Preferences of urban dwellers on urban forest recreational services in South Korea

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 200-210

  Koo, Ja Choon ^a   Park, Mi Sun ^a   Youn, Yeo Chang ^a  

^a Seoul National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Latent class model; Preference heterogeneity; Recreational service

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; FOREST MANAGEMENT; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; RESIDENTIAL LOCATION; URBAN AREA; URBAN FORESTRY;

SOUTH KOREA;

EID: 84876744114     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2013.02.005     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Abdullah S. Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services. Energy Policy 2010, 38:4570-4581.
2. Adamowicz W., Louviere J., Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994, 26:271-292.
3. 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, 80:64-75.
4. Arcury T.A., Christianson E.H. Rural-urban differences in environmental knowledge and actions. Journal of Environmental Education 1993, 25:19-25.
5. Arnberger A., Aikoh T., Eder R., Shoji Y., Mieno T. How many people should be in the urban forest? A comparison of trail preferences of Vienna and Sapporo forest visitor segments. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2010, 9:215-225.
6. Axelsson-Lindgren C., Sorte G. Public response to differences between visually distinguishable forest stands in a recreation area. Landscape and Urban Planning 1987, 14:211-217.
7. Bell S., Blom D., Rautamäki M., Castel-Branco C., Simson A., Olsen I.A. Design of urban forests. Urban Forests and Trees 2005, 149-186. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg. C.C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T.B. Randrup, J. Schipperijn (Eds.).
8. Ben-Akiva M., Lerman S. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand 1985, The MIT Press, Boston. 1st ed.
9. Bengston D.N., Youn Y.-C. Urban containment policies and the protection of natural areas: the case of Seoul's greenbelt. Ecology and Society 2006, 11(1). 3. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art3/.
10. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 23:421-446.
11. Boxall P.C., Macnab B. Exploring the preferences of wildlife recreationists for features of boreal forest management: a choice experiment approach. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 2000, 30:1931-1941.
12. Bujosa Bestard A., Font A.R. Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:2743-2750.
13. Bujosa Bestard A., Font A.R. Estimating the aggregate value of forest recreation in a regional context. Journal of Forest Economics 2010, 16:205-216.
14. Christie M., Hanley N., Hynes S. Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods. Journal of Forest Economics 2007, 13:75-102.
15. Edwards D.M., Jay M., Jensen F.S., Lucas B., Marzano M., Montagné C., Peace A., Weiss G. Public preferences across Europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecology and Society 2012, 17(1). 27. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04520-170127.
16. Fosgerau M. Investigating the distribution of the value of travel time savings. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 2006, 40:688-707.
17. Gallup Korea A National Survey of the Awareness of Korean Citizens Regarding Forests 2006, Korea Forest Service, Daejeon, (in Korean).
18. Green P.E., Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research 1978, 5:103-123.
19. Greene W.H., Hensher D.A. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 2003, 37:681-698.
20. Gundersen V.S., Frivold L.H. Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2008, 7:241-258.
21. Halbrendt C., Wang Q., Fraiz C., O'Dierno L. Marketing problems and opportunities in mid-Atlantic seafood retailing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1995, 77:1313-1318.
22. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1984, 66:332-341.
23. Hanley N., Wright R., Adamowicz V. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental and Resource Economics 1998, 11:413-428.
24. Hensher D.A. How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2006, 21:861-878.
25. Horne P., Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L. Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. Forest Ecology and Management 2005, 207:189-199.
26. Hoyos D., Mariel P., Fernandez-Macho J. The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: some empirical evidence. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:2372-2381.
27. Hungerford H.R., Volk T.L. Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education 1990, 21:8-21.
28. Jim C.Y., Chen W.Y. Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 75:81-96.
29. Kang H.-g. Structure Analysis on Tourist Behavior in Palace: Focused on Tourist Motivation and Image 2011, Department of Tourism Science, Hanyang University, Seoul, (in Korean, with English summary).
30. Kellert S.R. Experiencing nature: affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations 2002, 117-152. The MIT Press, Boston. P.H. Kahn, S.R. Kellert (Eds.).
31. Kim D.-J. Influence of urban green space environment on the value of residential properties: the case of apartment in Seoul. Korean Journal of Forest Economics 2002, 10:8-19. (in Korean, with English summary).
32. Kim S.-W., Lee S.-K., Hong S.-J., Park S.-H. List-assisted RDD sampling in Korea: testing the feasibility of national survey under within-household selection. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2012, 24:79-92.
33. Konijnendijk C.C. The Forest and the City: the Cultural Landscape of Urban Woodland 2008, Springer, Berlin. 1st ed.
34. Korea Forest Service, 2010. National Statistics of Urban Forests. Daejeon (in Korean).
35. Krinsky I., Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics 1986, 68:715-719.
36. Kuo I.L. The effectiveness of environmental interpretation at resource - sensitive tourism destinations. International Journal of Tourism Research 2002, 4:87-101.
37. Kwon H.G., Shin W.S., Kim J.J. The comparison of use benefits based on types of urban forest. Journal of Korean Institute of Forest Recreation 2004, 8:37-46. (in Korean, with English summary).
38. Lancaster K.J. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 1966, 74:132-157.
39. Lee D.-K., Kim E.-Y., Song W.-K., Park C., Choe H.-Y. Classification of urban forest types and its application methods for forests creation and management. Journal of the Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology 2009, 12:101-109. (in Korean, with English summary).
40. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D., Adamowicz W. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1st ed.
41. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
42. McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2000, 15:447-470.
43. 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, 93:83-91.
44. Nielsen A.B., Olsen S.B., Lundhede T. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 80:63-71.
45. Nordh H., Alalouch C., Hartig T. Assessing restorative components of small urban parks using conjoint methodology. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2010, 10:95-103.
46. Oku H., Fukamachi K. The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity. Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 75:34-42.
47. Pacifico D., Yoo H.i. LCLOGIT: Stata Module to Fit Latent Class Conditional Logit Models via EM Algorithm, Statistical Software Component 2011, Boston College Department of Economics, Boston.
48. Park M.S. Media Discourse in Forest Communication: The Issue of Forest Conservation in the Korean and Global Media 2009, Cuvillier, Goettingen.
49. Pedersen L.B., Kjær T., Kragstrup J., Gyrd-Hansen D. Does the inclusion of a cost attribute in forced and unforced choices matter? Results from a web survey applying the discrete choice experiment. Journal of Choice Modelling 2011, 4:88-109.
50. Ribe R.G. The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught us?. Environmental Management 1989, 13:55-74.
51. Scarpa R., Thiene M. Destination choice models for rock climbing in the northeastern Alps: a latent-class approach based on intensity of preferences. Land Economics 2005, 81:426-444.
52. Shin W.S., Kwon H.G., Hammitt W.E., Kim B.S. Urban forest park use and psychosocial outcomes: a case study in six cities across South Korea. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 2005, 20:441-447.
53. Sim K.-W., Lee J.-H., Na H.-H. A study on effect relationships among visitor motivation, satisfaction and behavioral intention in Palgong Olleh. Journal of Korean Institute of Forest Recreation 2010, 4:21-28. (in Korean, with English summary).
54. Son J.W., Ha S.Y. A study on visitor's behavior as a characteristic of different forest trails. Journal of Korean Forest Society 2012, 101:309-316. (in Korean, with English summary).
55. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1st ed.
56. Train K.E. EM algorithms for nonparametric estimation of mixing distributions. Journal of Choice Modelling 2008, 1:40-69.
57. Tyrväinen L., Miettinen A. Property prices and urban forest amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2000, 39:205-223.
58. Tyrväinen L., Väänänen H. The economic value of urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent valuation method. Landscape and Urban Planning 1998, 43:105-118.
59. Tyrväinen L., Pauleit S., Seeland K., Vries D. Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. Urban Forests and Trees 2005, 81-114. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg. C.C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T.B. Randrup, J. Schipperijn (Eds.).
60. United Nations, 2010. World Urbanization Prospects, the 2009 Revision. Retrieved from http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/doc_highlights.htm (03.03.12).
61. Vaughan C., Gack J., Solorazano H., Ray R. The effect of environmental education on schoolchildren, their parents, and community members: a study of intergenerational and intercommunity learning. Journal of Environmental Education 2003, 34:12-21.
62. Watson D.O., McFarlane B.L., Haener M.K. Human dimensions of biodiversity conservation in the interior forests of British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 2004, 4:1-20.
63. Wolf K.L. Business district streetscapes, trees, and consumer response. Journal of Forestry 2005, 103:396-400.
64. Xu W., Lippke B.R., Perez-Garcia J. Valuing biodiversity, aesthetics, and job losses associated with ecosystem management using stated preferences. Forest Science 2003, 49:247-257.
65. Yoo R.H., Kim J.J., Yoon E.Y. The Recreational Use Characteristics of Urban Forests 2004, Korean Forestry Society, pp. 390-391 (in Korean, with English summary).