Latent preferences of residents regarding an urban forest recreation setting in Ljubljana, Slovenia

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 71, Issue , 2016, Pages 71-79

  Japelj, Anže ^a   Mavsar, Robert ^b   Hodges, Donald ^c   Kovač, Marko ^a   Juvančič, Luka ^d  

^a SLOVENIAN FORESTRY INSTITUTE   (Slovenia)

^b EUROPEAN FOREST INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Preferences; Recreation setting; Urban forests; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

SURVEYS;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; PREFERENCES; RECREATION SETTINGS; URBAN FORESTS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

FORESTRY;

EID: 84951299231     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.10.003     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. 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. 80 (1998), 64–75.
2. 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 For. Urban Green. 9 (2010), 215–225.
3. Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Özdemiroglu, E., Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. 2002, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
4. Ben-Akiva, M.E., Lerman, S.R., Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. 1985, MIT press.
5. Bernath, K., Roschewitz, A., Recreational benefits of urban forests: explaining visitors' willingness to pay in the context of the theory of planned behavior. J. Environ. Manag. 89 (2008), 155–166.
6. Boxall, P.C., Adamowicz, W.L., Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ. Resour. Econ. 23 (2002), 421–446.
7. Boxall, P.C., Macnab, B., Exploring the preferences of wildlife recreationists for features of boreal forest management: a choice experiment approach. Can. J. For. Res. 30 (2000), 1931–1941.
8. Bujosa, A., Riera, A., Hicks, R.L., Combining discrete and continuous representations of preference heterogeneity: a latent class approach. Environ. Resour. Econ. 47 (2010), 477–493.
9. Bujosa, B.A., Riera, F.A., Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling. Ecol. Econ. 68 (2009), 2743–2750.
10. Bujosa, B.A., Riera, F.A., Estimating the aggregate value of forest recreation in a regional context. J. For. Econ. 16 (2010), 205–216.
11. Campbell, D., Vedel, S.E., Thorsen, B.J., Jacobsen, J.B., Heterogeneity in the WTP for recreational access: distributional aspects. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 57 (2014), 1200–1219.
12. Christie, M., Hanley, N., Hynes, S., Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods. J. For. Econ. 13 (2007), 75–102.
13. Clark, R.N., Stankey, G.H., The recreation opportunity spectrum: a framework for planning, management, and research. 1979, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report.
14. European Commission, Communication From the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Green Infrastructure (gi) — Enhancing Europe's Natural Capital. 2013, European Commission, 11.
15. Domencich, T.A., McFadden, D., Urban Travel Demand—A Behavioral Analysis. 1975.
16. Edwards, D., Jay, M., Jensen, F.S., Lucas, B., Marzano, M., Montagné, C., Peace, A., Weiss, G., Public preferences for silvicultural attributes of European forests. Edwards, D., (eds.) EFORWOOD Tools for Sustainability Impact Assessment; Thematic Priority: 6.3 Global Change and Ecosystems, 2010, Forest Research, UK, 89.
17. Eriksson, L., Nordlund, A., How is setting preference related to intention to engage in forest recreation activities?. Urban For. Urban Green. 12 (2013), 481–489.
18. European Parliament, European Commission, Resolution ‘Green Infrastructure — Enhancing Europe's Natural Capital’. European Parliament, 2013 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2013-0600+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN (accessed on 05.10.2015).
19. Fosgerau, M., Investigating the distribution of the value of travel time savings. Transp. Res. B Methodol. 40 (2006), 688–707.
20. Gentin, S., Outdoor recreation and ethnicity in Europe—a review. Urban For. Urban Green. 10 (2011), 153–161.
21. Germann-Chiari, C., Seeland, K., Are urban green spaces optimally distributed to act as places for social integration? Results of a geographical information system (GIS) approach for urban forestry research. Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004), 3–13.
22. Gosling, S.D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., John, O.P., Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. Am Psychol 59 (2004), 93–104.
23. Greene, W.H., Hensher, D.A., A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transp. Res. B Methodol. 37 (2003), 681–698.
24. Greene, W.H., Econometric Analysis. 7th ed., 2012, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New York.
25. Gundersen, V.S., Frivold, L.H., Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban For. Urban Green. 7 (2008), 241–258.
26. Hanley, N., Mourato, S., Wright, R.E., Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?. J. Econ. Surv. 15 (2001), 435–462.
27. Hanley, N., Wright, R.E., Adamowicz, V., Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 11 (1998), 413–428.
28. Hanley, N.D., Ruffell, R.J., The contingent valuation of forest characteristics: two experiments. J. Agric. Econ. 44 (1993), 218–229.
29. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H., Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. 2005, Cambridge University Press.
30. Holmes, T.P., Boyle, K.J., Stated Preference Methods for Valuation of Forest Attributes, Forests in a Market Economy. 2003, Springer, 321–340.
31. Hynes, S., Hanley, N., Scarpa, R., Effects on welfare measures of alternative means of accounting for preference heterogeneity in recreational demand models. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 90 (2008), 1011–1027.
32. Jim, C.Y., Shan, X., Socioeconomic effect on perception of urban green spaces in Guangzhou, China. Cities 31 (2013), 123–131.
33. Konijnendijk, C.C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T.B., Schipperijn, J., Urban Forests and Trees. 2005, Springer.
34. Koo, J.-C., Park, M.S., Youn, Y.-C., Preferences of urban dwellers on urban forest recreational services in South Korea. Urban For. Urban Green. 12 (2013), 200–210.
35. Lancaster, K.J., A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ., 1966, 132–157.
36. Lindhjem, H., Navrud, S., Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation?. Ecol. Econ. 70 (2011), 1628–1637.
37. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D., Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. 2000, Cambridge University Press.
38. Luce, R.D., Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. 1959, Wiley, New York.
39. Manning, R., Parks and carrying capacity: commons without tragedy. Choice Reviews Online 45, 2007 (45–0265-0245-0265).
40. Mavsar, R., Japelj, A., Kovač, M., Trade-offs between fire prevention and provision of ecosystem services in Slovenia. Forest Policy and Economics 29 (2013), 62–69.
41. McFadden, D., Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. 1973.
42. McFadden, D., Train, K., Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econ. 15 (2000), 447–470.
43. Nielsen, A.B., Olsen, S.B., Lundhede, T., An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landsc. Urban Plan. 80 (2007), 63–71.
44. Nielsen, J.S., Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: A comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews. Resour. Energy Econ. 33 (2011), 119–129.
45. Nlogit, 2012. 5th ed. Econometric Software, Inc.
46. Nordh, H., Alalouch, C., Hartig, T., Assessing restorative components of small urban parks using conjoint methodology. Urban For. Urban Green. 10 (2011), 95–103.
47. Ottitsch, A., Krott, M., Urban Forest Policy and Planning, Urban Forests and Trees. 2005, Springer, 117–148.
48. Riera, P., Mogas, J., Evaluation of a risk reduction in forest fires in a Mediterranean region. Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004), 521–528.
49. Roovers, P., Hermy, M., Gulinck, H., Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanisation in central Belgium. Landsc. Urban Plan. 59 (2002), 129–145.
50. Sayan, S., Krymkowski, D., Manning, R., Valliere, W., Rovelstad, E., Cultural influence on crowding norms in outdoor recreation: a comparative analysis of visitors to national parks in Turkey and the United States. Environ. Manag. 52 (2013), 493–502.
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 Econ. 81 (2005), 426–444.
52. Schipperijn, J., Bentsen, P., Troelsen, J., Toftager, M., Stigsdotter, U.K., Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban For. Urban Green. 12 (2013), 109–116.
53. Smrekar, A., Erhatič, B., Šmid-Hribar, M., Krajinski Park Tivoli. 2011, Rožnik in Šišenski hrib, Založba ZRC.
54. SORS, SI-Stat Data portal. 2014, Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia.
55. Swait, J., Advanced Choice Models, Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies. 2007, Springer, 229–293.
56. Tyrväinen, L., Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. J. Environ. Manag. 62 (2001), 75–92.
57. Tyrväinen, L., Pauleit, S., Seeland, K., de Vries, S., Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. Konijnendijk, C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T., Schipperijn, J., (eds.) Urban Forests and Trees, 2005, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 81–114.
58. Tyrväinen, L., Väänänen, H., The economic value of urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent valuation method. Landsc. Urban Plan. 43 (1998), 105–118.
59. Vaske, J.J., Donnelly, M.P., Petruzzi, J.P., Country of origin, encounter norms, and crowding in a front country setting. Leis. Sci. 18 (1996), 161–176.
60. Watson, D.O., McFarlane, B.L., Haener, M.K., Human dimensions of biodiversity conservation in the Interior forests of British Columbia. Journal of Ecosystems and Management, 4, 2004.
61. Windle, J., Rolfe, J., Comparing responses from internet and paper-based collection methods in more complex stated preference environmental valuation surveys. Economic Analysis and Policy 41 (2011), 83–97.