Assessing the recreational demand for agricultural land in Finland

Agricultural and Food Science

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 375-387

  Pouta, Eija ^a   Ovaskainen, Ville ^a  

^a FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Demand; Participation; Recreation; Rural tourism; Travel cost method

Indexed keywords

EID: 33947203996     PISSN: 14596067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2137/145960606780061506     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Agricultural statistics in Finland 2005. Matilda information service. Cited 10 Aug 2005. Available on the Internet: http://www.matilda. mmm.fi.
2. Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega, J.F., Cañas-Madueño, J.A. & Ruiz-Availes, P. 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 115-125.
3. Bonnieux, F., Rainelli, P. & Vermersch, D. 1998. Estimating the supply of environmental benefits by agriculture: a French case study. Environmental and Resource Economics 11: 135-153.
4. Cameron, A.C. & Trivedi, P.K. 1998. Regression analysis of count data. Econometric Society Monographs No: 30. Cambridge University Press, New York. 432 p.
5. Creel, M.D. & Loomis, J.B. 1990. Theoretical and empirical advantages of truncated count data estimators for analysis of deer hunting in California. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72: 434-441.
6. Dillman, B.L. & Bergstrom, J.C. 1991. Measuring environmental amenity benefits of agricultural land. In: Hanley, N. (ed.) Farming and the countryside, an economic analysis of external costs and benefits. CAB International, Wallingford. p. 250-2171.
7. Dobbs, T. & Pretty J. 2004. Agri-environmental stewardship schemes and "multifunctionality" Review of Agricultural Economics 26: 220-237.
8. Englin, J., Boxall, P.C., Chakraborty, K. & Watson, D.O. 1996. Valuing the impacts of forest-fires on backcountry forest recreation. Forest Science 42: 450-455.
9. Finnish Environment Administration 2005. Perinnemaisemat ja -biotoopit. Accessed 10 Aug 2005. Available on the Internet: http://www.ymparisto.fi.
10. Fleischer, A. & Felsenstein, D. 2000. Support for rural tourism - Does it make a difference? Annals of Tourism Research 27: 1007-1024.
11. Fleischer, A. & Tchetchik, A. 2005. Does rural tourism benefit from agriculture? Tourism Management 26, 4: 493-501.
12. Fleischer, A. & Tsur, Y. 2000. Measuring the recreational value of agricultural landscape. European Review of Agricultural Economics 27: 385-398.
13. Fleischer, A. & Tsur, Y. 2003. Measuring the recreational value of open space. Journal of Agricultural Economics 54: 269-283.
14. Garrod, G. & Whitby, M.C. 2005. Strategic countryside management. Elsevier. 348 p.
15. Goossen, M. & Langers, F. 2000. Assessing quality of rural areas in the Netherlands: finding the most important indicators for recreation. Landscape and Urban Planning 46: 241-251.
16. Grogger, J.T. & Carson, R.T. 1991. Models for truncated counts. Journal of Applied Econometrics 6: 225-238.
17. Hackl, F. & Pruckner, G. 1997. Towards more efficient compensation programmes for tourists' benefits from agriculture in Europe. Environmental and Resource Economics 10: 189-205.
18. Hall, C., McVittie, A. & Moran, D. 2004. What does the public want from agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidence and methods. Journal of Rural Studies 20: 211-225.
19. Hietala-Koivu, R. 2002. Landscape and modernizing agriculture: a case study of three areas in Finland in 1954-1998. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 91: 273-281.
20. Hosmer, D.W. & Lemeshow, S. 2000. Applied logistic regression. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 392 p.
21. Karjalainen, E. & Komulainen, M. 1998. Field afforestation preferences: A case study in northeastern Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning 43: 79-90.
22. OECD 2001. Multifunctionality, towards an analytical framework. OECD, Paris. 157 p.
23. Le Goffe, P. 2000. Hedonic pricing of agriculture and forestry externalities. Journal Environmental and Resource Economics 15: 397-401.
24. Le Goffe, P. & Delache, X. 1997. Impacts de l'agriculture sur le tourisme: une application des prix hedonistes. Economie Rurale 239: 3-10.
25. Ovaskainen, V., Horne, P. & Mikkola, J. 2001a. Retkeilyalueiden ja kansallispuistojen virkistyskäytön arvo. In: Kangas, J. & Kokko, A. (eds.). Metsän eri käyttömuotojen arvottaminen ja yhteensovittaminen. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 800. p. 215-229. (The recreation use value of national parks and hiking areas based on travel cost and contingent valuation methods, in Finnish)
26. Ovaskainen, V., Mikkola, J. & Pouta, E. 2001b. Estimating recreation demand with on-site data. An application of truncated vs. truncated, endogenously stratified count data models. Journal of Forest Economics 7: 125-144.
27. Parsons, G.R. & Kealy, M.J. 1992. Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a random utility model of lake recreation. Land Economics 68: 93-106.
28. Peterson, J., Boisvert, R.N. & de Gorter, H. 2002. Environmental policies for a multifunctional agriculture in open economies. European Review of Agricultural Economics 29: 423-443.
29. Pouta, E., Neuvonen, M. & Sievänen, T. 2006. Determinants of nature trip expenditures in Southern Finland - implications for nature tourism development. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 6: 118-135.
30. Pouta, E. & Sievänen, T. 2001. Luonnon virkistyskäytön kysyntätutkimuksen tulokset - kuinka suomalaiset ulkoilevat. (Results of an outdoor recreation demand study - how Finns participate in outdoor recreation). In: Sievänen, T. (ed.). Luonnon virkistyskäyttö 2000. Luonnon virkistyskäytön valtakunnallinen inventointi LVVI-tutkimus, 1997-2000 Loppuraportti. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 802. p. 32-68.
31. Raffaelli, R., Notaro, S., Goio, I. & Gios, G. 2004. Multifunctional agriculture, policies and markets: understanding the critical linkage. In: 90th EAAE Seminar, Multifunctional agriculture, policies and markets: understanding the critical linkage. Proceedings of 90th EAAE Seminar, Rennes, 28-29 October 2004. p. 91-108.
32. Randall, A. 2002. Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture. European Review of Agricultural Economics 29: 289-307.
33. Ready, R.C., Berger, M.C. & Blomquist, G.C. 1997. Measuring amenity benefits from farmland: hedonic pricing vs. contingent valuation. Growth and Change 28: 438-458.
34. Rosenberger, R.S. & Walsh, R.G. 1997. Nonmarket value of Western valley ranchland using contingent valuation. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 22: 296-309.
35. Skuras, D., Petrou, A. & Clark, G. 2006. Demand for rural tourism: the effects of quality and information. Agricultural Economics 35: 183-192.
36. Slee, B., Farr, H. & Snowdon, P. 1997. The economic impact of alternative types of rural tourism. Journal of Agricultural Economics 48: 179-192.
37. Tahvanainen, L., Ihalainen, M., Hietala Koivu, R., Kolehmainen, O., Tyrväinen, L., Nousiainen, I. & Helenius, J. 2002. Measures of the EU Agri-Environmental Protection Scheme (GAEPS) and their impacts on the visual acceptability of Finnish agricultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management 66: 213-227.
38. Tyrväinen, L. & Tahvanainen, L. 2000. Impacts of afforestation on the scenic value of rural countryside. In: Weber, N. (ed.). NEWFOR - New forests for Europe: afforestation at the turn of the century. European Forest Institute (EFI) Proceedings 35. Joensuu. p. 141-150.
39. Van Huylenbroeck, G., Vanslembrouck, I., Calus, M. & Van de Velde, L. 2006. Synergies between farming and rural tourism: evidence from Flanders. Eurochoices 5: 14-22.
40. Vanslembrouck, I. & Van Huylenbroeck, G. 2005. Landscape amenities: economic assessment of agricultural landscapes. Springer, Landscape Series, Volume 2. 202 p.
41. Vanslembrouck, I., Van Huylenbroeck, G. & Van Meensel, J. 2005. Impact of rural tourism: a hedonic pricing approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics 56: 17-30.
42. Virtanen, V., Pouta, E., Sievänen, T. & Laaksonen, S. 2001. Luonnon virkistyskäytön kysyntätutkimuksen aineistot ja menetelmät. (The data and the methods in outdoor recreation demand study). In: Sievänen, T. (ed.). Luonnon virkistyskäyttö 2000. Luonnon virkistyskäytön valtakunnallinen inventointi LVVI-tutkimus, 1997-2000 Loppuraportti. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 802. p. 19-27.
43. Wytrzens, H.K. & Mayer, C. 1999. Multiple use of alpine grassland in Austria and the implications for agricultural policy. Bodenkultur 50: 251-261.
44. Ympäristöministeriö 2002. Ohjelma luonnon virkistyskäytön ja luontomatkailun kehittämiseksi. Suomen ympäristö 535. Ympäristöministeriö, Helsinki. 48 p. (Programme for developing recreation in the wild and nature tourism by the Ministry of the Environment, in Finnish)
45. Yrjölä, T. & Kola, J. 2004. Consumer preferences regarding multifunctional agriculture. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 7: 78-90.
46. Zawacki, W.T, Marsinko, A. & Bowker, J.M. 2000. A travel cost analysis of nonconsumptive wildlife-associated recreation in the United States. Forest-Science 46: 496-506.