IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i16p4500-d259137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Amenity Value of Forest Ecosystem Services: Perspectives from the Use of Sustainable Green Spaces

Author

Listed:
  • Wan-Yu Liu

    (Department of Forestry, National Chung Hsing University, 145 Xingda Rd., South Dist., Taichung City 40227, Taiwan)

  • Yen-Yu Lin

    (Innovation and Development Center of Sustainable Agriculture, National Chung Hsing University, 145 Xingda Rd., South Dist., Taichung City 40227, Taiwan)

  • Han-Shen Chen

    (Department of Health Diet and Industry Management, Chung Shan Medical University, No. 110, Sec. 1, Jianguo N. Rd., Taichung City 40201, Taiwan
    Department of Medical Management, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, No. 110, Sec. 1, Jianguo N. Rd., Taichung City 40201, Taiwan)

  • Chi-Ming Hsieh

    (International Bachelor Program of Agribusiness, National Chung Hsing University, 145 Xingda Rd., South Dist., Taichung City 40227, Taiwan)

Abstract

Due to the fragility of forest ecosystems, developing forest recreational resources must consider sustainable ecological, economic, and social development, and reduce impacts from recreational activities. Diverse forests with different biodiversity could promote forest ecosystem services and resistance to the pressure of tourism development. Under such circumstance, it is important to ensure that the travel and tourism industry develops under the principle of sustainable management and assists ecosystem conservation. Forest ecosystem services (FES) have received increasing attention. Especially, the amenity value provided by FES is beneficial for enhancing human health, and has gained popularity. Huisun National Forest Park (HNFP) has the greatest natural forests in Taiwan, and tourists visit the HNFP for the well-preserved environment, abundance of green space, cleanliness, beautiful scenery, and quietness. This study assessed the amenity value of the Huisun National Forest Park (HNFP) by adopting the payment card method via face-to-face survey data of 223 respondents. The annual amenity value of the HNFP per person is NT$2884 in winter and NT$2905 in summer. The total annual amenity value of the HNFP is NT$473,978,430–474,755,774. The results showed that gender, age, education level, monthly income, place of residence, participation in environmental groups, frequency of visiting the HNFP, and stay period significantly influence willingness to pay (WTP). This study concludes that an ecologically sustainable forest with ecosystem services could provide multiple benefits to different stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Wan-Yu Liu & Yen-Yu Lin & Han-Shen Chen & Chi-Ming Hsieh, 2019. "Assessing the Amenity Value of Forest Ecosystem Services: Perspectives from the Use of Sustainable Green Spaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-23, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:16:p:4500-:d:259137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/16/4500/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/16/4500/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhang, Fan & Wang, Xiao Hua & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D. & Ma, Chunbo, 2015. "The recreational value of gold coast beaches, Australia: An application of the travel cost method," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 106-114.
    2. de Rezende, Carlos Eduardo & Kahn, James R. & Passareli, Layra & Vásquez, William F., 2015. "An economic valuation of mangrove restoration in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 296-302.
    3. Gordillo, Fernando & Elsasser, Peter & Günter, Sven, 2019. "Willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ecuador: Results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey in a combined “referendum” – “Consequential open-ended” design," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 28-39.
    4. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop, 1988. "Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 20-28.
    5. Zhongmin, Xu & Guodong, Cheng & Zhiqiang, Zhang & Zhiyong, Su & Loomis, John, 2003. "Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 345-358, March.
    6. Guy Garrod & Kenneth G. Willis, 1999. "Economic Valuation of the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1368.
    7. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    8. Kristin M. Jakobsson & Andrew K. Dragun, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Endangered Species," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1120.
    9. Nunes, Paulo A. L. D., 2002. "Using factor analysis to identify consumer preferences for the protection of a natural area in Portugal," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 499-516, July.
    10. David J. Bjornstad & James R. Kahn (ed.), 1996. "The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 731.
    11. V. Kerry Smith, 1993. "Nonmarket Valuation of Environmental Resources: An Interpretive Appraisal," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(1), pages 1-26.
    12. Mary Jo Kealy & Robert W. Turner, 1993. "A Test of the Equality of Closed-Ended and Open-Ended Contingent Valuations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(2), pages 321-331.
    13. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    14. Tyrvainen, Liisa & Miettinen, Antti, 2000. "Property Prices and Urban Forest Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 205-223, March.
    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. Beata Fornal-Pieniak & Agnieszka Mandziuk & Dagmara Stangierska & Stanisław Parzych & Pedro Miguel Ramos Arsénio, 2023. "Preferences of Young Adult Visitors to Manor Parks in South Poland: A Study on Ecosystem Services and Scenic Quality," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-12, January.
    2. Anna Széchy & Zsuzsanna Szerényi, 2023. "Valuing the Recreational Services Provided by Hungary’s Forest Ecosystems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-16, February.
    3. Yefei Liu & Gui Meng & Shuirong Wu & Xufeng Zhang & Chengle Zhao & Hongguo Yang, 2022. "Influencing Factors and Measurement of “Willingness to Accept” Living with Alligators in a Nature Reserve: A Case Study in National Chinese Alligator Nature Reserve, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Juan F. Velasco-Munoz & José A. Aznar-Sánchez & Marina Schoenemann & Belén López-Felices, 2022. "The economic valuation of ecosystem services: bibliometric analysis," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 13(4), pages 977-1014, December.
    5. George Halkos & Aikaterini Leonti & Eleni Sardianou, 2020. "Assessing the Preservation of Parks and Natural Protected Areas: A Review of Contingent Valuation Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-24, June.

    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. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    2. Mushtaq Memon & Shunji Matsuoka, 2002. "Validity of contingent valuation estimates from developing countries: scope sensitivity analysis," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 5(1), pages 39-61, March.
    3. Jette Jacobsen & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(2), pages 137-160, June.
    4. Chen, Pin-Zheng & Liu, Wan-Yu, 2019. "Assessing management performance of the national forest park using impact range-performance analysis and impact-asymmetry analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 121-138.
    5. Ngouhouo Poufoun, Jonas & Abildtrup, Jens & Sonwa, Dénis Jean & Delacote, Philippe, 2016. "The value of endangered forest elephants to local communities in a transboundary conservation landscape," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 70-86.
    6. Xenarios, Stefanos & Sharma, Bharat R., 2011. "Assessing institutional and environmental parameters of agricultural water use in South Asia: evidences from the Indo-Gangetic Basin," IWMI Research Reports H043779, International Water Management Institute.
    7. Martinez-Espineira, Roberto, 2006. "A Box-Cox Double-Hurdle model of wildlife valuation: The citizen's perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 192-208, June.
    8. Jones, Nikoleta & Sophoulis, Costas M. & Malesios, Chrisovaladis, 2008. "Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2478-2491, December.
    9. Xenarios, Stefanos & Sharma, Bharat R., 2011. "Assessing institutional and environmental parameters of agricultural water use in South Asia: evidences from the Indo-Gangetic Basin," IWMI Reports 158840, International Water Management Institute.
    10. Verbic, Miroslav & Slabe-Erker, Renata, 2009. "An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Volcji Potok landscape area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1316-1328, March.
    11. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    12. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    13. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    14. Gurluk, Serkan, 2006. "The estimation of ecosystem services' value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: Results from a contingent valuation survey," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 209-218, December.
    15. Tanya O’Garra & Susana Mourato, 2007. "Public Preferences for Hydrogen Buses: Comparing Interval Data, OLS and Quantile Regression Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 389-411, April.
    16. Matthew Oliver Ralp Dimal & Victor Jetten, 2020. "Analyzing preference heterogeneity for soil amenity improvements using discrete choice experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 1323-1351, February.
    17. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Mohd Mustafa, Muzafarshah & Bakar, Normizan, 2019. "Are Malaysian Consumers Willing to Pay for Hybrid Cars’ Attributes?," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 53(1), pages 121-134.
    18. Zhaoyi Shang & Yue Che & Kai Yang & Yu Jiang, 2012. "Assessing Local Communities’ Willingness to Pay for River Network Protection: A Contingent Valuation Study of Shanghai, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-17, October.
    19. Guimarães, Maria Helena & Nunes, Luís Catela & Madureira, Lívia & Santos, José Lima & Boski, Tomasz & Dentinho, Tomaz, 2015. "Measuring birdwatchers preferences: A case for using online networks and mixed-mode surveys," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 102-113.
    20. Walid Oueslati & Nicole Madariaga & Julien Salanié, 2008. "Évaluation contingente d’aménités paysagères liées à un espace vert urbain. Une application au cas du parc Balzac de la ville d’Angers," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 87(2), pages 77-99.

    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:16:p:4500-:d:259137. 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.