Geographic information systems (GIS) offer attractive tools for modelling recreational behaviour. In this paper GIS is combined with a discrete choice modelling approach to investigate the importance of landscape attributes for determining forest recreational choices. A new large Danish national dataset (28 947 recreational trips) is used in conjunction with an area information system and information on other site attributes to estimate a recreational choice model. A wide set of landscape characteristics influencing recreational choice is identified. These are the size of the forest patch and adjacency or distance to other land-cover types. The area of the forest patch was found to have a positive marginally declining effect. Adjacency to other seminatural areas was found to have a positive effect. The results show that the parameter estimates depend critically on the choice-set specification and that the size of the choice set needs to be considerably larger than previous research suggests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BatemanI JLovettA ABrainardJ S, 1999“Developing a methodology for benefit transfers using geographical information systems: Modelling demand for woodland recreation”Regional Studies33191–205
2.
Ben-AkivaMLermanS R, 1985Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Applications to Travel Demand (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
3.
BockstaelN EMcConnellK EStrandI E, 1991, “Recreation”, in Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality Eds BradenJKolstadC (North-Holland, Amsterdam) pp 227–270
4.
BoxallP CWatsonD OEnglinJ, 1996“Backcountry recreationists' valuation of forest and park management features in wilderness parks of the western Canadian Shield”Canadian Journal of Forest Research26982–990
5.
BrainardJ SLovettA ABatemanI J, 1999“Integrating geographical information systems into travel cost analysis and benefit transfer”International Journal of Geographical Information Systems13227–246
DeadmanPGimblettR H, 1994“A role for goal-oriented autonomous agents modeling people environment interactions in forest recreation”Mathematical and Computer Modelling20(8) 121–133
8.
FeatherP M, 1994“Sampling and aggregation issues in random utility models estimation”American Journal of Agricultural Economics76772–780
9.
FreemanA M, 1993The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods (Resources for the Future, Washington, DC)
10.
GreeneW H, 2002Econometric Analysis5th edition (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ)
11.
HaabT CHicksR L, 1997“Accounting for choice set endogeneity in random utility models of recreation demand”Land Economics7432–48
12.
HaabT CMcConnellK E, 2002Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-market Valuation (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos)
13.
HanleyNShawW DWrightR E, 2003The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos)
14.
HerrigesJ AKlingC L, 1999“Nonlinear income effects in random utility models”The Review of Economics and Statistics81(1) 62–72
15.
HicksR LStrandI, 2000“The extent of information: Its relevance for random utility models”Land Economics76374–385
16.
JensenF S, 2003Friluftsliv i 592 skove og andre naturomr der [Outdoor recreation in 592 forests and other natural areas] Research Series 32, Forskningscenteret for skov og landskab, Hørsholm, Denmark
17.
JensenF SKochN E, 1997Friluftsliv i skovene 1976/77-1993/94 [Outdoor recreation in forests 1976/77-1993/94] Research Series 20, Forskningscenteret for skov og landskab, Denmark
18.
KliskeyA D, 2000“Recreation terrain suitability mapping: A spatially explicit methodology for determining recreation potential for resource use assessment”Landscape and Urban Planning52(1) 33–43
19.
Kort- og Matrikelstyrelsen/Vejdirektoratet, 1995VejnetDK [Danish road network]Kort- og Matrikelstyrelsen, Copenhagen
20.
Kort- og Matrikelstyrelsen, 2001Det Levende Danmarkskort [The interactive map of Denmark]Kort- og Matrikelstyrelsen, Copenhagen
21.
LupiFFeatherP M, 1998“Using partial site aggregation to reduce bias in random utility travel cost models”Water Resources Research343595–3603
22.
McConnellK E, 1985, “The economics of outdoor recreation”, in Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics Eds KneeseA VSweeneyJ L (North-Holland, Amsterdam) pp 677–722
23.
Miljø og Energiministeriet, 1996Skovloven II, Lov nr. 392 af 22. Maj 1996 om œndrig of skovloven [Forest Act II, 392 of 22 May 1996 amendments to the Forest Act]Miljø og Energiministeriet, Copenhagen
ParsonsG RHauberA B, 1998“Spatial boundaries and choice set definitions in a random utility model of recreational demand”Land Economics7432–48
26.
ParsonsG RKealyM J, 1992“Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a random utility model of lake recreation”Land Economics6893–106
27.
ParsonsG RMasseyD MTomasiT, 2000b“Familiar and favourite sites in a random utility model of beach recreation”Marine Resource Economics14299–315
28.
ParsonsG RNeedelmanM S, 1992“Site aggregation in a random utility model of recreation demand”Land Economics68418–433
29.
ParsonsG RPlantingaA JBoyleK J, 2000a“Narrow choice sets in a random utility model of recreation demand”Land Economics76(2) 86–99
30.
PetersTAdamowiczWBoxallP, 1995“The influence of choice set considerations in modelling the benefits of improved water quality”Water Resources Research311781–1787
31.
RibeR G, 1989“The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us?”Environmental Management13(1) 55–74
32.
ScarpaRChiltonSHutchinsonGBuongiornoJ, 2000“Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests”Ecological Economics33237–250
33.
Skov-PetersenH, 2002GIS, Accessibility, and Physical Planning: Exemplified by Models of Recreational Activitiesunpublished PhD thesis, Department of Geography, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen
34.
TrainK, 2003Discrete Choice Methods with Simulations (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
35.
WaldmanD M, 2000“Estimation in discrete choice models with choice-based samples”American Statistician54303–306
