Economic evaluation of recreational use of forests roads on the example of Pisek City Forests Ltd.

Open access


An additional objective of the research, which was a part of the project “Quantification of the Effect of the Selected Forest Enterprise on the Local Economy of the Region” of the Internal Grant Agency (IGA) of Mendel University in Brno conducted in 2016 was a large case study of the property of Pisek City Forests Ltd. This article is focused on surveying the willingness of area visitors to pay for usage of the recreational function of forests and evaluation of the used method. The evaluated part of the questionnaire survey was based on the method of contingent valuation founded on the willingness of respondents to pay for recreational function. It was found in the results of the questionnaire survey that visitors are not very willing to pay for recreational function, and it is especially because forests in the area of Pisek City Forests Ltd. are perceived as public assets and thus access to them should be without fee. Furthermore, there were problems found with the method. Thus it is necessary to find a new way of evaluation of the recreational potential of the area.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Alcamo J. et al. 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being. Island Press Washington DC. Accessed 26 September 2014.

  • Barros A. Gonnet J. Pickering C. 2013. Impacts of informal trails on vegetation and soils in the highest protected area in the Southern Hemisphere. Journal of Environmental Management 127 50–60.

  • Bateman I.J. Carson R.T. Day B. Hanemann M. Hanleys N. Hett T. Jones-Lee M. Loomes G. Mourato S. Ozdemiroglu E. Pearce D. Sugden R. Swanson J. 2002. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar Cheltenham UK.

  • Bernath K. Roschewitz A. 2008. Recreational benefits of urban forests: Explaining visitors‘ willingness to pay in the kontext of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Environmental Management 89 155–166.

  • Blaha P. 2010. The results of the monitoring and their practical application – Liberec Region. Ochrana přírody Special issue.

  • Busch M. La Notte A. Laporte V. Erhard M. 2012. Potentials of quantitative and qualitative approaches to assessing ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators 20 89–103.

  • Butler R.W. 1980. The concept of a atourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer-Geographe Canadien 24 (1) 5–12.

  • City Pisek Forests Ltd. 2016. Profil společnosti. [Company Profile]. Accessed 30 September 2016.

  • Daldeniz B. Hampton M.P. 2013. Dive tourism and local communities: Active participation or subject to impacts? Case studies from malaysia. International Journal of Tourism Research 15 (5) 507–520.

  • Früh W. 1991. Inhaltsanalyse: Teorie und Praxis. Ölschläger Munchen.

  • Glover D. 2010. Valuing the environment. Economics for a sustainable future. International Development Research Centre Ottawa.

  • Gökovali U. Bahar O. 2006. Contribution of tourism to economic growth: A panel data approach. Anatolia 17 (2) 155–167.

  • Haines-Young R. Potschin M. 2010. Proposal for a Common International Classification of Ecosystem Goods and Services (CICES) for Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (V1). 21st March 2010. Report to the European Environment Agency. Accessed 26 September 2014.

  • Haines-Young R. Potschin M. 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4 August-December 2012. Report to the European Environment Agency Accessed 26 September 2014.

  • Hakim A. R. Subanti S. Hambunan M. 2011. Economic valuation of nature-based tourism object in Rawapening Indonesia. An application of travel cost and contingent valuation method. Journal of Sustainable Development 4 (2) 91–101.

  • Hall C.M. Frost W. 2009. Introduction: The making of the national parks concept. In: Tourism and national parks: International perspectives on development histories and change (eds.: W. Frost C.M. Hall). Routledge London 3–15.

  • Hardin G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162 (3859) 1243–1248.

  • Harris J. 2005. Environmental and natural resource economics. A conterporary approach. Houghton Mifflin Boston.

  • Hlaváčková P. Březina D. 2016. Economic evaluation of the recreational use of forests: A case study of the Training Forest Enterprise Masaryk Forest Křtiny. Journal of Forest Science 62 (9) 389–398.

  • Hlaváčková P. Březina D. Meňházová J. 2015. Selected results of survey focused on the economic assessment of forest ecosystem services. Journal of Forest Science 61 (7) 282–290.

  • Hlaváčková P. Šafařík D. 2013. Methodological bases of quantifying the importance of recreational functions of forests in the local economy – presentation of the project. In: Financovanie 2013 Lesy-Drevo. Technická univerzita vo Zvolene Zvolen 125–131.

  • Ivanov S.H. Webster C. 2013. Tourism‘s contribution to economic growth: A global analysis for the first decade of the millennium. Tourism Economics 19 (3) 477–508.

  • Katircioglu S.T. 2009. Revisiting the tourism-led-growth hypothesis for Turkey using the bounds test and Johansen approach for cointegration. Tourism Management 30 (1) 17–20.

  • Kos J. 2010. The results of the moitoring and their use in practice – Podyjí National Park Ochrana přírody Special issue.

  • Lew A.A. 2011. Tourism‘s role in the global economy. Tourism Geographies 13 (1) 148–151.

  • Lück M. 2008. The Encyclopaedia of Tourism and Recreation in Marine Environments. Wallingford UK; CAB International Cambridge MA.

  • Marzano M. Dandy N. 2012. Recreationist behaviour in forests and the disturbance of wildlife. Biodiversity and Conservation 21 (11) 2967–2986.

  • Mayor K. Scot S. Tol R.S.J. 2007. Comparing the travel cost method and the contingent valuation method: An application on convergent validity theory to the recreational value of Irish forest. Working Paper. The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) Dublin.

  • Meuser M. Nagel U. 1991. Experteninterviews – vielfach erprobt wenig bedacht. In: Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung (eds.: D. Garz K. Kraimer). Springer Opladen 441–471.

  • Newsome D. 2014. Appropriate policy development and research needs in response to adventure racing in protected areas. Biological Conservation 171 259–269.

  • Oian H. 2013. Wilderness tourism and the moralities of commitment: Hunting and angling as modes of engaging with the natures and animals of rural landscapes in Norway. Journal of Rural Studies 32 177–185.

  • Seják J. et al. 2010. The evaluation of functions and services of ecosystems of the Czech Republic. Univerzita J. E. Purkyně v Ústí nad Labem Ústí nad Labem.

  • Seják J. Dejmal I. et al. 2003. The evaluation and valuation of habitats of the Czech Republic. Český ekologický ústav Praha.

  • Sharpley R. 2002. Tourism and development – A vehicle for evelopment? In: Tourism and development. Concepts and issues (eds.: R. Sharpley D.J. Telfer). Channel View Publications Clevedon 11–34.

  • Soukopová J. Bakoš E. Doleželová M. Kaplanová B. Kulhavý V. Neshybová J. 2011. Environmental Economics. Masaryk University Brno.

  • Šálka J. Trenčiansky M. Bahula P. Balážová E. 2008. Environmental economics. Technická univerzita vo Zvolene Zvolen.

  • Šišák L. 1993. Willingness to pay potentially as a method of valuing the importance of social aspects of forest functions. Lesnictví – Forestry 93 (3) 151–160.

  • Šišák L. Pulkrab K. 2008. The assessment of the societal socio-economic importance of forest functions. Česká zemědělská univerzita v Praze Praha.

  • Tang C.F. Abosedra S. 2014. The impacts of tourism energy consumption and political instability on economic growth in the MENA countries. Energy Policy 68 458–464.

  • Telfer D.J. 2002. The evolution of tourism and development theory. In: Tourism and development. Concepts and issues (eds.: R. Sharpley D.J. Telfer). Channel View Publications Clevedon 35–80.

  • Thomas F. Kapoor A. Marshall P. 2013. Tourism development and behavioural changes: evidences from Ratanakiri province Kingdom of Cambodia. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 11 (3) 208–219.

  • Tutka J. Kovalčík M. 2008. Estimating the value of the recreational forest functions in Slovakia through the contingent valuation method and the travel cost method. Lesnický časopis – Forestry Journal 54 (1) 99–107.

  • Verbič M. Slabe-Erker R. 2009. An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Volčji Potok landscape area. Ecological Economics 68 1316–1328.

  • Vyskot et al. 2003. Quantification and evaluation of forest functions in the Czech Republic. Ministerstvo životního prostředí ČR Praha.

  • Weaver D.B. 2001. The Encyclopedia of ecotourism. CABI Publishing New York.

  • Williams S. 2000. Tourism geography. Routledge London.

  • Zandersen M. Tol R.S.J. 2009. A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe. Journal of Forest Economics 15 109–130.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.67

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.312
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.569

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 199 98 6
PDF Downloads 189 110 1