Providing ecological, cultural and commercial services in an urban park: A travel cost–contingent behavior application in Finland

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 209, Issue , 2021, Pages

  Mäntymaa, Erkki ^a   Jokinen, Mikko ^a   Juutinen, Artti ^a   Lankia, Tuija ^a   Louhi, Pauliina ^a  

^a FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Contingent behavior method; Cultural and commercial services; Economic valuation; Ecosystem services; Travel cost method; Urban park; Urban streams

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; GREENSPACE; INCOME DISTRIBUTION; RECONSTRUCTION; REPRODUCTION; SALMONID; URBAN ECOSYSTEM;

FINLAND;

SALMO TRUTTA;

EID: 85100379648     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104042     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., Williams, M., Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26 (1994), 271–292, 10.1006/jeem.1994.1017.
2. Amoako-Tuffour, J., Martínez-Espiñeira, R., Leisure and the net opportunity cost of travel time in recreation demand analysis: An application to Gros Morne National Park. Journal of Applied Economics 15 (2012), 25–49, 10.1016/S1514-0326(12)60002-6.
3. Armbrecht, J., Use value of cultural experiences: A comparison of contingent valuation and travel cost. Tourism Management 42 (2014), 141–148, 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.11.010.
4. Arnberger, A., Eder, R., The influence of age on recreational trail preferences of urban green-space visitors: A discrete choice experiment with digitally calibrated images. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 54 (2011), 891–908, 10.1080/09640568.2010.539875.
5. Bae, H., Urban stream restoration in Korea: Design considerations and residents’ willingness to pay. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 10 (2011), 119–126, 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.02.001.
6. Barry, L., van Rensburg, T.M., Hynes, S., Improving the recreational value of Ireland's coastal resources: A contingent behavioural application. Marine Policy 35 (2011), 764–771, 10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.009.
7. Ben-Akiva, M., Morikawa, T., Estimation of switching models from revealed preferences and stated intensions. Transportation Research Part A 24 (1990), 485–495, 10.1016/0191-2607(90)90037-7.
8. Bertram, C., Ahtiainen, H., Meyerhoff, J., Pakalniete, K., Pouta, E., Rehdanz, K., Contingent behavior and asymmetric preferences for baltic sea coastal recreation. Environmental and Resource Economics 75:1 (2020), 49–78, 10.1007/s10640-019-00388-x.
9. Bertram, C., Larondelle, N., Going to the woods is going home: recreational benefits of a larger urban forest site — A travel cost analysis for Berlin, Germany. Ecological Economics 132 (2017), 255–263, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.10.017.
10. Bertram, C., Meyerhoff, J., Rehdanz, K., Wüstemann, H., Differences in the recreational value of urban parks between weekdays and weekends: A discrete choice analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning 159 (2017), 5–14, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.006.
11. Bunch, D.S., Bradley, M., Golob, T.F., Kitamura, R., Occhiuzzo, G.P., Demand for clean-fuel vehicles in California: A discrete-choice stated preference pilot project. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 27 (1993), 237–253, 10.1016/0965-8564(93)90062-P.
12. Calleja, A., Díaz-Balteiro, L., Iglesias-Merchan, C., Soliño, M., Acoustic and economic valuation of soundscape: An application to the ‘Retiro’ Urban Forest Park. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 27 (2017), 272–278, 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.08.018.
13. Cameron, C.A., Trivedi, P.K., Regression Analysis of Count Data. Econometric Society Monographs No 30. 1998, Cambridge University Press, New York.
14. Cho, S.-H., Bowker, J., English, D., Roberts, R., Kim, T., Effects of travel cost and participation in recreational activities on national forest visits. Forest Policy and Economics 40 (2014), 21–30, 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.12.004.
15. Christie, M., Hanley, N., Hynes, S., Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods. Journal of Forest Economics 13 (2007), 75–102, 10.1016/j.jfe.2007.02.005.
16. City of Oulu (2020a). Hupisaarten purojen kunnostaminen (The reconstruction of the streams of Hupisaaret City Park), Retrieved in 5 March, 2020 from https://www.ouka.fi/oulu/ymparisto-ja-luonto/hupisaarten-purojen-kunnostaminen.
17. City of Oulu (2020b). Oulun kaupungin kehittämissalkut (Portfolios of development actions of the City of Oulu), Retrieved in 3 June, 2020 from https://www.oukapalvelut.fi/kehittamishankkeet/Hankekortti1.asp?ID=686.
18. Collins, A., Rosenberger, R., Fletcher, J., The economic value of stream restoration. Water Resources Research, 41, 2005, W02017, 10.1029/2004WR003353.
19. Downward, P., Lumsdon, L., Weston, R., Visitor expenditure: The case of cycle recreation and tourism. Journal of Sport & Tourism 14 (2009), 25–42, 10.1080/14775080902847397.
20. Englin, J., Shonkwiler, J., Estimating social welfare using count data models: An application to long-run recreation demand under conditions of endogenous stratification and truncation. The Review of Economic and Statistics 77 (1995), 104–112 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2109996?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
21. Ezebilo, E.E., Boman, M., Mattsson, L., Lindhagen, A., Mbongo, W., Preferences and willingness to pay for close to home nature for outdoor recreation in Sweden. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58 (2015), 283–296, 10.1080/09640568.2013.854196.
22. Freeman, A.M. III, The measurement of environmental and resource values. Theory and methods. 2003, RFF Press, Washington, DC.
23. Haab, T. C., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). Valuing environmental and natural resources: The econometrics of non-market valuation. Cheltenham – Edward Elgar.
24. Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgström, S., Breuste, J., et al. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: Concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43 (2014), 413–433, 10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0.
25. Hanauer, M.M., Reid, J., Valuing urban open space using the travel-cost method and the implications of measurement error. Journal of Environmental Management 198 (2017), 50–65, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.005.
26. Hanley, N., Bell, D., & lvarez-Farizo, B. (2003). Valuing the benefits of coastal water quality improvements using contingent and real behaviour. Environmental and Resource Economics 24, 273–285, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022904706306.
27. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods. In: Plott, C. R., Smith, V. L. (Eds.) Handbook of experimental economics results (Vol. 1, pp. 752–767), https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0722(07)00081-9.
28. Hynes, S., Greene, W., A Panel travel cost model accounting for endogenous stratification and truncation: A latent class approach. Land Economics 89 (2013), 177–192, 10.3368/le.89.1.177.
29. Hökby, S., Söderqvist, T., Elasticities of demand and willingness to pay for environmental services in Sweden. Environmental and Resource Economics 26 (2003), 361–383, 10.1023/B:EARE.0000003581.97411.75.
30. Iamtrakul, P., Teknomi, K., Hokao, K., Public park valuation using travel cost method. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 5 (2005), 1249–1264 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.76.2406&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
31. Johnston, R.J., Boyle, K.J., Adamowicz, W.(V.), Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T.A., et al. Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4 (2017), 319–405, 10.1086/691697.
32. Khan, H., Willingness to pay and demand elasticities for two national parks: Empirical evidence from two surveys in Pakistan. Environment, Development and Sustainability 11 (2009), 293–305, 10.1007/s10668-007-9111-6.
33. Lankia, T., Neuvonen, M., Pouta, E., Effects of water quality changes on the recreation benefits of swimming in Finland: Combined travel cost and contingent behavior model. Water Resources and Economics 25 (2019), 2–12, 10.1016/j.wre.2017.10.002.
34. Landry, C.E., Allen, T., Cherry, T., Whitehead, J.C., Wind turbines and coastal recreation demand. Resource and Energy Economics 34 (2012), 93–111, 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.10.001.
35. Loomis, J., A comparison of the effect of multiple destination trips on recreation benefits as estimated by travel cost and contingent valuation methods. Journal of Leisure Research 38 (2006), 46–60, 10.1080/00222216.2006.11950068.
36. Loomis, J., Importance of including use and passive use values of river and lake restoration. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education 134 (2006), 4–8 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.843.1756&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
37. Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K., Covich, A., Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics 33 (2000), 103–117, 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00131-7.
38. Louviere, J.J., Experimental choice analysis: Introduction and overview. Journal of Business Research 23 (1992), 291–297, 10.1016/0148-2963(91)90015-P.
39. Mäntymaa, E., Juutinen, A., Tyrväinen, L., Karhu, J., Kurttila, M., Participation and compensation claims in voluntary forest landscape conservation: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland. Journal of Forest Economics 33 (2018), 14–24, 10.1016/j.jfe.2018.09.003.
40. Melichar, J., Kaprová, K., Revealing preferences of Prague's homebuyers toward greenery amenities: The empirical evidence of distance–size effect. Landscape and Urban Planning 109 (2013), 56–66, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.003.
41. Mieno, T., Shoji, Y., Aikoh, T., Arnberger, A., Eder, R., Heterogeneous preferences for social trail use in the urban forest: A latent class model. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 19 (2016), 20–28, 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.016.
42. Milon, J.W., Contingent valuation experiments for strategic behavior. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17 (1989), 293–308, 10.1016/0095-0696(89)90022-3.
43. Morancho, A.B., A hedonic valuation of urban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 66 (2003), 35–41, 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00093-8.
44. More, T.A., Stevens, T., Allen, P.G., Valuation of urban parks. Landscape and Urban Planning 15 (1988), 139–152, 10.1016/0169-2046(88)90022-9.
45. Murphy, J.J., Allen, P.G., Stevens, T.H., Weatherhead, D., A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 30 (2005), 313–325, 10.1007/s10640-004-3332-z.
46. Niskala, K. (2005). Hurmaavat Hupisaaret (Fascinating Hupisaaret). Painotalo Suomenmaa – Oulu.
47. Norman, J., Ellingson, L., Boman, M., Mattson, L., The value of forests for outdoor recreation in southern Sweden: Are broadleaved trees important?. Ecological Bulletin 53 (2010), 21–31 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41442016.
48. Ovaskainen, V., Neuvonen, M., Pouta, E., Modelling recreation demand with respondent-reported driving cost and stated cost of travel time: A Finnish case. Journal of Forest Economics 18 (2012), 303–317, 10.1016/j.jfe.2012.06.001.
49. Parsons, G., The travel cost model. Champ, P., Boyle, K., Brown, T., (eds.) A primer on Nonmarket valuation, 2003, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 187–233.
50. Poudyal, N.C., Hodges, D.G., Merrett, C.D., A hedonic analysis of the demand for and benefits of urban recreation parks. Land Use Policy 26 (2009), 975–983, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.11.008.
51. Pöyry (2001). Hupisaarten puistoalueen yleissuunnitelma (Principal plan of the area of Hupisaaret City Park), Jaakko Pöyry Infra, 95 pp, http://oulu.ouka.fi/tekninen/lasaretinvayla/013_yleissuunn/puistoalueenyleissuunn.pdf.
52. Ready, R., Poe, G., Lauber, T., Connelly, N., Stedman, R., Rudstam, L., The potential impact of aquatic nuisance species on recreational fishing in the Great Lakes and Upper Mississippi and Ohio River Basins. Journal of Environmental Management 206 (2018), 304–318, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.10.025.
53. Rosenthal, D., The necessity for substitute prices in recreation demand analyses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 69 (1987), 828–837, 10.2307/1242194.
54. Sander, H., Haight, R.G., Estimating the economic value of cultural ecosystem services in an urbanizing area using hedonic pricing. Journal of Environmental Management 113 (2012), 194–205, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.031.
55. Sarvilinna, A., Lehtoranta, V., Hjerppe, T., Are urban stream restoration plans worth implementing?. Environmental Management 59 (2017), 10–20, 10.1007/s00267-016-0778-z.
56. Shrestha, R.K., Stein, T.V., Clark, J., Valuing nature-based recreation in public natural areas of the Apalachicola River region, Florida. Journal of Environmental Management 85 (2007), 977–985, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.11.014.
57. Statistics Finland (2020). Preliminary population structure by area, 2020, Retrieved in 9 March, 2020 from http://pxnet2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/fi/StatFin/StatFin__vrm__vamuu/statfin_vamuu_pxt_11lj.px/table/tableViewLayout1/.
58. Tavárez, H., Elbakidze, L., Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach. Forest Policy and Economics, 109, 2019, 102004, 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102004.
59. Traficom (2020). Laskelmia autoilun kustannuksista (Calculations of the costs of private car driving), The Finnish Transport and Communications Agency, Retrieved in 23 March, 2020 from https://www.traficom.fi/fi/ajavaihtoehtoa/vttn-laskelma-autoilun-kustannuksista; https://www.traficom.fi/fi/ajavaihtoehtoa/vernen-laskelma-autoilun-kustannuksista.
60. Tyrväinen, L., Miettinen, A., Property prices and urban forest amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39 (2000), 205–223, 10.1006/jeem.1999.1097.
61. Vecchiato, D., Tempesta, T., Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments. Forest Policy and Economics 26 (2013), 111–120, 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.10.001.
62. Whitehead, J., Pattanayak, S., Van Houtven, G., Gelso, B., 2008. Combining revealed and stated preference data to estimate the nonmarket value of ecological services: An assessment of the state of the science. Journal of Economic Surveys 22, 872–908, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2008.00552.x.
63. Zhang, F., Wang, X., Nunes, P., Ma, C., The recreational value of gold coast beaches, Australia: An application of the travel cost method. Ecosystem Services 11 (2015), 106–114, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.001.