Journal of Housing and the Built Environment

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 829–841 | Cite as

Visitor support for growth and funding in public built environments: the case of an arboretum

  • Nathanial Trull
  • Jerrod Penn
  • Wuyang HuEmail author


This study conducts a choice experiment survey to find the value for the potential installation of structural improvements in an urban arboretum. These potential improvements were chosen to guide policy decisions for potential revenue generation and to accommodate new visitors without deterring current users. Results show the greatest positive user willingness to pay for a pollinator garden at $3.56 per user per month. While the commuter bike path and perimeter fence were considered controversial issues in this arboretum, results show that on average users were willing to pay a moderately high amount to install the commuter bike path, but also willing to pay a high amount to avoid installation of a perimeter fence. Respondents were strongly opposed to vending machines. These results provide evidence for arboretum management to make informed funding and infrastructure decisions most harmonious with public values.


Arboretum Choice experiment Public opinion Willingness to pay 



Funding was provided by University of Kentucky and Huazhong Agricultural University.


  1. Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1207–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Conklin, J. R., & Drackett, P. R. (2011). A survey method to gauge public interest in programs, activities, and events at arboreta and botanic gardens. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 29(1), 1.Google Scholar
  3. Cummings, R. G., & Taylor, L. O. (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review, 89, 649–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dadvand, P., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Esnaola, M., Forns, J., Basagaña, X., Alvarez-Pedrerol, M., et al. (2015). Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 7937–7942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Demir, A. (2014). Determination of the recreational value of botanic gardens. A case study royal botanic gardens, Kew, London. Revista de Cercetare şi Intervenţie Socială, 44, 160–180.Google Scholar
  6. Downing, M., & Roberts, R. K. (1991). Estimating visitor use-value of arboreta: The case of the University of Tennessee Arboretum 1, 2. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 9(4), 207–210.Google Scholar
  7. Eberle, D. W., & Hayden, G. F. (1991). Critique of contingent valuation and travel cost methods for valuing natural resources and ecosystems. Journal of Economic Issues, 25(3), 649–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garrod, G., Pickering, A., & Willis, K. (1993). The economic value of botanic gardens: a recreational perspective. Geoforum, 24(2), 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hong, S.-K., Kim, J.-H., Jung, S.-J., & Tae, Y.-L. (2010). An economic valuation of arboretum using choice experiments. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture, 37(6), 1–11.Google Scholar
  10. Kang, K.-R., Ha, S.-G., & Lee, K.-C. (2011). A study on measuring the environmental value of gyeongnam arboretum using the CVM. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture, 39(1), 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kochhar, R. (2014). 10 projections for the global population in 2050. Pew Research Center, Last Modified February 3, 2014 Accessed January 12,
  12. Lancaster, K. (1971). Consumer demand: A new approach. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., de Vries, S., Spreeuwenberg, P., Schellevis, F. G., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2009). Morbidity is related to a green living environment. Journal of epidemiology and community health, 63(12), 967–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaivor. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Michaud, C., Llerena, D., & Joly, I. (2012). Willingness to pay for environmental attributes of non-food agricultural products: A real choice experiment. European Journal of Agricultural Economics, 40(2), 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morton Register. The Morton arboretum Accessed January 2.
  17. Murphy, J. J., GeoffreyAllen, P., Stevens, T. H., & Weatherhead, D. (2005). A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental & Resource Economics, 30(3), 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. National Garden Clubs, Inc. (2015). Our history and mission. National Garden Clubs, Inc. Accessed May 10,
  19. Orme, B. K. (2005). Getting started with conjoint analysis: Strategies for product design and pricing research. Glendale: Research Publishers, LLC.Google Scholar
  20. Penn, J. J., & Hu, W. (2018a). Understanding hypothetical bias: An enhanced meta-analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  21. Penn, J. J., & Hu, W. (2018b). Determinants of cheap talk efficacy: A meta-analysis. In Working Paper, Department of Agricultural Economics & Agribusiness, Louisiana State University.Google Scholar
  22. Reeder, K. (2015). What is an arboretum? Last Modified March 7, 2014. Accessed January 12, 2015,
  23. Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. U.S. National Arboretum. (2015). Fast facts about the arboretum. Last Modified May 1, 2015. Accessed May 10,
  25. United Nations. (2014). World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision, highlights. New York: Population Division Department of Economic and Social Affairs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. What is an arboretum? Accessed January 12,
  27. Wu, C.-D., McNeely, E., Cedeno-Laurent, J. G., Pan, W.-C., Adamkiewicz, G., Dominici, F., et al. (2014). Linking student performance in Massachusetts elementary schools with the “greenness” of school surroundings using remote sensing. PloS ONE, 9, e108548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied EconomicsOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural Economics and AgribusinessLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  3. 3.College of Economics and ManagementHuazhong Agricultural UniversityWuhanChina
  4. 4.Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development EconomicsThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations