporary Approach. 2nd Ed. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt: 528.
    17. Hlaváčková P., Březina D. (2015): Benefits of the forest enterprise for the regional economy. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Applied Business Research, Brno, Sept 14-18, 2015: 312-321.
    18. Kupec P. (2014): Possibilities of the recreational function of forests assessment with using of the complex methods of forest function evaluation. In: Fialová J., Pernicová D. (eds): Public Recreation and Landscape Protection - with Man Hand in Hand? 1st Ed. Brno, Mendel University in Brno: 194-197.
    19. López-Mosquera N., Sánchez M. (2013): Direct and indirect effects of received benefits and place attachment in willingness to pay and loyalty in suburban natural areas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34: 27-35. Go to original source...
    20. Lück M. (ed.) (2008): The Encyclopaedia of Tourism and Recreation in Marine Environments. Wallingford, CABI: 587. Go to original source...
    21. Mayor K., Scott 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. Dublin, ESRI: 197.
    22. Meuser M., Nagel U. (1991): ExpertInneninterviews - vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. In: Garz H., Kraimer K. (eds): Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung. Opladen, SpringerVerlag: 441-471. Go to original source...
    23. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T. (1989): Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future: 297.
    24. Nunes P.A.L.D., Kumar P., Dedeurwaerdere T. (eds) (2014): Handbook on the Economics of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd.: 608. Go to original source...
    25. OECD (2005): Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. 3rd Ed. Paris, OECD Publishing: 163.
    26. Pearce D., Atkinson G., Mourato S. (2006): Cost-benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: 315.
    27. Peyron J.L., Harou P., Niedzwiedz A., Stenger A. (2002): National Survey on Demand for Recreation in French Forests. Report for EUROSTAT. Nancy, Laboratoire d'Economie Forestière: 44.
    28. 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...
    29. Šálka J., Trenčiansky M., Bahula P., Balážová E. (2008): Ekonómia životného prostredia. Zvolen, Technical University in Zvolen: 163.
    30. Seják J., Dejmal I. (2003): Hodnocení a oceňování biotopů České republiky. Prague, Czech Environmental Institute: 422.
    31. Šišák L., Švihla V., Šach F. (2002): Oceňování společenské sociálně-ekonomické významnosti základních mimoprodukčních funkcí lesa. Prague, Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic: 71.
    32. Soukopová J., Bakoš E., Doleželová M., Kaplanová B., Kulhavý V., Neshybová J. (2011): Ekonomika životního prostředí. 1st Ed. Brno, Masaryk University: 330.
    33. TEEB (2011): TEEB manual for cities: Ecosystem services in urban management. Available at http://www.teebweb.org/ (accessed Feb 10, 2016).
    34. Telfer D.J. (2002): The evolution of tourism and development theory. In: Sharpley R., Telfer D.J. (eds): Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues. Clevedon, Channel View Publications: 35-80.
    35. Trice A.H., Wood S.E. (1986): Measurement of recreation benefits. Land Economics, 34: 195-207. Go to original source...
    36. Tutka J., Kovalčík M. (2008): Odhad hodnoty rekreačnej funkcie lesov Slovenska prostredníctvom contingent valuation method a travel cost method. Lesnícky časopis - Forestry Journal, 54: 99-107.
    37. Tutka J., Kovalčík M. (2010): Možnosti hodnotenia rekreačnej funkcie lesov. In: Fialová J. (ed.): Rekreace a ochrana přírody: sborník příspěvků, Křtiny, May 5-6, 2010: 73-80.
    38. 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...
    39. Vyskot I., Kapounek L., Krešl J., Kupec P., Macků J., Rožnovský J., Schneider J., Smítka D., Špaček F., Volný S. (2003): Kvantifikace a hodnocení funkcí lesů České republiky. Prague, Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic: 218.
    40. Walsh R.G. (1986): Recreation Economic Decisions: Comparing Benefits and Costs. State College, Venture Publishing, Inc.: 637.
    41. Weaver D.B. (2001): The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism. New York, CABI: 668. Go to original source...
    42. Wengraf T. (2001): Qualitative Research Interviewing: Biographic Narrative and Semi-structured Methods. London, SAGE Publications, Ltd.: 424.
    43. Willis K.G., Garrod G.D. (2008): An individual travel-cost method of evaluating forest recreation. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 42: 33-42. 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