IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/24602.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What price recreation in Finland? – A contingent valuation study of non-market benefits of public outdoor recreation areas

Author

Listed:
  • Huhtala, Anni

Abstract

Basic services in Finnish national parks and state-owned recreation areas have traditionally been publicly financed and thus free of charge for users. Since the benefits of public recreation are not captured by market demand, government spending on recreation services must be motivated in some other way. Here, we elicit people’s willingness to pay (WTP) for services in the country’s state-owned parks to obtain an estimate of the value of outdoor recreation in monetary terms. A variant of the Tobit model is used in the econometric analysis to examine the WTP responses elicited by a payment card format. We also study who the current users of recreation services are in order to enable policymakers to anticipate the redistribution effects of a potential implementation of user fees. Finally, we discuss the motives for WTP, which reveal concerns such as equity and ability to pay that are relevant for planning public recreation in general and for the introduction of fees in particular.

Suggested Citation

  • Huhtala, Anni, 2004. "What price recreation in Finland? – A contingent valuation study of non-market benefits of public outdoor recreation areas," MPRA Paper 24602, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:24602
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/24602/1/MPRA_paper_24602.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. M. Adams & O. Bergland & W. N. Musser & S. L. Johnson & L. M. Musser, 1989. "User Fees and Equity Issues in Public Hunting Expenditures: The Case of Ring-Necked Pheasant in Oregon," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(4), pages 376-385.
    2. Trudy Ann Cameron & Daniel D. Huppert, 1987. "Non-Market Resource Valuation: Assessment of Value Elicitation By "Payment Card" Versus "Referendum" Methods," UCLA Economics Working Papers 448, UCLA Department of Economics.
    3. Elizabeth A. Wilman, 1988. "Pricing Policies for Outdoor Recreation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 64(3), pages 234-241.
    4. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1987. "The Economic Theory and Measurement of Environmental Benefits," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521348102, October.
    5. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1315.
    6. Richard G. Walsh & John B. Loomis & Richard A. Gillman, 1984. "Valuing Option, Existence, and Bequest Demands for Wilderness," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 60(1), pages 14-29.
    7. McConnell, Kenneth E., 1985. "The economics of outdoor recreation," Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics, in: A. V. Kneese† & J. L. Sweeney (ed.), Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 677-722, Elsevier.
    8. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L., 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice, New Horizons in Environmental Economics," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12330, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    9. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
    10. Fredric C. Menz & John K. Mullen, 1981. "Expected Encounters and Willingness to Pay for Outdoor Recreation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(1), pages 33-40.
    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. Voltaire, Louinord, 2012. "Effet d’une taxe et d’un droit d’entrée sur les consentements à payer des touristes pour de nouvelles réserves naturelles dans le golfe du Morbihan," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 92(02), pages 183-209, October.
    2. Huhtala, Anni & Pouta, Eija, 2008. "User fees, equity and the benefits of public outdoor recreation services," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 117-132, April.
    3. Wicker, Pamela & Prinz, Joachim & von Hanau, Tassilo, 2012. "Estimating the value of national sporting success," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 200-210.
    4. Louinord Voltaire & Abdelhak Nassiri & Denis Bailly & Jean Boncoeur, 2011. "Effet d’une taxe et d’un droit d’entrée sur les consentements à payer des touristes pour de nouvelles réserves naturelles dans le golfe du Morbihan," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 92(2), pages 183-209.
    5. Lavee, D. & Menachem, O., 2018. "Economic valuation of the existence of the southwestern basin of the Dead Sea in Israel," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 160-169.
    6. Moritz A. Drupp & Zachary M. Turk & Ben Groom & Jonas Heckenhahn, 2023. "Limited substitutability, relative price changes and the uplifting of public natural capital values," Papers 2308.04400, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    7. Michaela Antoušková, 2012. "Comparison of take-it-or-leave-it and take-it-or-leave-it with follow-up elicitation formats - case study of Czech national parks," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 60(7), pages 19-26.
    8. Pamela Wicker & John C Whitehead & Daniel S Mason & Bruce K Johnson, 2017. "Public support for hosting the Olympic Summer Games in Germany: The CVM approach," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(15), pages 3597-3614, November.
    9. Tim F. Thormann & Pamela Wicker, 2021. "Willingness-to-Pay for Environmental Measures in Non-Profit Sport Clubs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Huhtala, Anni & Pouta, Eija, 2006. "Discerning welfare impacts of public provision of recreation areas," Discussion Papers 11860, MTT Agrifood Research Finland.

    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. Bergland, Olvar & Kim, Seung-Woo & McLeod, Don & Romstad, Eirik, 1989. "Estimation of Optimal Congestion Levels: Deer Hunting in Western Oregon," 1989 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 2, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 270485, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Clarke, Philip M., 1998. "Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 767-787, December.
    4. Isabel Mendes, 2003. "Pricing Recreation use of National Parks for an efficient Nature Conservation and Application to the Portuguese case," Working Papers Department of Economics 2003/08, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
    5. Dan Rigby & Mike Burton, 2006. "Modeling Disinterest and Dislike: A Bounded Bayesian Mixed Logit Model of the UK Market for GM Food," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(4), pages 485-509, April.
    6. Ahlheim, Michael & Fror, Oliver & Sinphurmsukskul, Nopasom, 2006. "The Role of Participation in CVM Survey Design: Evidence from a Tap Water Improvement Program in Northern Thailand," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25692, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Frör & Jirawan Kitchaicharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2008. "Better than their reputation - A case for mail surveys in contingent valuation," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 297/2008, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    8. Abou-Ali, Hala, 2003. "Using stated preference methods to evaluate the impact of water on health: the case of metropolitan Cairo," Working Papers in Economics 113, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    9. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    10. Huhtala, Anni & Pouta, Eija, 2008. "User fees, equity and the benefits of public outdoor recreation services," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 117-132, April.
    11. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    12. Hwa Nyeon Kim & W. Douglass Shaw & Richard T. Woodward, 2007. "The Distributional Impacts of Recreational Fees: A Discrete Choice Model with Incomplete Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 561-574.
    13. Kevin J. Egan & Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling & John A. Downing, 2004. "Recreation Demand Using Physical Measures of Water Quality," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 04-wp372, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    14. O. Ashton Morgan & Gregory S. Martin & William L. Huth, 2009. "Oyster Demand Adjustments to Counter-Information and Source Treatments in Response to Vibrio vulnificus," Working Papers 09-08, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    15. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    16. Bockstael, Nancy E. & Freeman III, A. Myrick, 2006. "Welfare Theory and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 12, pages 517-570, Elsevier.
    17. Anna Alberini & Aline Chiabai & Lucija Muehlenbachs, 2005. "Using Expert Judgment to Assess Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change: Evidence From a Conjoint Choice Survey," Working Papers 2005.106, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    18. Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Frör & Jirawan Kitchaincharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2007. "Using Citizen Expert Groups in Environmental Valuation - Lessons from a CVM study in Northern Thailand," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 283/2007, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    19. Brooks, Kathleen R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2012. "Public and Private Preferences for Animal Cloning Policies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-17.
    20. Riccioli, F. & Fratini, R. & Marone, E. & Fagarazzi, C. & Calderisi, M. & Brunialti, G., 2020. "Indicators of sustainable forest management to evaluate the socio-economic functions of coppice in Tuscany, Italy," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    non-market valuation; payment card; recreation; recreation fees; taxes; user fees; wllingnes-to-pay; WTP;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities

    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:pra:mprapa:24602. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.