Advertisement

New Forests

pp 1–16 | Cite as

The recreational value of forests under different management systems

  • F. RiccioliEmail author
  • E. Marone
  • F. Boncinelli
  • C. Tattoni
  • D. Rocchini
  • R. Fratini
Article

Abstract

Forest degradation is a severe threat to the provision of ecosystem services, such as timber production, biodiversity and hydrogeological protection. Forest abandonment is one of the main causes of forest degradation in Mediterranean areas where the low value-added of forest activities affects economic sustainability. This issue requires urgent restoration actions which must be supported by cost–benefit analysis that comprises all forestry activities that generate income, including the recreational ones. In effect, while the impact of forest management systems on timber production is well studied, the impact of recreational values is not. The present article intends to demonstrate that different forms of forest management result in a differing willingness to pay (WTP) for maintaining the recreational use of forests. We collected 248 questionnaires from respondents who confirmed their WTP for the maintenance of the recreational function of forests under three management systems: coppice, active conversion to high forest, and the natural evolution of forests. Moreover, we tested the influence of certain socio-demographic variables on individual WTP. Users elicited a high preference for conversion to high forest, while natural evolution was the least preferred management system. Moreover, males and users with higher levels of education had a greater WTP for conversion to the high forest approach.

Keywords

Forest management Contingent valuation Payment card Random effects interval model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The results that contributed to this work have been funded by the LIFE Programme of the European Commission under the Grant Agreement LIFE14 ENV/IT/000514 (LIFE FutureForCoppiceS, “Shaping future forestry for sustainable coppices in Southern Europe: the legacy of past management trials”).

References

  1. Acar C, Sakici C (2008) Assessing landscape perception of urban rocky habitats. Build Environ 43:1153–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alphonce R, Alfnes F, Sharma A (2014) Consumer vs. citizen willingness to pay for restaurant food safety. Food Policy 49:160–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen S, Harrison GW, Lau MI, Rutström EE (2006) Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Exp Econ 9(4):383–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Backéus S, Wikström P, Lämås T (2006) Modeling carbon sequestration and timber production in a regional case study. Silva Fenn 40:615–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baerenklau KA, González-Cabán A, Paez C, Chavez E (2010) Spatial allocation of forest recreation value. J Forest Econ 16:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernetti I, Ciampi C, Fagarazzi C, Sacchelli S (2009) I comparti forestale e di prima trasformazione del legno. In: AA.VV. Stima della potenzialità produttiva delle agrienergie in Toscana, Manuale ARSIA, Firenze, pp 43–70Google Scholar
  7. Berrens RP, Bohara A, Kerkvliet J (1997) A randomized response approach to dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 79:252–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bestard AB, Font AR (2009) Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling. Ecol Econ 68:2743–2750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birol E, Karousakis K, Koundouri P (2006) Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: a survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Sci Total Environ 365:105–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Boncinelli F, Pagnotta G, Riccioli F, Casini L (2015a) The determinants of quality of life in rural areas from a geographic perspective: the case of Tuscany. Rev Urban Reg Dev Stud 27:104–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boncinelli F, Riccioli F, Marone E (2015b) Do forests help to keep my body mass index low? Forest Policy Econ 54:11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bord RJ, O’Connor RE (1997) The gender gap in environmental attitudes: the case of perceived vulnerability to risk. Soc Sci Q 78:830–840Google Scholar
  13. Bottalico F, Pesola L, Vizzarri M, Antonello L, Barbati A, Chirici A, Corona P, Cullotta S, Garfi V, Giannico V, Lafortezza R, Lombardi F, Marchetti M, Nocentini S, Riccioli F, Travaglini D, Sallustio L (2016) Modeling the influence of alternative forest management scenarios on wood production and carbon storage: a case study in the Mediterranean region. Environ Res 144(Part B):72–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Boyle KJ, Johnson FR, McCollum DW, Desvouges WH, Dunford RW, Hudson SP (1996) Valuing public goods: discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses. Land Econ 72:381–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown K, Taylor L (2000) Do as you say, say as you do: evidence on gender differences in actual and stated contributions to public goods. J Econ Behav Organ 43:127–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cameron TA (1987) The impact of grouping coarseness in alternative grouped-data regression models. J Econom 35:37–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cameron TA, Englin J (1997) Respondent experience and contingent valuation of environmental goods. J Environ Econ Manag 33:296–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cameron TA, Huppert DD (1989) OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. J Environ Econ Manag 17:230–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2005) Microeconometrics: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ceccarelli T, Salvati L, Bajocco S, Perini P (2015) Land-use trajectories and ‘syndromes’ of land degradation in Northern Italy. Ital J Reg Sci 1:85–98Google Scholar
  21. Chaudhry P, Singh B, Tewari VP (2007) Non-market economic valuation in developing countries: role of participant observation method in CVM analysis. J Forest Econ 13:259–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ciccarese L, Mattsson A, Pettenella D (2012) Ecosystem services from forest restoration: thinking ahead. New Forest 43:543–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cozzi M, Persiani G, Viccaro M, Riccioli F, Fagarazzi C, Romano S (2015) Innovative approaches to the classification of rural areas: from the European addresses to the local application. Aestimum 67:97–110Google Scholar
  24. Dhakal B, Yao RT, Turner JA, Barnard T (2012) Recreational users’ willingness to pay and preferences for changes in planted forest features. Forest Policy Econ 7:34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Edwards D, Jay M, Jensen FS, Lucas B, Marzano M, Montagné C, Peace A, Weiss G (2012) Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: towards a Pan-European perspective. Forest Policy Econ 19:12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. EUROSTAT (2011) Forestry in the EU and the world, a statistical portrait. Eurostat statistical books, Publications Office of the European Union, ISBN 978-92-79-19988-2Google Scholar
  27. FOREST EUROPE (2015) State of Europe’s Forests 2015. http://foresteurope.org/state-europes-forests-2015-report. Accessed 12 Apr 2018
  28. Holgén P, Mattsson L, Li CZ (2000) Recreation values of boreal forest stand types and landscapes resulting from different silvicultural systems: an economic analysis. J Environ Manag 60:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Horne P, Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2005) Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. Forest Ecol Manag 207:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hu W (2006a) Comparing consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for no-GM oil using a contingent valuation approach. Empir Econ 31:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hu W (2006b) Use of spike models in measuring consumers’ willingness to pay for non-GM oil. J Agric Appl Econ 38(3):525–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hu W, Woods T, Bastin S, Cox L, You W (2011) Assessing consumer willingness to pay for value-added blueberry products using a payment card survey. J Agric Appl Econ 43:243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. INFC (2015) Third National Forest Inventory. http://www.sian.it/inventarioforestale. Accessed Aug 23 2017
  34. ISTAT (2016) Occupazione e disoccupazione in Toscana. http://www.regione.toscana.it/-/occupazione-e-disoccupazione-in-toscana-dati-2016. Accessed 16 Mar 2018
  35. Jacobs DF, Oliet JA, Aronson J, Bolte A, Bullock JM, Donoso PJ, Landhausser SM, Madsen P, Peng S, Rey-Benayas JM, Weber JC (2015) Restoring forests: What constitutes success in the twenty-first century? New Forest 46:601–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kniivila M (2006) Users and non-users of conservation areas: Are there differences in WTP, motives and the validity of responses in CVM surveys? Ecol Econ 59:530–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kula E (1994) Economics of natural resources, the environment and policies. Chapman & Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lockwood M, Loomis J, DeLacy T (1993) A contingent valuation survey and benefit–cost analysis of forest preservation in East Gippsland, Australia. J Environ Manag 38:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Loomis J (2005) Updated outdoor recreation use values on national forests and other public lands. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-658, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  40. Marinelli A, Marone E (2013) Il valore economico totale dei boschi della Toscana. Franco Angeli editore, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  41. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1984) A contingent valuation estimate of nation freshwater benefits. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Resource for the future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  42. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. RFF Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  43. Molina JR, Rodriguez F, Herrera MA (2016) Integrating economic landscape valuation into Mediterranean territorial planning. Environ Sci Pol 56:120–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nicolescu, VN, Carvalho, J, Hochbichler, E, Bruckman, V, Piqué-Nicolau, M, Hernea, C, Viana, H, Štochlová, P, Ertekin, M, Tijardovic, M, Dubravac, T, Vandekerkhove, K, Kofman, PD, Rossney, D, Unrau, A (2017) Silvicultural guidelines for European coppice forests. COST Action FP1301 Reports. Albert Ludwig University of FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  45. Nielsen AB, Olsen SB, Lundhede T (2007) An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landsc Urb Plan 80:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pouta E, Rekola M, Kuuluvainen J, Tahvonen O, Li CZ (2000) Contingent valuation of the Natura 2000 nature conservation programme in Finland. Forestry 73:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (2012) Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. Vol I: Continuous responses, 3rd edn. Stata Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  48. Ready RC, Navrud S, Dubourg WR (2001) How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions. Land Econ 77(3):315–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ressurreicao A, Gibbons J, Dentinho TP, Kaiser M, Santos RS, Edwards-Jones G (2011) Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea. Ecol Econ 70:729–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Riccioli F, El Asmar T, El Asmar JP, Fagarazzi C, Casini L (2016) Artificial neural network for multifunctional areas. Environ Monit Assess 188:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Riera P, Signorello G, Thiene M, Mahieu PA, Navrud S, Kaval P, Rulleau B, Mavsar R, Madureira L, Meyerhoff J, Elsasser P, Notaro S, De Salvo M, Giergiczny M, Dragoi S (2012) Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: good practice guidelines. J Forest Econ 18:259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Romano S, Cozzi M, Fanelli L, Viccaro M (2014) Climate change and forests vulnerability in Basilicata region: Economic damage evaluation. In: Conference proceedings environmental sustainability and food security, International Congress, Potenza, 17–19 June 2014Google Scholar
  53. Roth M (2006) Validating the use of Internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment: an empirical study from Germany. Landsc Urb Plan 78:179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sacchelli S, Fagarazzi C, Bernetti I (2013) Economic evaluation of forest biomass production in central Italy: a scenario assessment based on spatial analysis tool. Biomass Bioenergy 53:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scarpa R, Gilbride TJ, Campbell D, Hensher DA (2009) Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation. Eur Rev Agric Econ 36(2):151–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schirpke U, Scolozzi R, De Marco C, Tappeiner U (2014) Mapping beneficiaries of ecosystem services flows from Natura 2000 sites. Ecosyst Serv 9:170–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tao Z, Yan H, Zhan J (2012) Economic valuation of forest ecosystem services in Heshui Watershed using contingent valuation method. Procedia Environ Sci 13:2445–2450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tempesta T, Thiene M (2006) Percezione e valore del paesaggio. Franco Angeli editore, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  59. Tian X, Yu X, Holst R (2011) Applying the payment card approach to estimate the WTP for green food in China. No 23, IAMO Forum 2011: Will the “BRICs Decade” Continue? Prospects for Trade and Growth, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO)Google Scholar
  60. Venkatachalam L (2004) The contingent valuation method: a review. Environ Impact Assess 24:89–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Voces González R, Díaz Balteiro L, López-Peredo Martínez E (2010) Spatial valuation of recreation activities in forest systems: application to province of Segovia (Spain). Forest Syst 19:36–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Voltaire L, Donfouet HPP, Pirrone C, Larzillière A (2017) Respondent Uncertainty and Ordering Effect on Willingness to Pay for Salt Marsh Conservation in the Brest Roadstead (France). Ecol Econ 137:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Walsh RG, Loomis JB, Gillman RA (1984) Valuing option, existence and bequest demands for wilderness. Land Econ 60:4–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wang R, Zaho J, Liu Z (2016) Consensus in visual preferences: the effects of aesthetic quality and landscape types. Urb For Urb Green 20:210–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zandersen M, Termansen M (2013) TEEB Nordic case: assessing recreational values of Danish forests to guide national plans for afforestation. In: Kettunen M, Vihervaara P, Kinnunen S, D’Amato D, Badura T, Argimon M, Ten Brink P (eds) Socio-economic importance of ecosystem services in the Nordic countries: scoping assessment in the context of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). Nordic Council of Ministers, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  66. Zandersen M, Tol Richard SJ (2009) A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe. J Forest Econ 15:109–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural, Food and Forestry SystemsUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.Department of Civil Environmental and Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly
  3. 3.Center Agriculture Food EnvironmentUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations