Going to the Woods Is Going Home: Recreational Benefits of a Larger Urban Forest Site — A Travel Cost Analysis for Berlin, Germany

Ecological Economics

Volumn 132, Issue , 2017, Pages 255-263

  Bertram, Christine ^a   Larondelle, Neele ^b,c  

^a KIEL INSTITUTE FOR THE WORLD ECONOMY   (Germany)

^b HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADMINISTRATION; COST ANALYSIS; DEMAND ANALYSIS; DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY; FOREST; INTERNET; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; SEASONALITY; TOURIST DESTINATION; TRANSPORTATION MODE; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR; URBAN POPULATION; URBAN SITE;

BERLIN; GERMANY;

EID: 84995761474     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.10.017     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. ADAC (Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club, ADAC Autokosten 2013. 2013.
2. Amt für Statistik, Berlin-Brandenburg, Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg [WWW document]. URL http://www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/home.asp, 2013.
3. Baumgardner, D., Varela, S., Escobedo, F.J., Chacalo, A., Ochoa, C., The role of a peri-urban forest on air quality improvement in the Mexico City megalopolis. Environ. Pollut. 163 (2012), 174–183, 10.1016/j.envpol.2011.12.016.
4. Brack, C.L., Pollution mitigation and carbon sequestration by an urban forest. Environ. Pollut. 116 (2002), 195–200.
5. Brander, L.M., Koetse, M.J., The value of urban open space: meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (2011), 1763–2773.
6. Bratman, G.N., Daily, G.C., Levy, B.J., Gross, J.J., The benefits of nature experience: improved affect and cognition. Landsc. Urban Plan. 138 (2015), 41–50, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.005.
7. Brühbach, D., Ökonomische Vorteile Des Fahrradfahrens für Unternehmen. 2009 http://www.fahrrad-fit.de/default.asp?Menue=225.
8. Bujosa Bestard, A., Riera Font, A., Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling. Ecol. Econ. 68 (2009), 2743–2750, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.016.
9. Cameron, A.C., Trivedi, P.K., Microeconometrics using Stata. 2009, Stata Press, College Station, Texas, USA.
10. Chaudhry, P., Tewari, V., A comparison between TCM and CVM in assessing the recreational use value of urban forestry. Int. For. Rev. 8 (2006), 439–448, 10.1505/ifor.8.4.439.
11. Clawson, M., Knetsch, J., Economics of Outdoor Recreation. 1966, The John Hopkins University Press, New York.
12. Clement, J.M., Cheng, A.S., Using analyses of public value orientations, attitudes and preferences to inform national forest planning in Colorado and Wyoming. Appl. Geogr. 31 (2011), 393–400, 10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.10.001.
13. Coles, R.W., Bussey, S.C., Urban forest landscapes in the UK - progressing the social agenda. Landsc. Urban Plan. 52 (2000), 181–188, 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00132-8.
14. Dobbs, C., Escobedo, F.J., Zipperer, W.C., A framework for developing urban forest ecosystem services and goods indicators. Landsc. Urban Plan. 99 (2011), 196–206, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.11.004.
15. Dwyer, J.F., Peterson, G.L., Darragh, A.J., Estimating the value of urba forests using the travel cost method. J. Arboric. 9 (1983), 182–195.
16. EASAC, Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity in Europe. EASAC Policy Report 09, 2009.
17. Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P.J., McDonald, R.I., Parnell, S., Al., E., Global Urbanisation, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Challenges and Opportunities, 2013, Springer.
18. Elsasser, P., Der Erholungswert des Waldes : monetäre Bewertung der Erholungsleistung ausgewählter Wälder in Deutschland. (Dissertati) Schr Forstökon, Vol. 11, 1996.
19. EPA, U.S., Projecting Land-Use Change: A Summary of Models for Assessing the Effects of Community Growth and Change on Land-Use Patterns. 2000.
20. European Commission, Mapping Guide for a European Urban Atlas. 2011.
21. Freemann, M., Economic valuation: what and why. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, 2003, Springer, 1–25.
22. Garrod, G.D., Willis, K.G., Valuing goods' characteristics: an application of the hedonic price method to environmental attributes. J. Environ. Manag. 34 (1992), 59–76.
23. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86 (2013), 235–245, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019.
24. Hanley, N., Barbier, E.B., Pricing Nature - Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy. 2009, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK.
25. Hörnsten, L., Fredman, P., On the distance to recreational forests in Sweden. Landsc. Urban Plan. 51 (2000), 1–10, 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00097-9.
26. Institut national de la staistique et des études économiques, Ile de France - Paris Statistics. 2014.
27. Jansson, A., Nohrstedt, P., Carbon sinks and human freshwater dependence in Stockholm County. Ecol. Econ. 39 (2001), 361–370.
28. Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y., Leisure participation pattern of residents in a new Chinese City. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 99 (2009), 657–673, 10.1080/00045600903066482.
29. Konijnendijk, C.C., A decade of urban forestry in Europe. For. Policy Econ. 5 (2003), 173–186, 10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00023-6.
30. Larondelle, N., Haase, D., Kabisch, N., Mapping the diversity of regulating ecosystem services in European cities. Glob. Environ. Chang. 26 (2014), 119–129, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.008.
31. Liu, W., Chiou, C., Lin, J., Application of the travel cost method to measure the urban forest park' s recreational value with first-visit satisfaction taken into account. J. Food Agric. Environ. 12 (2014), 1013–1024.
32. Loewenstein, N.J., Loewenstein, E.F., Non-native plants in the understory of riparian forests across a land use gradient in the southeast. Urban Ecosyst. 8 (2005), 79–91.
33. Löwenstein, W., Die Monetäre Bewertung der Fernerholung im Südharz mit der Reisekostenmethode. Bergen, V., Brabänder, H.D., Bitter, A.W., Löwenstein, W., (eds.) Beiträge zum Symposium-Monetäre Bewertung der landeskulturellen Leistungen der Forstwirtschaft, first ed., 1991, J.D.Sauerländer's Verlag, Göttingen, 162.
34. McPhearson, T., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T., Frantzeskaki, N., Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv., 1–5, 2014, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.012.
35. McPherson, E.G., Nowak, D., Heisler, G., Grimmond, S., Souch, C., Grant, R., Rowntree, R., Quantifying urban forest structure, function, and value: the Chicago urban forest climate project. Urban Ecosyst. 1 (1997), 49–61.
36. Meierjürgen, U., Freiraumerholung in Berlin – Die Entwicklung Eines Forstpolitischen Ansatzes für Eine Raumplanung Des Stadtnahen Erholungswaldes. 1995, University Freiburg.
37. Nielsen, A.B., Møller, F., Is coppice a potential for urban forestry? The social perspective. Urban For. Urban Green 7 (2008), 129–138, 10.1016/j.ufug.2008.02.005.
38. Ninan, K.N., Inoue, M., Valuing forest ecosystem services: what we know and what we don't. Ecol. Econ. 93 (2013), 137–149, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.005.
39. Ovaskainen, V., Kniivil, M., Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation : evidence on the role of question framing ∗. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 49 (2005), 379–394.
40. Paoletti, E., Ozone and urban forests in Italy. Environ. Pollut. 157 (2009), 1506–1512.
41. Parsons, G.R., Travel Cost Methods. Shogren, J.F., (eds.) Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resource, and Environmental Economics, 2013, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 349–358.
42. Sander, H., Polasky, S., Haight, R.G., The value of urban tree cover: a hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, Minnesota, USA. Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010), 1646–1656, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.011.
43. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt, Population Prognosis for Berlin and Districts 2011–2030. 2012 (Berlin).
44. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt Berlin, Baden und Hundeauslauf an Schlachtensee und Krumme Lanke. 2015.
45. Smith, V.K., Kaoru, Y., Signals or Noise ? Explaining the Variation in Recreation Benefit Estimates. 1990, Am. Agric. Econ, Assoc.
46. Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder, Region and Population - Household [WWW Document]. 2014 (online source. URL http://www.statistik-portal.de/statistik-portal/de_jb01_jahrtab4.asp, accessed 5.12.15).
47. Termansen, M., Mcclean, C.J., Søndergaard, F., Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services. Ecol. Econ. 92 (2013), 48–57, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.001.
48. Tyrväinen, L., Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. J. Environ. Manag. 62 (2001), 75–92, 10.1006/jema.2001.0421.
49. Tyrväinen, L., Pauleit, S., Seeland, K., de Vries, S., Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. Konijnendijk, C.C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T.B., Schipperijn, J., (eds.) Urban Forests and Trees, 2005, 81–114.
50. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, P.D, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352). 2014.
51. United States Census Bureau, New York City Census Data. 2010.
52. Velarde, M.D., Fry, G., Tveit, M., Health effects of viewing landscapes – landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban For. Urban Green. 6 (2007), 199–212, 10.1016/j.ufug.2007.07.001.
53. Vesely, É., Green for green : the perceived value of a quantitative change in the urban tree estate of New Zealand. Ecol. Econ. 3 (2007), 605–615, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.12.019.
54. von Grünigen, S., Montanari, D., Erholung im Schweizer Wald: monetärer Wert und Determinanten. Schweiz. Z. Forstwes. 165 (2014), 113–120, 10.3188/szf.2014.0113.
55. Wang, S., Fu, B., Trade-offs between forest ecosystem services. For. Policy Econ. 26 (2013), 145–146, 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.07.014.
56. Zandersen, M., Tol, R.S.J., A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe. J. For. Econ. 15 (2009), 109–130, 10.1016/j.jfe.2008.03.006.
57. Zandersen, M., Bartczak, A., Czajkowski, M., Giergiczny, M., Termansen, M., Guide on Economic Instruments & Non-market Valuation Methods. 2012, POLFOREX, Warsaw.