IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i13p3560-d243719.html

Assessment of Visitor Preferences and Attendance to Singletrails in the Moravian Karst for the Sustainable Development Proposals

Author

Listed:
  • Jitka Fialová

    (Department of Landscape Management, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, CZ613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • David Březina

    (Department of Forest and Wood Products Economics and Policy, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, CZ613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Nikola Žižlavská

    (Department of Landscape Management, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, CZ613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Jakub Michal

    (Department of Forest and Wood Products Economics and Policy, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, CZ613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Ivo Machar

    (Department of Development and Environmental Studies, Faculty of Science, Palacky University Olomouc, 771 47 Olomouc, Czech Republic)

Abstract

An optional leisure activity in forest areas for mountainbikers is the subject of discussion in this article. Cycling has become a popular leisure time activity, not only in the Czech Republic but internationally. A bicycle offers the user an unparalleled freedom that seems to have great appeal in these globalized, modern times. A singletrail is a narrow single-directional path for mountain bicycles in the landscape, in contrast to the two-lane forest roads mainly intended for the industrial purposes of forest management. The singletrails of Moravský kras (Moravian Karst) are built on the land owned by the Mendel University in Brno (Masaryk Forest Enterprise Křtiny) near the Jedovnice municipality of the Czech Republic. The aim of the article is to assess the attendance of the area using automatic counters, and to analyse the results, especially according to the illegal transits in the area of interest. The preferences of visitors were evaluated using questionnaires as well. Hypotheses were defined, and the chi-square test and Mann-Whitney testing methods were used to validate or improve them. Separate preferences for men and women were analysed in order to detect the differences or similarities of preferences. According to the results, women notably prefer the medium to easiest level of difficulty of the trails while men mainly prefer the trails of medium difficulty, although they use the most difficult trails too. Contact with nature is important for both the target groups. Training on singletrails is not as important for women as for men, but physical activity is very important to both groups. Women mainly ride on the singletrails for the joy of movement, which they consider to be a more important reason than men. The results of this study will be used to improve the area for mountainbikers as well as singletrail design for newly planned areas. Both human preferences and environmental needs will be taken into account.

Suggested Citation

  • Jitka Fialová & David Březina & Nikola Žižlavská & Jakub Michal & Ivo Machar, 2019. "Assessment of Visitor Preferences and Attendance to Singletrails in the Moravian Karst for the Sustainable Development Proposals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-20, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:13:p:3560-:d:243719
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/13/3560/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/13/3560/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tang, Chor Foon & Abosedra, Salah, 2014. "The impacts of tourism, energy consumption and political instability on economic growth in the MENA countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 458-464.
    2. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    3. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Needham, Mark D. & Morzillo, Anita T. & Moehrke, Caitlin, 2012. "Attitudes, willingness to pay, and stated values for recreation use fees at an urban proximate forest," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 271-281.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stanislava Pachrová & Petr Chalupa & Eva Janoušková & Alice Šedivá Neckáøová & Leoš Štefka, 2020. "Monitoring of Visitors as a Tool of Protected Areas Management," Academica Turistica - Tourism and Innovation Journal, University of Primorska Press, vol. 13(1), pages 67-79.
    2. Emilia Janeczko & Joanna Pniewska & Ernest Bielinis, 2020. "Forest Tourism and Recreation Management in the Polish Bieszczady Mountains in the Opinion of Tourist Guides," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-17, September.
    3. Ivo Machar, 2020. "Sustainable Landscape Management and Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-4, March.
    4. Emilia Janeczko & Jan Banaś & Małgorzata Woźnicka & Krzysztof Janeczko & Stanisław Zięba & Katarzyna Utnik-Banaś & Aleksandra Banaś, 2025. "What Kind of Recreational Infrastructure Encourages Forest Visits the Most? A Case Study of Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-24, April.
    5. Azdren Doli & Dastan Bamwesigye & Petra Hlaváčková & Jitka Fialová & Petr Kupec & Obed Asamoah, 2021. "Forest Park Visitors Opinions and Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Development of the Germia Forest and Recreational Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, March.
    6. Shuhui Yu & Xin Guan & Junfan Zhu & Zeyu Wang & Youting Jian & Weijia Wang & Ya Yang, 2023. "Artificial Intelligence and Urban Green Space Facilities Optimization Using the LSTM Model: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, June.
    7. Stanislava Pachrová & Petr Chalupa & Eva Janoušková & Alice Šedivá Neckáøová & Leoš Štefka, 2020. "Monitoring of Visitors as a Tool of Protected Areas Management," Academica Turistica - Tourism and Innovation Journal, University of Primorska Press, vol. 13(1), pages 67-79.
    8. Aneta Parsonsova & Ivo Machar, 2021. "National Limits of Sustainability: The Czech Republic’s CO 2 Emissions in the Perspective of Planetary Boundaries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    2. Barano Siswa Sulistyawan & Budy P. Resosudarmo & Rene W. Verburg & Pita Verweij & Mia Amalia & Marija Bockarjova, 2022. "Economic valuation of water services related to protected forest management: a case of Bukit Batabuh in the RIMBA corridor, Central Sumatra, Indonesia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(7), pages 9330-9354, July.
    3. Börger, Tobias & Hattam, Caroline, 2017. "Motivations matter: Behavioural determinants of preferences for remote and unfamiliar environmental goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 64-74.
    4. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    5. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    6. Tang, Chor Foon & Tan, Eu Chye, 2015. "Does tourism effectively stimulate Malaysia's economic growth?," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 158-163.
    7. Eric Kamwa, 2025. "Understanding Voluntary Citizen Engagement Amid Weak Policy Responses: the Case of the Sargassum Seaweed Crisis in the French West Indies," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 2085-2101, December.
    8. Anabela Botelho & Lina Sofia Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Accounting for local impacts of photovoltaic farms: two stated preferences approaches," NIMA Working Papers 64, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    9. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    10. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    11. Kallas, Z. & Gómez-Limón, J.A., 2007. "Valoración De La Multifuncionalidad Agraria: Una Aplicación A Través Del Método De Los Experimentos De Elección/Agricultural Multifunctionality Valuation: A Case Study Using The Choice Experiment," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 107-144, Abril.
    12. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    13. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    15. Yamane Nagao & Ayano Nishikori & Tomoko Imoto, 2021. "The Relationship between the Conception of Nature and Environmental Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-16, November.
    16. Ann-Ni Soh & Chin-Hong Puah & Meng-Chang Jong, 2022. "Macroeconomic Determinants of Tourism Demand in Malaysia: A Markov Switching Regression Approach," Business Management and Strategy, Macrothink Institute, vol. 13(2), pages 95-107, December.
    17. Catherine M.H. Keske & Greta Lohman & John B. Loomis, 2013. "Do Respondents Report Willingness-to-Pay on a per Person or per Group Basis? A High Mountain Recreation Example," Tourism Economics, , vol. 19(1), pages 133-145, February.
    18. Pruethsan Sutthichaimethee & Boonton Dockthaisong, 2018. "A Relationship of Causal Factors in the Economic, Social, and Environmental Aspects Affecting the Implementation of Sustainability Policy in Thailand: Enriching the Path Analysis Based on a GMM Model," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-26, December.
    19. Maksym Polyakov & Morteza Chalak & Md. Sayed Iftekhar & Ram Pandit & Sorada Tapsuwan & Fan Zhang & Chunbo Ma, 2018. "Authorship, Collaboration, Topics, and Research Gaps in Environmental and Resource Economics 1991–2015," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 217-239, September.
    20. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:13:p:3560-:d:243719. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.