IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i7p2771-d1364945.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Recreational Value in a Protected Forest Area Considering the New Environmental Paradigm (Case Study: Helen Forest, Southwestern Iran)

Author

Listed:
  • Zohreh Khalili Ardali

    (Department of Forestry, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Guilan, Sowmeh Sara 4361996196, Iran)

  • Hamid Amirnejad

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari 4818168984, Iran)

  • Soleiman Mohammadi Limaei

    (Department of Forestry, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Guilan, Sowmeh Sara 4361996196, Iran
    Department of Economics, Geography, Law and Tourism, Mid Sweden University, 85170 Sundsvall, Sweden)

  • Sadegh Salehi

    (Department of Sociology of Development, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar 4741613534, Iran)

Abstract

This study investigates the recreational value of the Helen protected forest area, incorporating the new environmental paradigm into economic valuation. Visitors’ willingness to pay and its association with scores reflecting the new environmental paradigm were assessed through contingent valuation and a dual-dimensional questionnaire. Two models are employed: a base model with socio-economic variables and a model integrating new environmental paradigm. Results indicate that 83.04% of visitors are willing to pay for recreational use. The proposed amount, visit frequency, new environmental paradigm, age, gender, education, and income were found to significantly influence the acceptance of willingness to pay. Results indicated a strong positive correlation exists between new environmental paradigm and willingness to pay, highlighting the influence of environmental perspective. Average willingness to pay per household per visit is IRR 190,390.4 (USD 0.53), translating to an annual recreational value of IRR 22,629,264,215 (USD 64,088) for the entire Helen forest. The average new environmental paradigm scores for visitors stand at 57.36, with the statement “plants and animals have similar rights to humans” receiving the highest score of 28.4. These findings emphasize the importance of considering environmental perspectives in managing recreational sites. Integrating a new environmental paradigm into valuation methods can inform sustainable management strategies that balance economic development with environmental conservation and social well-being.

Suggested Citation

  • Zohreh Khalili Ardali & Hamid Amirnejad & Soleiman Mohammadi Limaei & Sadegh Salehi, 2024. "Assessment of Recreational Value in a Protected Forest Area Considering the New Environmental Paradigm (Case Study: Helen Forest, Southwestern Iran)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-23, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:7:p:2771-:d:1364945
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/2771/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/2771/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harris, Charles C. & Driver, B. L. & McLaughlin, William J., 1989. "Improving the contingent valuation method: A psychological perspective," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 213-229, November.
    2. Jurgen Meyerhoff, 2006. "Stated willingness to pay as hypothetical behaviour: Can attitudes tell us more?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(2), pages 209-226.
    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. Campbell, Elliott T., 2018. "Revealed social preference for ecosystem services using the eco-price," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 267-275.
    5. Fitalew Agimass Taye & Suzanne Elizabeth Vedel & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2018. "Accounting for environmental attitude to explain variations in willingness to pay for forest ecosystem services using the new environmental paradigm," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 420-440, October.
    6. Cooper, Philip & Poe, Gregory L. & Bateman, Ian J., 2004. "The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 69-82, September.
    7. Milon, J. Walter & Scrogin, David, 2006. "Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 162-175, February.
    8. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    9. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    10. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2017. "Environmental attitude, motivations and values for marine biodiversity protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-70.
    11. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    12. Giergiczny, Marek & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Żylicz, Tomasz & Angelstam, Per, 2015. "Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 8-23.
    13. Gwendolyn Aldrich & Kristine Grimsrud & Jennifer Thacher & Matthew Kotchen, 2007. "Relating environmental attitudes and contingent values: how robust are methods for identifying preference heterogeneity?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(4), pages 757-775, August.
    14. 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.
    15. M. M. Sulphey & Nassar Saad AlKahtani & Nabil Ahmed Mareai Senan & Anass Hamad Elneel Adow, 2023. "New Environmental Paradigm, Environmental Attitude, and Proenvironmental Behaviour as Antecedents of Environmental Sustainability," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 13(3), pages 418-427, May.
    16. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2007. "Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 807-814, September.
    17. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's "Dubious to Hopeless" Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    18. Apurba Shee & Carlo Azzarri & Beliyou Haile, 2019. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    19. Beal, Diana J., 1995. "A Travel Cost Analysis of the Value of Carnarvon Gorge National Park for Recreational Use," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(02), pages 1-12, August.
    20. Andrew Balmford & Jonathan M H Green & Michael Anderson & James Beresford & Charles Huang & Robin Naidoo & Matt Walpole & Andrea Manica, 2015. "Walk on the Wild Side: Estimating the Global Magnitude of Visits to Protected Areas," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-6, February.
    21. Luzar, E. Jane & Cosse, Kelli J., 1998. "Willingness to pay or intention to pay: The attitude-behavior relationship in contingent valuation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 427-444.
    22. Marta-Pedroso, Cristina & Freitas, Helena & Domingos, Tiago, 2007. "Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: A case study of web based versus in-person interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 388-398, May.
    23. Spash, Clive L. & Urama, Kevin & Burton, Rob & Kenyon, Wendy & Shannon, Peter & Hill, Gary, 2009. "Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 955-964, February.
    24. Meldrum, James R., 2015. "Comparing different attitude statements in latent class models of stated preferences for managing an invasive forest pathogen," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 13-22.
    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. Faccioli, Michela & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Glenk, Klaus & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2020. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    2. Michela Faccioli & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk & Julia Martin-Ortega, 2018. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as simultaneous determinants of preferences for environmental goods," Working Papers 2018-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    3. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2017. "Estimating recreational values of coastal zones," MPRA Paper 80911, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2018. "Environmental attitudes and preferences for coastal zone improvements," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 153-166.
    5. Matsiori, Steriani K., 2020. "Application of the New Environmental Paradigm to Greece: A critical case study," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 335-344.
    6. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    7. Meldrum, James R., 2015. "Comparing different attitude statements in latent class models of stated preferences for managing an invasive forest pathogen," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 13-22.
    8. Ju Hyoung Han & Andy S. Choi & Chi-Ok Oh, 2018. "The Effects of Environmental Value Orientations and Experience-Use History on the Conservation Value of a National Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, September.
    9. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    10. Nannan Kang & Erda Wang & Yang Yu, 2019. "Valuing forest park attributes by giving consideration to the tourist satisfaction," Tourism Economics, , vol. 25(5), pages 711-733, August.
    11. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2017. "Environmental attitude, motivations and values for marine biodiversity protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-70.
    12. Börger, Tobias & Hattam, Caroline, 2017. "Motivations matter: Behavioural determinants of preferences for remote and unfamiliar environmental goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 64-74.
    13. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Needham, Mark D. & Morzillo, Anita T. & Moehrke, Caitlin, 2012. "Attitudes, willingness to pay, and stated values for recreation use fees at an urban proximate forest," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 271-281.
    14. Elena Ojea & Maria L. Loureiro, 2009. "Valuation Of Wildlife: Revising Some Additional Considerations For Scope Tests," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 27(2), pages 236-250, April.
    15. Choi, Andy S. & Fielding, Kelly S., 2013. "Environmental attitudes as WTP predictors: A case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 24-32.
    16. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    17. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2007. "Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 807-814, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Kim, Do-hun & Sjølie, Hanne K. & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2024. "Psychological distances to climate change and public preferences for biodiversity-augmenting attributes in family-owned production forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    20. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2022. "Understanding the public’s perceptions of the importance, management, and conservation of biodiversity," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 262-270.

    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:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:7:p:2771-:d:1364945. 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.