Exploring preferences towards the provision of farmland walking trails: A supply and demand perspective

Land Use Policy

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 111-118

  Howley, Peter ^a   Doherty, Edel ^b   Buckley, Cathal ^a   Hynes, Stephen ^c   van Rensburg, Tom ^c   Green, Stuart ^a  

^a Rural Economy Research Centre Ireland   (Ireland)

^b QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^c NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Contingent valuation; Public access; Walking activities

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL LAND; CONTINGENT VALUATION; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; PUBLIC ACCESS; RURAL LANDSCAPE; WALKING; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 80051559914     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.05.010     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Adamowicz W.L., Louviere J.J., Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994, 26:271-292.
2. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M., Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 80(1):64-75.
3. Arriaza M., Canas-Ortega J.F., Canas-Madueno J.A., Ruiz-Aviles P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 69:115-125.
4. Bateman I.J., Diamond E., Langford I.H., Jones A.P. Household willingness to pay and farmers' willingness to accept compensation for establishing a recreational woodland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1996, 39(1):21-44.
5. Bennett R., Tranter R. Assessing the benefits of public access to the countryside. Planning Practice & Research 1997, 12:213-222.
6. Bennett R.M., Tranter R.B., Blaney R.J.P. The value of countryside access: a contingent valuation survey of visitors to the Ridgeway National Trail in the United Kingdom. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2003, 46(5):659-671.
7. Bishop R., Romano D. Environmental Resource Valuation: Applications of the Contingent Valuation Method in Italy 1998, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
8. British Market Research Bureau, 2007. Attitudes and Behaviour in Relation to the Environment. Defra, London.
9. Brownstone D., Train K.E. Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. Journal of Econometrics 1999, 89(1-2):109-129.
10. Buckley C., van Rensburg T.M., Hynes S. What are the financial returns to agriculture from a common property resource? A case study of Irish commonage. Journal of Farm Management 2008, 13(5):311-324.
11. Buckley C., Hynes S., van Rensburg T.M. Recreational demand for farm commonage in Ireland: a contingent valuation assessment. Land Use Policy 2009, 26(3):846-854.
12. Buckley C., Hynes S., van Rensburg T.M. Walking in the Irish countryside: landowner preferences and attitudes to improved public access provision. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2009, 52(8):1053-1070.
13. Carson R.T, Flores N.E., Meade N. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 19:173-210.
14. Christie M., Hanley N., Hynes S. Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiments and contingent behaviour methods. Journal of Forest Economics 2007, 13:75-102.
15. Coupal R., Bostian C., May J., Taylor D. The economic benefits of snowmobiling to Wyoming residents: a travel cost approach with market segmentation. Journal of Leisure Studies 2001, 33:492-510.
16. Crabtree J.R., MacDonald D. The supply of access to the countryside: financial efficiency in government provision of a local public good. Proceedings of the 8th European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Conference 1997.
17. Curry N. Rights of access to land for outdoor recreation in New Zealand: dilemmas concerning justice and equity. Journal of Rural Studies 2001, 17(4):409-419.
18. Curtis J.A., Williams J. A National Survey of Recreational Walking in Ireland 2004, Economic and Social Research Institute. Report for Irish Sports Council, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
19. Failte-Ireland, 2005. Special Interest Tourism Plans 2005. Dublin. (accessed 01/06/06). http://www.failteireland.ie/.
20. Farm Accountancy Data Network, 2005. Concept of FADN [online]. Available from: (Accessed 15 April 2008). http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rica.
21. Garrod G., Willis K., Raley M., Rudden M. Economic Evaluation of Access Pro-visions in the MAFF Agri-environment Schemes. Final Report to MAFF 1998, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle Upon Tyne.
22. Gebel K., Bauman A.E., Petticrew M. The physical environment and physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2007, 32(5):361-369.
23. Hanley N. Valuing rural recreation benefits. Journal of Agricultural Economics 1989, 40:361-374.
24. Hanley N., MacMillan D., Wright R.E., Bullock C., Simpson I., Parsisson D., Crabtree B. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 49(1):1-15.
25. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Koop G. Modelling recreational demand using choice experiments: climbing in Scotland. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 22:449-466.
26. Hynes S, Farrelly N., Murphy E., O'Donoghue C. Modelling habitat conservation and participation in agri-environmental schemes: a spatial microsimulation approach. Ecological Economics 2008, 66(2-3):258-269.
27. Keirle I. Should access to the coastal lands of Wales be developed through a voluntary or statutory approach? A discussion. Land Use Policy 2002, 19:177-185.
28. Lafferty S., Commins P., Walsh J. Irish Agriculture in Transition - A Census Atlas of Agriculture in the Republic of Ireland 1999, Teagasc, Dublin.
29. Lane, B. (1999) Trails and Tourism: The Missing Link. (accessed 25/01/06). http://www.americantrails.org/resources/economics/TourismUKecon.html.
30. Librett J.L, Yore M.M., Schmid T.L. Characteristics of physical activity levels among trail users in a U.S. national sample. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2006, 31(5):399-405.
31. Liston-Heyes C., Heyes A. Recreational benefits from the Dartmoor National Park. Journal of Environmental Management 1999, 55(2):69-80.
32. Lockwood M., Tracy K. Nonmarket economic valuation of an urban recreation park. Journal of Leisure Research 1995, 27:155-164.
33. Matthews A. Farm Incomes: Myths and Reality 2000, Cork University Press, Cork.
34. Millward H. Public access in the West European countryside: a comparative survey. Journal of Rural Studies 1993, 9(1):39-51.
35. Moore R., Barthlow K. Uses of long distance trails. Report of Department of Parks. Recreation and Tourism Management 1998, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
36. Moore, D., 2010. Walks Scheme Briefing Document. Personal Communication (02/06/10).
37. Morris J., Colombo S., Angus A., Stacey K., Parsons D., Brawn M., Hanley N. The value of public rights of way: a choice experiment in Bedfordshire, England. Landscape and Urban Planning 2009, 93(1):83-91.
38. Mulder C., Shibli S., Hale J. Rights of way improvement plans and increased access to the countryside in England: some key issues concerning supply. Managing Leisure 2006, 11(2):96-115.
39. Owen N., Humpel N., Leslie E., Bauman A., Sallis J.F. Understanding environmental influences on walking. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2004, 27(1):67-76.
40. Pearce R.A., Mee J. Land Law 2000, Round Hall Sweet and Maxwell, Dublin.
41. Train K.E. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics 1998, 74(2):230-239.
42. Rigby, D., Burton, M., 2003. Capturing preference heterogeneity in stated choice models: a random parameters logit model of the demand for GM food. The University of Manchester School of Economic Studies Discussion Paper Series Number 0319.
43. Sallis J.F., Bauman A., Pratt M. Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 1998, 15:379-397.
44. Sallis J.F., Owen N. Ecological models of health behavior. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice 2002, 462-484. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. 3rd ed. K. Glanz, F.M. Lewis, B.K. Rimer (Eds.).
45. Scarpa R., Thiene M. Destination choice models for rock climbing in the Northeastern Alps: a latent-class approach based on the intensity of preferences. Land Economics 2005, 81:426-444.
46. Scarpa R., Rose J. Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modeling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 2008, 52:253-286.
47. Scott P. Countryside Access in Europe: A Review of Access Rights. Legislation and Provision in Selected European Countries 1991, Report for Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh.
48. Scott P. Access to the Countryside in Selected European Countries: A Review of Access Rights, Legislation and Associated Arrangements in Denmark, Germany Norway and Sweden 1998, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside Commission, Edinburgh.
49. Siikamäki J., Layton D.F. Discrete choice survey experiments: a comparison using flexible methods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2006, 53(1):122-139.
50. Swanwick C. Society's attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy 2009, 26:62-75.
51. Train K.E. Discrete choice methods with simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
52. Vaughan D.R., Farr H., Slee R.W. Economic benefits of visitor spending. Leisure Studies 2000, 19(2):95-118.
53. Ward F.A., Beal D. Valuing Nature with Travel Cost Models: A Manual 2000, Edward Elgar.
54. Wicklow Upland Council, 2011. Countryside Access Project. Available at: http://www.wicklowuplands.ie/projects/ca.php.