Environmental and Ecological Statistics

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 83–93 | Cite as

Economic analysis of nature preservation investments: the zonal travel cost approach applied for Harghita County of Romania

  • Eugen Mitrică
  • Bianca Mitrică
  • Andrei Stănculescu


The paper is focused on the cost of travel method and specific issues involved by the use of this method for monetization of benefits provided by nature preservation investment projects. Usually, nature preservation investment projects are non revenue generator projects and consequently the monetization of benefits provided is essential in the process of analysis and valuation of these projects, because benefits are the only positive effects able to counterbalance the investment costs. Therefore, the main interest and particularity of the cost-benefit analysis of nature preservation investment projects consists in identification and monetization of the benefits. In the following paper, the method of zonal travel cost is used for indicative valuation of the direct benefits of an investment project for nature preservation, in Harghita County of Romania, as an opportunity and pre-feasibility study completed before making the initial investment decision.


Cost-benefit analysis Harghita County Travel cost method  Zonal travel cost approach 


  1. Cavatassi R (2004) Valuation methods for environmental benefits in forestry and watershed investment projects. ESA working paper 04(01):1–33Google Scholar
  2. Chen W, Hong H, Liu Y, Zhang L, Hou X, Raymond M (2004) Recreation demand and economic value: an application of travel cost method for Xiamen Island. China Econ Rev 15:398–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. European Commission—Guidance on the methodology for carrying out cost benefit analysis—Working Document No. 4Google Scholar
  4. Fleming CM, Cook A (2008) The recreational value of Lake McKenzie, Fraser Island: an application of the travel cost method. Tourism Manag 29:1197–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Freeman AM (1991) Valuing environmental resources under alternative management regimes. Ecol Econ 3:247–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Greenley DA, Walsh RG, Young RA (1981) Option value: empirical evidence from a case study of recreation and water quality. Q J Econ 96(4):657–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Krutilla JV (1967) Conservation reconsidered. Am Econ Rev 57(4):777–786Google Scholar
  8. Markandya A (1998) The valuation of health impacts in developing countries. Planejamento e Politicas Publicas 1:119–155Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugen Mitrică
    • 1
  • Bianca Mitrică
    • 2
  • Andrei Stănculescu
    • 1
  1. 1.The Bucharest Academy of Economic StudiesBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Institute of Geography, Romanian AcademyBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations