Small-scale Forestry

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 219–231

Valuing the benefits to the local community of supplying recreational facilities in community owned forests: an application of the contingent behaviour method

Research Paper


This research utilises a contingent behaviour valuation technique to value a number of improvements to recreational facilities in small-scale forests in Ireland. Willingness-to-pay estimates have previously been made for Coillte (Ireland’s state-owned forestry company) trails and forests. The total non-market value of Irish forests has also been examined. This paper adds to the literature by being the first to estimate the consumer surplus associated with recreational enhancements to Irish small-scale forest resources. The results presented indicate that community owned small-scale forestry can contribute enormously to the wellbeing of nearby urban residents, through the provision of outdoor recreational services.


Contingent behaviour Travel cost Consumer surplus Forest recreation Ireland 


  1. Bacon P, Associates (2004) A review and appraisal of Ireland’s forestry development strategy, Final Report. Stationery office, Dublin. (accessed 07/2006)Google Scholar
  2. Clinch P (1999) The economics of Irish forestry. COFORD, DublinGoogle Scholar
  3. Creel MD, Loomis JB (1990) Theoretical and empirical advantages of truncated count data estimators for analysis of deer hunting in California. Am J Agri Econ 72(2):434–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Englin J, Cameron T (1996) Enhancing travel cost models with multiple- scenario contingent behaviour data: poisson regression analysis with panel data. Environ Resour Econ 7(2):133–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fitzpatrick, Associates (2005) Economic value of trails and forest recreation in the Republic of Ireland. Coillte and the National Trails Strategy Working Group of the Irish Sports Council. Final Report, DublinGoogle Scholar
  6. Hanley N, Bell D, Alvarez-Farizo B (2002) Valuing the benefits of coastal water quality improvements using contingent and real behaviour. Environ Resour Econ 24(3):273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hanley N, Ruffell R (1993) The contingent valuation of forest characteristics: two experiments. J Agri Econ 44(2):218–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hausman J, Hall B, Griliches Z (1984) Econometric models for count data with an application to the Patents-RandD relationship. Econometrica 52(4):909–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hellerstein D, Mendelsohn R (1993) A theoretical foundation for count data models. Am J Agri Econ 75(3):604–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hynes S, Hanley N, Christie M (2006) Measuring the benefits of improvements to forest recreational facilities. Proceedings of the small-scale forestry and rural development conference, Galway, Ireland 18–23 JuneGoogle Scholar
  11. Hynes S, Hanley N (2006) Preservation versus development on Irish Rivers: whitewater kayaking and hydro power in Ireland. Land Use Policy 23(2):170–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mathis M, Fawcett A, Konda L (2003) Valuing nature: a survey of the non-market literature. Discussion paper VNT-03-01. Houston Advanced Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  13. Mill G, van Rensburg T, Hynes S, Dooley C (2007) The role of public preferences for enhancing biodiversity and recreation opportunities in Irish forests. Ecol Econ 60(3):642–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Morton KM, Adamowicz WL, Boxall PC (1995) Economic effects of environmental quality change on recreational hunting in northwestern Saskatchewan: a contingent behaviour analysis. Can J Forest Res 25(6):912–920Google Scholar
  15. Ni Dhubhain A, Gardiner J, Davies J, Hutchinson WG, Chilton S, Thomson K, Psaltopoulos D, Anderson C (1994) The socio-economic impacts of afforestation on rural development. Final Report to CAMAR, European Community. University College, DublinGoogle Scholar
  16. Scarpa R, Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG, Buongiorno J (2000) Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests. Ecol Econ 33(2):237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Starbuck M, Berrens R, McKee M (2006) Simulating economic impacts from hazardous fuels treatment and forest restoration management activities. Forest Policy Econ 2006(8):52–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ward F, Beal D (2000) Valuing nature with travel cost models: a manual. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  19. Willis K, Garrod G (1992) An individual travel cost method of evaluating forest recreation. J Agri Econ 42(1):33–42Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Steve Harrison, John Herbohn 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rural Economy Research CentreTeagasc, AthenryIreland
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations