Outdoor recreation in various landscapes: Which site characteristics really matter?

Land Use Policy

Volumn 65, Issue , 2017, Pages 186-197

  De Valck, Jeremy ^a   Landuyt, Dries ^b   Broekx, Steven ^c   Liekens, Inge ^c   De Nocker, Leo ^c   Vranken, Liesbet ^d  

^a CENTRAL QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c FLEMISH INSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH VITO   (Belgium)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Discrete choice experiment; Distance; Ecosystem services; GIS; Landscape preferences; Outdoor recreation

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; GIS; LAND MANAGEMENT; PERIURBAN AREA; PLANNING METHOD; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; RECREATIONAL FACILITY; SITE SELECTION;

EID: 85017421327     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.009     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Abildtrup, J., Garcia, S., Olsen, S.B., Stenger, A., Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation. Ecol. Econ. 92 (2013), 67–77.
2. Arnberger, A., Haider, W., Would you displace it? It depends! A multivariate visual approach to intended displacement from an urban forest trail. J. Leisure Res. 39:2 (2007), 345–365.
3. Belgian Federal Government, Statistique fiscale des revenus (Income fiscal statistics). 2013 http://statbel.fgov.be/fr/modules/publications/statistiques/marche_du_travail_et_conditions_de_vie/Statistique_fiscale_des_revenus.jsp [online].
4. Bliem, M., Getzner, M., Rodiga-Laßnig, P., Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment. J. Environ. Manage. 103 (2012), 65–73.
5. Brown, G., Weber, D., de Bie, K., Assessing the value of public lands using public participation GIS (PPGIS) and social landscape metrics. Appl. Geogr. 53 (2014), 77–89.
6. Bryman, A., Social Research Methods. 2008, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
7. Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., Liljenstolpe, C., Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 47:1 (2003), 95–103.
8. Carson, R.T., Louviere, J.J., A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ. Resour. Econ. 49 (2011), 539–559.
9. Cheshire, P.C., Stabler, M.J., Joint consumption benefits in recreational site ‘Surplus’: an empirical estimate. Reg. Stud. 10 (1976), 343–352.
10. Christie, M., Hanley, N., Hynes, S., Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods. J. For. Econ. 13:2–3 (2007), 75–102.
11. Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., Chane, K.M.A., Costanza, R., Elmqvist, T., Flint, C.G., Gobster, P.H., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lavek, R., Muhar, S., Penker, M., Ribe, R.G., Schauppenlehner, T., Sikor, T., Soloviy, I., Spierenburg, M., Taczanowska, K., Tame, J., von der Dunk, A., Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. PNAS 109:23 (2012), 8812–8819.
12. Day, B., Bateman, I., Lake, I., Beyond implicit prices: recovering theoretically consistent and transferable values for noise avoidance from a hedonic property price model. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37:1 (2007), 211–232.
13. De Valck, J., Broekx, S., Liekens, I., Aertsens, J., Vranken, L., Testing the influence of substitutes in nature valuation by using spatial discounting factors. Environ. Resour. Econ., 2015, 10.1007/s10640-015-9930-0.
14. De Valck, J., Broekx, S., Liekens, I., De Nocker, L., Van Orshoven, J., Vranken, L., Contrasting collective preferences for outdoor recreation and substitutability of nature areas using hot spot mapping. Landsc. Urban Plann. 151 (2016), 64–78.
15. de Vries, S., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., Spreeuwenberg, P., Natural environments–healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environ. Plan. A 35 (2003), 1717–1731.
16. de Vries, S., Lankhorst, J.R.-K., Buijs, A.E., Mapping the attractiveness of the Dutch countryside: a GIS-based landscape appreciation model. For. Snow Landsc. Res. 81:1/2 (2007), 43–58.
17. Dramstad, W.E., Tveit, M.S., Fjellstad, W.J., Fry, G.L.A., Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc. Urban Plann. 78:4 (2006), 465–474.
18. Earnhart, D., Do travel cost models value transportation properly?. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 8 (2003), 397–414.
19. Fleischer, A., Tsur, Y., Measuring the recreational value of agricultural landscape. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 27:3 (2000), 385–398.
20. Ghermandi, A., Nunes, P.A.L.D., A global map of coastal recreation values: results from a spatially explicit meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 86 (2013), 1–15.
21. Haab, T.C., McConnell, K.E., Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. 2002, Edward Elgar Cheltenham, UK.
22. Haener, M.K., Boxall, P.C., Adamowicz, W.L., Modeling recreation site choice: do hypothetical choices reflect actual behavior?. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 83:3 (2001), 629–642.
23. Hanley, N., Alvarez-Farizo, B., Shaw, W.D., Rationing an open-access resource: mountaineering in Scotland. Land Use Policy 19:2 (2002), 167–176.
24. Hanley, N., Wright, R.E., Koop, G., Modelling recreation demand using choice experiments: climbing in scotland. Environ. Resour. Econ. 22:3 (2002), 449–466.
25. Hanley, N., Shaw, W.D., Wright, R.E., The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation. 2003, Edward Elgar Cheltenham, UK.
26. Hensher, D., Greene, W., The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30:2 (2003), 133–176.
27. Herzog, F., Lausch, A., Supplementing land-use statistics with landscape metrics: some methodological considerations. Environ. Monit. Assess. 72:1 (2001), 37–50.
28. Hoyos, D., The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010), 1595–1603.
29. 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. 90:4 (2008), 1011–1027.
30. Hynes, S., Tinch, D., Hanley, N., Valuing improvements to coastal waters using choice experiments: an application to revisions of the EU Bathing Waters Directive. Mar. Policy 40 (2013), 137–144.
31. Johnson, R.L., Brunson, M.W., Kimura, T., Using image capture technology to assess scenic value at the urban/forest interface: a case study. J. Environ. Manage. 40 (1994), 183–195.
32. Jones, A., Wright, J., Bateman, I., Schaafsma, M., Estimating arrival numbers for informal recreation: a geographical approach and case study of british Woodlands. Sustainability 2 (2010), 684–701.
33. Kaltenborn, B.P., Bjerke, T., Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 59:1 (2002), 1–11.
34. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
35. Lancaster, K.J., A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 74:2 (1966), 132–157.
36. Landauer, M., Pröbstl, U., Haider, W., Managing cross-country skiing destinations under the conditions of climate change Scenarios for destinations in Austria and Finland. Tour. Manage. 33:4 (2012), 741–751.
37. Lee, C.F., Huang, H.I., Yeh, H.R., Developing an evaluation model for destination attractiveness: sustainable forest recreation tourism in Taiwan. J. Sustain. Tour. 18:6 (2010), 811–828.
38. Loomis, J., McTernan, J., Economic value of instream flow for non-commercial whitewater boating using recreation demand and contingent valuation methods. Environ. Manage. 53:3 (2014), 510–519.
39. Louviere, J., Hensher, D., Design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling. Transp. Res. Rec. 890 (1982), 11–17.
40. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D., Stated Choice Methods Analysis and Application. 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
41. MEA – Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being. 2005, Synthesis Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
42. Mark, T.L., Swait, J., Using stated preference and revealed preference modeling to evaluate prescribing decisions. Health Econ. 13:6 (2004), 563–573.
43. Marta-Pedroso, C., Freitas, H., Domingos, T., Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: a case study of web based versus in-person interviews. Ecol. Econ. 62:3–4 (2007), 388–398.
44. Matsuoka, R.H., Kaplan, R., People needs in the urban landscape: analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landsc.Urban Plann. 84 (2008), 7–19.
45. McConnell, K.E., On-site time in the demand for recreation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 74:4 (1992), 918–925.
46. McFadden, D., Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka, P., (eds.) Frontiers in Econometrics, 1974, Academic Press, New York, US.
47. Morey, E.R., Breffle, W.S., Rowe, R.D., Waldman, D.M., Estimating recreational trout fishing damages in Montana's Clark Fork River basin: summary of a natural resource damage assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 66 (2002), 159–170.
48. Neuvonen, M., Sievänen, T., Tönnes, S., Koskela, T., Access to green areas and the frequency of visits – a case study in Helsinki. Urban Fore. Urban Green. 6:4 (2007), 235–247.
49. Ode, Å., Fry, G., Tveit, M.S., Messager, P., Miller, D., Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J. Environ. Manage. 90:1 (2009), 375–383.
50. Ovaskainen, V., Neuvonen, M., Pouta, E., Modelling recreation demand with respondent-reported driving cost and stated cost of travel time: a Finnish case. J. For. Econ. 18:4 (2012), 303–317.
51. Parsons, G.R., Kealy, M.J., Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a random utility model of lake recreation. Land Econ. 68:1 (1992), 93–106.
52. Parsons, G.R., A note on choice of residential location in travel cost demand models. Land Econ. 67:3 (1991), 360–364.
53. Poelmans, L., Van Daele, T., Landgebruikskaart NARA-T. 2014 [PDF] Retrieved from https://data.inbo.be/purews/files/5918744/Poelmans_VanDaele_ 2014_LandsgebruikskaartNARAT2014.pdf.
54. Pröbstl, U., Wirth, V., Elands, B., Bell, S., Management of Recreation and Nature Based Tourism in European Forests. 2010, Springer Publisher, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
55. Rogge, E., Nevens, F., Gulinck, H., Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plann. 82:4 (2007), 159–174.
56. Rolfe, J., Dyack, B., Testing for convergent validity between travel cost and contingent valuation estimates of recreation values in the Coorong, Australia. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 54:4 (2010), 583–599.
57. Romano, D., Scarpa, R., Spalatro, F., Viganò, L., Modelling determinants of participation, number of trips and site choice for outdoor recreation in protected areas. J. Agric. Econ. 51 (2000), 224–238.
58. Schaafsma, M., Brouwer, R., Testing geographical framing and substitution effects in spatial choice experiments. J. Choice Model. 8 (2013), 32–48.
59. Schaafsma, M., Brouwer, R., Gilbert, A., van den Bergh, J., Wagtendonk, A., Estimation of distance-decay functions to account for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in stated preference research. Land Econ. 89:3 (2013), 514–537.
60. Smith, V.K., Desvousges, W.H., McGivney, M.P., The opportunity cost of travel time in recreation demand models. Land Econ. 59:3 (1983), 259–278.
61. Studiedienst van de Vlaamse Regering, Totale bevolking naar leeftijd en geslacht per gewest (Total population by age and sex per region). 2014 [online] Retrieved from http://www4dar.vlaanderen.be/sites/svr/Cijfers/Pages/Excel.aspx.
62. Tapsuwan, S., Macdonald, D.H., King, D., Poudyal, N., A combined site proximity and recreation index approach to value natural amenities: an example from a natural resource management region of Murray-Darling Basin. J. Environ. Manage. 94:1 (2012), 69–77.
63. Thiene, M., Scarpa, R., Deriving and testing efficient estimates of WTP distributions in destination choice models. Environ. Resour. Econ. 44:3 (2009), 379–395.
64. Tutsch, M., Haider, W., Beardmore, B., Lertzman, K., Cooper, A.B., Walker, R.C., Estimating the consequences of wildfire for wildfire risk assessment, a case study in the southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 40 (2010), 2104–2114.
65. Tyrväinen, L., Tahvanainen, L., Using computer graphics for assessing the scenic value of large-scale rural landscape. Scand. J. For. Res. 14:3 (1999), 282–288.
66. Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Kolehmainen, O., Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For. Urban Green. 1:3 (2003), 135–149.
67. Van Berkel, D.B., Verburg, P.H., Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol. Indic. 37 (2014), 163–174.
68. White, P.C.L., Lovett, J.C., Public preferences and willingness-to-pay for nature conservation in the North York Moors National Park, UK. J. Environ. Manage. 55:1 (1999), 1–13.
69. Wilhelmsson, M., The impact of traffic noise on the values of single-family houses. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 43:6 (2000), 799–815.
70. Wilman, E.A., The value of time in recreation benefit studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 7:3 (1980), 272–286.