What price recreation in Finland? – A contingent valuation study of non-market benefits of public outdoor recreation areas
Basic services in Finnish national parks and state-owned recreation areas have traditionally been publicly financed and thus free of charge for users. Since the benefits of public recreation are not captured by market demand, government spending on recreation services must be motivated in some other way. Here, we elicit people’s willingness to pay (WTP) for services in the country’s state-owned parks to obtain an estimate of the value of outdoor recreation in monetary terms. A variant of the Tobit model is used in the econometric analysis to examine the WTP responses elicited by a payment card format. We also study who the current users of recreation services are in order to enable policymakers to anticipate the redistribution effects of a potential implementation of user fees. Finally, we discuss the motives for WTP, which reveal concerns such as equity and ability to pay that are relevant for planning public recreation in general and for the introduction of fees in particular.
|Date of creation:||08 Jan 2004|
|Publication status:||Published in Journal of Leisure Research 1.36(2004): pp. 23-44|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- McConnell, Kenneth E., 1985. "The economics of outdoor recreation," Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics,in: A. V. Kneese† & J. L. Sweeney (ed.), Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 677-722 Elsevier.
- R. M. Adams & O. Bergland & W. N. Musser & S. L. Johnson & L. M. Musser, 1989. "User Fees and Equity Issues in Public Hunting Expenditures: The Case of Ring-Necked Pheasant in Oregon," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(4), pages 376-385.
- Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L., 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice, New Horizons in Environmental Economics," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12330, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Trudy Ann Cameron & Daniel D. Huppert, 1987. "Non-Market Resource Valuation: Assessment of Value Elicitation By "Payment Card" Versus "Referendum" Methods," UCLA Economics Working Papers 448, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
- Fredric C. Menz & John K. Mullen, 1981. "Expected Encounters and Willingness to Pay for Outdoor Recreation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(1), pages 33-40.
- Elizabeth A. Wilman, 1988. "Pricing Policies for Outdoor Recreation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 64(3), pages 234-241.
- Johansson,Per-Olov, 1987. "The Economic Theory and Measurement of Environmental Benefits," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521348102, October.