IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/foreco/v21y2015i3p131-151.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multifunctional recreation and nouveau heritage values in plantation forests

Author

Listed:
  • Rolfe, John
  • Windle, Jill

Abstract

Recreation benefits constitute a substantial part of the total economic value of forests in modern societies, and are an increasingly important determinant in multi-functional forest management. Heritage sites, such as historic buildings open to visitation, are important parts of some recreation experiences, yet people who do not visit may also view their protection as important. However, few studies have examined the importance of heritage sites as part of the recreational experience or tried to compare their importance for recreational users versus the general public, even though these issues are central to management decisions. In this study, a choice modelling experiment was conducted in Australia to estimate the marginal values for improvements in recreation facilities (trails, day and night facilities) and historic sites in State plantation forests. The aim of the study was to examine the relative importance of historic sites as an attribute of forest recreation, and explore preference heterogeneity for various attributes of forest recreation across different forest areas and forest users. The results indicate that while there was significant preference heterogeneity for the different recreational attributes at two forest areas, there was less variation in the welfare estimates across attributes, sites and between user and non-user groups. Similar values were identified for the Heritage sites between recreational users and non-users, indicating that protection values were dominant over recreational use; yet no sub-group of the sampled population appeared to value Heritage sites in isolation from recreational assets, suggesting that respondents viewed the forests in multifunctional dimensions.

Suggested Citation

  • Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2015. "Multifunctional recreation and nouveau heritage values in plantation forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 131-151.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:foreco:v:21:y:2015:i:3:p:131-151
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2015.06.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1104689915000331
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jfe.2015.06.001?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. David Maddisson & Susana Mourato, 2002. "Valuing Different Road Options for Stonehenge," Chapters, in: Ståle Navrud & Richard C. Ready (ed.), Valuing Cultural Heritage, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Cubbage, Frederick & Harou, Patrice & Sills, Erin, 2007. "Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 833-851, April.
    3. Zandersen, Marianne & Tol, Richard S.J., 2009. "A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 109-130, January.
    4. Ian J. Bateman & Andrew P. Jones, 2003. "Contrasting Conventional with Multi-Level Modeling Approaches to Meta-Analysis: Expectation Consistency in U.K. Woodland Recreation Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(2), pages 235-258.
    5. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    6. Barrio, Melina & Loureiro, Maria L., 2010. "A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1023-1030, March.
    7. Ståle Navrud & Richard C. Ready (ed.), 2002. "Valuing Cultural Heritage," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1759.
    8. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    9. Lindhjem, Henrik, 2007. "20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 251-277, February.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, October.
    11. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    12. Brey, Raul & Riera, Pere & Mogas, Joan, 2007. "Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: An application to Spanish forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 305-312, December.
    13. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    14. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    15. Juutinen, Artti & Mitani, Yohei & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Shoji, Yasushi & Siikamäki, Pirkko & Svento, Rauli, 2011. "Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1231-1239, April.
    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. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    2. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    3. Tiziano Tempesta & Daniel Vecchiato, 2018. "The Value of a Properly Maintained Hiking Trail Network and a Traditional Landscape for Mountain Recreation in the Dolomites," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-22, December.
    4. Heejeong Yun & Dongjin Kang & Youngeun Kang, 2022. "Outdoor recreation planning and management considering FROS and carrying capacities: a case study of forest wetland in Yeongam-gum, South Korea," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 502-526, January.
    5. Hanzheng Lin & Jia-Bing Wang & Xuewei Zhang & Fangbing Hu & Jiang Liu & Xin-Chen Hong, 2024. "Historical sensing: the spatial pattern of soundscape occurrences recorded in poems between the Tang and the Qing Dynasties amid urbanization," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-27, December.
    6. Azdren Doli & Dastan Bamwesigye & Petra Hlaváčková & Jitka Fialová & Petr Kupec & Obed Asamoah, 2021. "Forest Park Visitors Opinions and Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Development of the Germia Forest and Recreational Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, March.

    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. Juutinen, Artti & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 396-412.
    2. 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).
    3. Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & Vačkářová, Davina, 2021. "The value of forest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis at the European scale and application to national ecosystem accounting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    4. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    5. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    6. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Fernández-Macho, Javier, 2009. "The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: Some empirical evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2372-2381, June.
    8. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    9. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.
    10. Pettinotti, Laetitia & de Ayala, Amaia & Ojea, Elena, 2018. "Benefits From Water Related Ecosystem Services in Africa and Climate Change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 294-305.
    11. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    12. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2014. "Spatially-Referenced Choice Experiments: Tests of Individualized Geocoding in Stated Preference Questionnaires," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170191, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    14. Mohammed Hussen Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "An analysis of the impacts of tasting experience and peer effects on consumers’ willingness to pay for novel foods," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 653-674, October.
    15. Taro Ohdoko & Satoru Komatsu & Shinji Kaneko, 2013. "Residential preferences for stable electricity supply and a reduction in air pollution risk: a benefit transfer study using choice modeling in China," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 15(3), pages 309-328, July.
    16. Lew, Daniel K., 2018. "Discounting future payments in stated preference choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 150-164.
    17. Wang, Xuehong & Bennett, Jeff & Xie, Chen & Zhang, Zhitao & Liang, Dan, 2007. "Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland Program: A choice modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 114-125, June.
    18. Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
    19. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    20. Barrio, Melina & Loureiro, Maria L., 2010. "A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1023-1030, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Non-market valuation; Discrete choice experiments; Forest recreation; Cultural heritage; Historic sites; Non use value; Option value;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:foreco:v:21:y:2015:i:3:p:131-151. 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: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/701775/description#description .

    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.