Willingness to travel to avoid recreation conflicts in Danish forests

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 662-671

  Bakhtiari, Fatemeh ^a   Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl ^a   Jensen, Frank Søndergaard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

(Perceived) conflicts; Crowding; Forest users; Recreation conflicts; Willingness to travel

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; PEACE PROCESS; PERCEPTION; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; RESIDENTIAL LOCATION; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR;

DENMARK;

EQUIDAE;

EID: 84940162605     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2014.08.004     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Abildtrup J., Garcia S., Olsen S.B., Stenger A. Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 92:67-77. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.001.
2. Absher J.D., Lee R.G. Density as an incomplete cause of crowding in backcountry settings. Leis. Sci. 1981, 4(3):231-247.
3. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M., Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1998, 80(1):64-75.
4. Arnberger A., Haider W. Social effects on crowding preferences of urban forest visitors. Urban Forest. Urban Green. 2005, 39(2):345-365.
5. Arnberger A., Haider W. A comparison of global and actual measures of perceived crowding of urban forest visitors. J. Leis. Res. 2007, 3(3):125-136.
6. Arnberger A., Mann C. Crowding in European forests: a review of recent research and implications for forest management and policy. Forestry 2008, 81(4):571-599.
7. 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 Forest. Urban Green. 2010, 9:215-225.
8. Bell S., Tyrväinen L., Sievänen T., Pröbstl U., Simpson M. Outdoor recreation and nature tourism: a European perspective. Living Rev. Landscape Res. 2007, 1:1-46.
9. Bennett J., Blamey R. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation 2001, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
10. Bierlaire M. BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss Transportation Research Conference 2003.
11. Campbell D., Vedel S.E., Thorsen B.J., Jacobsen J.B. Heterogeneity in the WTP for recreational access: distributional aspects. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 2013, 1200-1219.
12. Chambers T.W.M., Price C. Recreational congestion: some hypotheses tested in the forest of Dean. Rural Stud. 1986, 2(1):41-52.
13. Cicchetti C.J., Smith V.K. The Cost of Congestion 1976, Cambridge, MA, Ballinger.
14. Clawson M., Knetsch J.L. Economics of Outdoor Recreation 1966, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
15. Clemmensen T.J., Daugaard M., Nielsen T. Qualifying urban landscapes. JoLA 2010, 5(2):24-39.
16. Cronbach L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16:297-334.
17. Danish Forest and Nature Agency The Danish National Forest Programme in an International Perspective 2002, Ministry of Environment, Division of Forest Policy of the Danish Forest and Nature Agency, Copenhagen.
18. Danish Forest and Nature Agency Friluftskortet (overview of recreational facilities etc. in Danish state forests) 2009, Retrieved from: http://friluftskortet.dk (02.04.09).
19. Degenhardt B., Frick J., Buchecker M., Gutscher H. Influences of personal, social, and environmental factors on workday use frequency of the nearby outdoor recreation areas by working people. Leis. Sci. 2011, 33:420-440.
20. Federation of Danish Motorists in Denmark (FDM), 2009. Retrieved from: (01.07.14). http://jyllands-posten.dk/motor/ECE4083757/din-bil-koster-dig-3-76-kr-per-kilometer/.
21. Grahn P., Stigsdotter U. Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forest. Urban Green. 2003, 2:1-18.
22. Hall T., Cole D. Changes in the Motivations, Perception and Behaviors of Recreation Users: Displacement and Coping in Wilderness. RMRS-RP-63 2007, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.
23. Hall T.E., Shelby B. Temporal and spatial displacement: evidence from a high use reservoir and alternate sites. J. Leis. Res. 2000, 32:435-456.
24. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Koop G. Modelling recreation demand using choice experiments: rock climbing in Scotland. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2002, 22:449-466.
25. Hammitt W.E., Patterson M. Coping behaviours to avoid visitor encounters: its relationship to wild land privacy. J. Leis. Res. 1991, 23(3):225-237.
26. Hausman J., McFadden D. Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 1984, 52(5):1219-1240.
27. Inglis G., Johnson V., Ponte F. Crowding norms in marine settings: a case study of snorkeling on the Great Barrier Reef. Environ. Manage. 1999, 24:369-381.
28. Jacobsen J.B., Lundhede T.H., Thorsen B.J. Valuation of wildlife populations above survival. Biodivers. Conserv. 2012, 21:543-563.
29. Jacob G., Schreyer R. Conflict in outdoor recreation: a theoretical perspective. J. Leis. Res. 1980, 12:368-380.
30. Jenkins J., Pigram J. Encyclopedia of Leisure and Outdoor Recreation 2013, Routledge, London.
31. Jensen F.S. Forest Recreation in Denmark from the 1970s to the 1990s 1999, Forskningsserien nr. 26, Forskningscentret for Skov & Landskab, Hørsholm, (in Danish).
32. Jensen F.S. Friluftsliv i 592 skove og andre naturområder [Outdoor recreation in 592 forests and other nature areas] 2003, Skovbrugsserien nr. 32, Forskningscentret for Skov & Landskab, København, (in Danish).
33. Jensen F.S., Koch N.E. Twenty-five years of forest recreation research in Denmark and its influence on forest policy. Scand. J. Forest Res. 2004, 19(4):93-102.
34. Jensen F.S. Crowding in Danish forests - a nonexistent problem?. Exploring the Nature of Management. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas 2006, 13-17. D. Siegrist, C. Clivaz, M. Hunziker, S. Iten (Eds.).
35. Jensen F.S. Friluftsliv i skovene 2008 (2). Antal skovbesøg pr. år [Number of forest visits per year]. Videnblade Planlægning og Friluftsliv, nr. 6.1-65 2012, Skov & Landskab, Frederiksberg, (in Danish).
36. Jensen F.S. Friluftsliv i skovene 2008 (8). Transportafstand [Transport distance]. Videnblade Planlægning og Friluftsliv, nr. 6.1-72 2012, Skov & Landskab, Frederiksberg, (in Danish).
37. Johnson A., Dawson C. An exploratory study of the complexities of coping behavior in Adirondack wilderness. Leis. Sci. 2004, 26:281-293.
38. Kline P. The Handbook of Psychological Testing 1993, Routledge, London.
39. Kleiber O. Valuation of recreational benefits and visitor conflicts in an urban forest. Fifth International Conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE) 2001.
40. Konijnendijk C.C. The Forest and the City 2008, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
41. Kuss F., Graefe A., Vaske J. Visitor Impact Management: A Review of Research 1990, National Parks and Conservation Association, Washington, DC.
42. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J. Stated Choice Methods and Applications 2000, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
43. Maas J., Verheij R.A., Groenewegen P.P., De Vries S., Spreeuwenberg P. Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation?. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 2006, 60(7):587-592.
44. Manning R., Valliere W., Wang B. Crowding norms: alternative measurement approaches. Leis. Sci. 1999, 21(2):97-115.
45. Manning R. Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction 2011, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 3rd edition.
46. Manning R.E., Ciali C.P. Recreation density and user satisfaction: a further exploration of the satisfaction model. J. Leis. Res. 1980, 12:329-345.
47. Miljøministeriet Ny national friluftspolitik [New national outdoor recreation policy] 2012, Retrieved from: http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/naturoplevelser/friluftspolitik/ (15.07.14).
48. Owens P.L. Conflict as a social interaction process in environment and behaviour research: the example of leisure and recreational research. J. Environ. Psychol. 1985, 5:243-259.
49. Olsen B.S., Bonnichsen O., Laugesen M.f., Dubgaard A., Thorsen B.J. Adgang til grønne områder, fysisk aktivitetsniveau og sundhed. Er der evidens for en sammenhæng, der kan vurderes samfundsøkonomisk? [Access to green spaces, physical activity and health. Is there evidence for a correlation which can be socioeconomically evaluated?] IFRO rapport 217 2013, Institut for Fødevare- og Ressourceøkonomi Københavns Universitet, Copenhagen, (in Danish).
50. Parsons G.R. A note on choice of location in residential travel cost demand models. Land Econ. 1991, 67(3):360-364.
51. Phaneuf D.J., Smith V.K. Recreation demand models. Handbook of Environmental Economics 2005, 671-761. Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam. K.G. Mäler, J.R. Vincent (Eds.).
52. Rapoport A. Toward a redefinition of density. Environ. Behav. 1975, 1:133-158.
53. Scarpa R., Thiene M., Train K. Utility in willingness to pay space: a tool to address confounding random scale effect in destination choice to the Alps. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 90(4):994-1010.
54. Shelby B., Vaske J.J., Heberlein T.A. Comparative analysis of crowding in multiple locations: results from fifteen years of research. Leis. Sci. 1989, 11:269-291.
55. Stenar M. Spids konfrontation - cyklister sætter liv og førlighed på spil [Sharp pointed confrontation - cyclists put life and limb on the line]. Skoven 2012, 44:294-295. (in Danish).
56. Stewart W.P., Cole D.N. Number of encounters and experience quality in Grand Canyon Backcountry: consistently negative and weak relationships. J. Leis. Res. 2001, 33(1):106-120.
57. Stokols D. On the distinction between density and crowding: some implications for future research. Psychol. Rev. 1972, 79:275-277.
58. Sælen H., Ericson T. The recreational value of different winter conditions in Oslo forests: a choice experiment. J. Environ. Manage. 2013, 131:426-434.
59. Søderlund K. Flere søm i skovbunden [More nails in the forest floor]. Skoven 2012, 44:478-479. (in Danish).
60. Thapa B., Graefe A.R. Level of skill and its relationship to recreation conflict and tolerance among adult skiers and snowboarder. World Leis. J. 2003, 45(1):13-25.
61. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
62. Train K., Weeks M. Discrete choice model in preference space and willing to pay space. Application of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 1-16. Springer Publisher, Dordrecht. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
63. Tratalos J., Sugden R., Bateman I., Gill J., Jones A., Showler D., Sutherland W., Watkinson A. The conflict between conservation and recreation when visitors dislike crowding: a theoretical and empirical analysis of the spatial distribution of recreational beach users. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2013, 55(3):447-465.
64. Tyrväinen L. Monetary Valuation of Urban Forest Amenities in Finland. Research Papers 739 1999, (Academic dissertation), Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa.
65. Tyrväinen L. Use and valuation of urban forest amenities in Finland. J. Environ. Manage. 2001, 62:75-92.
66. Vaske J.J., Carothers P., Donnelly M.P., Baird B. Recreation conflict among skiers and snowboarders. Leis. Sci. 2000, 22:297-313.
67. Vaske J.J., Donnelly M.P., Lehto X. Visitor crowding and normative tolerances at congested areas of Rocky Mountain National Park. Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Unit Report, 50 2002, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
68. Vaske J.J., Needham M.D., Cline R.C. Clarifying interpersonal and social values conflict among recreationists. J. Leis. Res. 2007, 39:182-195.
69. Vedel S.E., Thorsen B.J., Jacobsen J.B. First-movers, non-movers, and social gains from subsidizing entry in markets for nature-based recreational goods. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:2363-2371.
70. Vedel S.E. Economic Incentives for Provision of Environmental Goods and Services from Forest and Natural Areas 2010, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen.
71. Von Haefen R.H., Phaneuf D.J. Identifying demand parameters in the presence of unobservables: a combined revealed and stated preference approach. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2008, 56(1):19-32.
72. Whitehead J.C., Pattanayak S.K., Van Houtven G.L., Gelso B.R. Combining revealed and stated preference data to estimate the nonmarket value of ecological services: an assessment of the state of the science. J. Econ. Surv. 2008, 22(5):872-908.
73. Zandersen M., Termansen M., Jensen F.S. Evaluating approaches to predict recreation values of new forest sites. J. Forest Econ. 2007, 13:103-128.