IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i13p3560-d243719.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Ivo Machar, 2020. "Sustainable Landscape Management and Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-4, March.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    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. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    9. Bergmann, Ariel & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nicholas & Ready, Richard & Stewart, Mairi & Watson, Fiona, 2008. "The impacts of knowledge of the past on preferences for future landscape change," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2008-05, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    10. 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.
    11. Roussy, Caroline & Ridier, Aude & Chaib, Karim, 2014. "A methodological proposal to approach farmers’ adoption behavior: stated preferences and perceptions of the innovation," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182983, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Ju Hyoung Han & Andy S. Choi & Chi-Ok Oh, 2018. "The Effects of Environmental Value Orientations and Experience-Use History on the Conservation Value of a National Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, September.
    16. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    17. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Mazur, Kasia, 2013. "Calibration of values in benefit transfer to account for variations in geographic scale and scope: Comparing two choice modelling experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152176, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. Uktam Umurzakov & Shakhnoza Tosheva & Raufhon Salahodjaev, 2023. "Tourism and Sustainable Economic Development: Evidence from Belt and Road Countries," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(1), pages 503-516, March.
    19. Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 291-307.
    20. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.

    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.