IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v31y2018ipcp420-432.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing an indicator for the physical health benefits of recreation in woodlands

Author

Listed:
  • Moseley, Darren
  • Connolly, Thomas
  • Sing, Louise
  • Watts, Kevin

Abstract

Woodlands provide a range of ecosystem services (ES), yet indicators largely focus on the more tangible and quantifiable ‘goods’ such as timber rather than the benefits from cultural ES such as recreation. Physical health ‘benefits’ from recreation can improve life chances and reduce the burden on public health budgets. Whilst woodland managers recognise that these types of cultural ES are important, they often need quantitative measures to demonstrate their value and justify resource allocation. We develop a quantitative indicator of the benefits from physical recreation in woodlands using on-site visitor survey data. For each woodland sampled, we calculate the energy expenditure realised from recreational activities undertaken by each individual visitor. These values are converted to Quality Adjusted Life Years (a measure of the health benefits that combine duration and quality of life) and economically assessed. We demonstrate that annual recreation values vary considerably between woodlands due to the range of facilities provided, activities undertaken, frequency of visits and proximity of population. Monetary estimates ranged from £6 to £8542 per person to £2581 to £70,832 per woodland. This new indicator has the potential to inform future woodland management and enable managers to consider a wider portfolio of ES.

Suggested Citation

  • Moseley, Darren & Connolly, Thomas & Sing, Louise & Watts, Kevin, 2018. "Developing an indicator for the physical health benefits of recreation in woodlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 420-432.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:31:y:2018:i:pc:p:420-432
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.12.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617304436
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.12.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Termansen, Mette & McClean, Colin J. & Jensen, Frank Søndergaard, 2013. "Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 48-57.
    2. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    3. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    4. Mitchell, Richard, 2013. "Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than physical activity in other environments?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 130-134.
    5. Elisabetta Strazzera & Margarita Genius & Riccardo Scarpa & George Hutchinson, 2003. "The Effect of Protest Votes on the Estimates of WTP for Use Values of Recreational Sites," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(4), pages 461-476, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dunning, Kelly H., 2021. "Adaptive governance of recreational ecosystem services following a major hurricane," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    2. Pelletier, Marie-Chantale & Heagney, Elizabeth & Kovač, Mladen, 2021. "Valuing recreational services: A review of methods with application to New South Wales National Parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    3. Maund, Phoebe R. & Irvine, Katherine N. & Dallimer, Martin & Fish, Robert & Austen, Gail E. & Davies, Zoe G., 2020. "Do ecosystem service frameworks represent people’s values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    4. Apostolos Kantartzis & Panagiotis Lemonakis & Chrysovalantis Malesios & Christodoulos Daoutis & Spyridon Galatsidas & Garyfallos Arabatzis, 2022. "Attitudes and Views of Citizens Regarding the Contribution of the Trail Paths in Protection and Promotion of Natural Environment," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    5. Jelle Schoemaker & Simon van Genderen & Willem I. J. de Boer, 2019. "Increased Physical Activity in Preparation for a Women-Only Mass Participation Sport Event: A Framework for Estimating the Health Impact," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-11, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Bertram, Christine & Larondelle, Neele, 2017. "Going to the Woods Is Going Home: Recreational Benefits of a Larger Urban Forest Site — A Travel Cost Analysis for Berlin, Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 255-263.
    3. Robson, Matthew & O’Donnell, Owen & Van Ourti, Tom, 2024. "Aversion to health inequality — Pure, income-related and income-caused," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    4. Tapio Riepponen & Mikko Moilanen & Jaakko Simonen, 2023. "Themes of resilience in the economics literature: A topic modeling approach," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 326-356, April.
    5. Jeff Round & Mike Paulden, 2018. "Incorporating equity in economic evaluations: a multi-attribute equity state approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 489-498, May.
    6. Adler, Matthew D. & Ferranna, Maddalena & Hammitt, James K. & Treich, Nicolas, 2021. "Fair innings? The utilitarian and prioritarian value of risk reduction over a whole lifetime," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    7. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    8. Yangang Xing & Phil Jones & Iain Donnison, 2017. "Characterisation of Nature-Based Solutions for the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, January.
    9. Tappenden, P & Brazier, J & Ratcliffe, J, 2006. "Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence take account of factors such as uncertainty and equity as well as incremental cost-effectiveness in commissioning health care services? A," MPRA Paper 29772, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    11. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    12. Boncinelli, Fabio & Riccioli, Francesco & Marone, Enrico, 2015. "Do forests help to keep my body mass index low?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 11-17.
    13. Jens Abildtrup & Anne Stenger, 2022. "Report on valuation methods," Working Papers hal-04068881, HAL.
    14. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    15. Salas-Vega, Sebastian & Shearer, Emily & Mossialos, Elias, 2020. "Relationship between costs and clinical benefits of new cancer medicines in Australia, France, the UK, and the US," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    16. Shunqian Gao & Liu Yang & Hongzan Jiao, 2022. "Changes in and Patterns of the Tradeoffs and Synergies of Production-Living-Ecological Space: A Case Study of Longli County, Guizhou Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-18, July.
    17. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    18. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen, 2008. "Preferences for ‘life‐saving’ programmes: Small for all or gambling for the prize?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(6), pages 709-720, June.
    19. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    20. Park, Mi Sun & Shin, Seongmin & Lee, Haeun, 2021. "Media frames on urban greening in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:31:y:2018:i:pc:p:420-432. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.