IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v7y2018i4p86-d190120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Value of a Properly Maintained Hiking Trail Network and a Traditional Landscape for Mountain Recreation in the Dolomites

Author

Listed:
  • Tiziano Tempesta

    (Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy)

  • Daniel Vecchiato

    (Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy)

Abstract

Alpine mountains represent one of the most important tourist destinations in the world, constituting approximately 3.1% of the global tourism market when considering the tourist flows coming from abroad. While there may be numerous factors that motivate tourists to choose rural areas, an important role is played by the opportunity to visit well-conserved landscapes and uncontaminated natural areas. The purpose of this study was to make a monetary valuation of the social benefits generated by the adoption of three measures of the Rural Development Plan (RDP) of Veneto (Italy) aimed specifically at enhancing the recreational usability of the mountain territory. In this regard, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was applied for the economic valuation, and a qualitative survey was used to collect the opinion of respondents related to the measures to protect the meadows and mountain hiking trails. According to the DCE estimates, on average, the benefits due to the conservation of the existing meadows and pastures was equal to €851 per hectare, those due to the conservation and improvement of the trail network were €12,260 per km, and the benefits due to the recovery of the meadows and pastures of uncultivated and abandoned areas for naturalistic purposes amounted to €6852 per hectare. Comparing the estimates obtained with the expenditure incurred by the RDP to finance the three actions considered in our DCE, it can be seen that the benefits are considerably higher than the costs, especially with regard to the conservation of paths and the recovery of abandoned areas for naturalistic purposes.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:7:y:2018:i:4:p:86-:d:190120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/7/4/86/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/7/4/86/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Macagno, Giulia & Loureiro, Maria L. & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D. & Tol, Richard S.J., 2009. "Assessing the Impact of Biodiversity on Tourism Flows: A model for Tourist Behaviour and its Policy Implications," Sustainable Development Papers 50406, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    2. Schägner, Jan Philipp & Brander, Luke & Paracchini, Maria Luisa & Maes, Joachim & Gollnow, Florian & Bertzky, Bastian, 2018. "Spatial dimensions of recreational ecosystem service values: A review of meta-analyses and a combination of meta-analytic value-transfer and GIS," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 395-409.
    3. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    5. Mara Thiene & Marco Boeri & Caspar Chorus, 2012. "Random Regret Minimization: Exploration of a New Choice Model for Environmental and Resource Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 413-429, March.
    6. De Salvo, Maria & Signorello, Giovanni, 2015. "Non-market valuation of recreational services in Italy: A meta-analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 47-62.
    7. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," DEOS Working Papers 0801, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    8. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    9. Bel, François & Lacroix, Anne & Lyser, Sandrine & Rambonilaza, Tina & Turpin, Nadine, 2015. "Domestic demand for tourism in rural areas: Insights from summer stays in three French regions," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 562-570.
    10. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & David A. Hensher, 2010. "Monitoring Choice Task Attribute Attendance in Nonmarket Valuation of Multiple Park Management Services: Does It Matter?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(4), pages 817-839.
    11. Louviere, Jordan J., 1991. "Experimental choice analysis: Introduction and overview," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 291-297, December.
    12. Rewitzer, Susanne & Huber, Robert & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Barkmann, Jan, 2017. "Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem service changes to a landscape in the Swiss Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 197-208.
    13. Carpio, Carlos E. & Wohlgenant, Michael K. & Boonsaeng, Tullaya, 2008. "The Demand for Agritourism in the United States," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 1-16.
    14. Darnhofer, Ika & Schermer, Markus & Steinbacher, Melanie & Gabillet, Marine & Daugstad, Karoline, 2017. "Preserving permanent mountain grasslands in Western Europe: Why are promising approaches not implemented more widely?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 306-315.
    15. Devesa, María & Laguna, Marta & Palacios, Andrés, 2010. "The role of motivation in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 547-552.
    16. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy: A European Perspective. Concluding remarks and future directions," DEOS Working Papers 0810, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    17. 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.
    18. Mara Thiene & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Hiking in the Alps: Exploring Substitution Patterns of Hiking Destinations," Tourism Economics, , vol. 14(2), pages 263-282, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Vecchiato, D. & Tempesta, T., 2013. "Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 111-120.
    2. Vecchiato, Daniel & Tempesta, Tiziano, 2015. "Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-179.
    3. Chen, Xuqi & Shen, Meng & Gao, Zhifeng, 2017. "Impact of Intra-respondent Variations in Attribute Attendance on Consumer Preference in Food Choice," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258509, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 87-101.
    5. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    6. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    7. Meles, Tensay Hadush & Ryan, Lisa & Mukherjee, Sanghamitra C., 2022. "Heterogeneity in preferences for renewable home heating systems among Irish households," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    8. Hendrawan, Dienda & Musshoff, Oliver, 2024. "Smallholders' preferred attributes in a subsidy program for replanting overaged oil palm plantations in Indonesia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    9. Rocamora, Beatriz & Colombo, Sergio & Glenk, Klaus, 2014. "El impacto de las respuestas inconsistentes en las medidas de bienestar estimadas con el método del experimento de elección," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 14(02), pages 1-22, December.
    10. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    12. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    13. Biancamaria Torquati & Giulia Giacchè & Tiziano Tempesta, 2020. "Landscapes and Services in Peri-Urban Areas and Choice of Housing Location: An Application of Discrete Choice Experiments," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-21, October.
    14. Chad M. Baum & Robert Weigelt, 2019. "How Where I Shop Influences What I Buy: The Importance of the Retail Format in Sustainable Tomato Consumption," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Chai & Chad M. Baum (ed.), Demand, Complexity, and Long-Run Economic Evolution, pages 141-169, Springer.
    15. Namhee Kim & Miju Kim & Sangkwon Lee & Chi-Ok Oh, 2023. "Comparing Stakeholders’ Economic Values for the Institution of Payments for Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, July.
    16. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Pascual, Unai & Etxano, Iker, 2012. "Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: An illustration from the Basque Country," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 329-344.
    17. Krucien, Nicolas & Ryan, Mandy & Hermens, Frouke, 2017. "Visual attention in multi-attributes choices: What can eye-tracking tell us?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 251-267.
    18. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    19. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    20. Chun-Hung Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang, 2017. "Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, April.

    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:gam:jresou:v:7:y:2018:i:4:p:86-:d:190120. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.