IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i6p3160-d516344.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forest Park Visitors Opinions and Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Development of the Germia Forest and Recreational Park

Author

Listed:
  • Azdren Doli

    (Department of Forest and Wood Products Economics and Policy, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Dastan Bamwesigye

    (Department of Forest and Wood Products Economics and Policy, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
    Department of Landscape Management, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Petra Hlaváčková

    (Department of Forest and Wood Products Economics and Policy, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Jitka Fialová

    (Department of Landscape Management, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Petr Kupec

    (Department of Landscape Management, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Obed Asamoah

    (School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, I-80101 Joensuu, Finland)

Abstract

The study addresses sustainable development in the forest and recreational park of Germia in the Capital City of Kosovo. The park serves the residents and other visitors’ socioeconomic and environmental needs, such as leisure, sports, meditation, and biodiversity and ecological roles. Sustainable management and the development of natural resources are a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising future generations’ ability to meet their own needs. The study used the contingent valuation method to assess willingness to pay for the sustainable management and development of Germia forest and recreational park, given the values it serves the people. The study surveyed 208 respondents about their opinions on the willingness to pay for the sustainable management and development of the forest and recreational park. The results showed that 56% were willing to pay for recreational services, while 44% were against it because they were not satisfied with the park’s services. The majority (62%) were also willing to pay for this service in tax from their salaries. This showed that an average percentage of people were willing to pay for the sustainable management and development of the forest and recreational park. Therefore, this study serves as a basis for future similar studies and policy decisions for park development.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:6:p:3160-:d:516344
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/6/3160/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/6/3160/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ju-Hee Kim & Kyung-Ran Choi & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2020. "Public Perspective on Increasing the Numbers of an Endangered Species, Loggerhead Turtles in South Korea: A Contingent Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, May.
    2. Kaffashi, Sara & Yacob, Mohd Rusli & Clark, Maynard S. & Radam, Alias & Mamat, Mohd Farid, 2015. "Exploring visitors' willingness to pay to generate revenues for managing the National Elephant Conservation Center in Malaysia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 9-19.
    3. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2015. "Multifunctional recreation and nouveau heritage values in plantation forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 131-151.
    4. Meyer, Andrew, 2015. "Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 108-121.
    5. 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.
    6. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
    7. Dakshina G. De Silva & Rachel A. J. Pownall, 2014. "Going green: does it depend on education, gender or income?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(5), pages 573-586, February.
    8. Dastan Bamwesigye & Petra Hlavackova & Andrea Sujova & Jitka Fialova & Petr Kupec, 2020. "Willingness to Pay for Forest Existence Value and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, January.
    9. Jean-Baptiste Marre & Luke Brander & Olivier Thébaud & Jean Boncoeur & Sean Pascoe & Louisa Coglan & Nicolas Pascal, 2015. "Non-market use and non-use values for preserving ecosystem services over time: A choice experiment application to coral reef ecosystems in New Caledonia," Post-Print hal-01198831, HAL.
    10. Ian Bateman & Georgina Mace & Carlo Fezzi & Giles Atkinson & Kerry Turner, 2011. "Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 177-218, February.
    11. Barnaby Andrews & Silvia Ferrini & Ian Bateman, 2017. "Good parks – bad parks: the influence of perceptions of location on WTP and preference motives for urban parks," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 204-224, April.
    12. 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, March.
    13. Jerrod Penn & Wuyang Hu & Linda Cox & Lara Kozloff, 2016. "Values for Recreational Beach Quality in Oahu, Hawaii," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 47-62.
    14. 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.
    15. Grace Muriuki & Anne-Maree Dowd & Peta Ashworth, 2016. "Urban sustainability -- a segmentation study of Greater Brisbane, Australia," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(3), pages 414-435, March.
    16. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    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. Dastan Bamwesigye & Jitka Fialová & Petr Kupec & Jan Łukaszkiewicz & Beata Fortuna-Antoszkiewicz, 2021. "Forest Recreational Services in the Face of COVID-19 Pandemic Stress," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Zohreh Khalili Ardali & Hamid Amirnejad & Soleiman Mohammadi Limaei & Sadegh Salehi, 2024. "Assessment of Recreational Value in a Protected Forest Area Considering the New Environmental Paradigm (Case Study: Helen Forest, Southwestern Iran)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-23, March.
    3. Sara Kitaibekova & Zhailau Toktassynov & Dani Sarsekova & Soleiman Mohammadi Limaei & Elmira Zhilkibayeva, 2023. "Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Services in Burabay National Park, Kazakhstan: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-14, February.
    4. Jitka Fialová & Dastan Bamwesigye & Jan Łukaszkiewicz & Beata Fortuna-Antoszkiewicz, 2021. "Smart Cities Landscape and Urban Planning for Sustainability in Brno City," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Rakan Alyamani & Suzanna Long & Mohammad Nurunnabi, 2021. "Evaluating Decision Making in Sustainable Project Selection Between Literature and Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.

    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. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    2. Halkos, George E & Aslanidis, Panagiotis-Stavros & Landis, Conrad & Papadaki, Lydia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2024. "A review on primary and cascading hazards by exploring individuals’ willingness-to-pay for urban sustainability policies," MPRA Paper 122262, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, March.
    4. Ioannis Kostakis & Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis, 2022. "Social and economic determinants of materials recycling and circularity in Europe: an empirical investigation," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 68(2), pages 263-281, April.
    5. Clive L Spash, 2008. "The Contingent Valuation Method: Retrospect and Prospect," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-04, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    6. Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2020. "The Causal Effect of Education on Climate Literacy and Pro-Environmental Behaviours: Evidence from a Nationwide Natural Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 13210, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Blankenberg, Ann-Kathrin & Alhusen, Harm, 2019. "On the determinants of pro-environmental behavior: A literature review and guide for the empirical economist," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 350, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics, revised 2019.
    8. Federico Pontoni & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Stefania Troiano, 2016. "Choice experiments and environmental taxation: An application to the Italian hydropower sector," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(3), pages 99-118.
    9. Bartczak, Anna & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle & Zandersen, Marianne & Zylicz, Tomasz, 2008. "Valuing forest recreation on the national level in a transition economy: The case of Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(7-8), pages 467-472, October.
    10. Henríquez, Makarena & Vásquez-Lavín, Felipe & Barrientos, Manuel & Ponce Oliva, Roberto D. & Lara, Antonio & Flores-Benner, Gabriela & Riquelme, Carlos, 2024. "Out of sight, not out of mind: The effect of access to conservation sites on the willingness to pay for protecting endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    11. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    12. Harrison, Paula A. & Dunford, Rob & Barton, David N. & Kelemen, Eszter & Martín-López, Berta & Norton, Lisa & Termansen, Mette & Saarikoski, Heli & Hendriks, Kees & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Czúcz, Báli, 2018. "Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 481-498.
    13. Kanya, Lucy & Saghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100741, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Eugene Ezebilo, 2014. "Maintenance of public amenity to improve access to nature area: does distance and expected economic benefits matter?," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 4(3), pages 240-249, September.
    15. Giles ATKINSON & Susana MOURATO, 2007. "Environmental valuation: a brief overview of options," Departmental Working Papers 2007-07, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    16. Shah, Arpit & Garg, Amit, 2017. "Urban commons service generation, delivery, and management: A conceptual framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 280-287.
    17. Agus Sugiarto & Cheng-Wen Lee & Andrian Dolfriandra Huruta & Christine Dewi & Abbott Po Shun Chen, 2022. "Predictors of Pro-Environmental Intention and Behavior: A Perspective of Stimulus–Organism–Response Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-17, December.
    18. Glenk, Klaus & Schaafsma, Marije & Moxey, Andrew & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Hanley, Nick, 2014. "A framework for valuing spatially targeted peatland restoration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 20-33.
    19. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    20. Tang, Chor Foon & Abosedra, Salah & Naghavi, Navaz, 2021. "Does the quality of institutions and education strengthen the quality of the environment? Evidence from a global perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).

    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:13:y:2021:i:6:p:3160-:d:516344. 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.