The recreational value of forests in a transition economy

Anna Bartczak, Tomasz Żyliczbartczak@wne.uw.edu.pl, tzylicz@wne.uw.edu.pl

Popular perception (FAO/UNECE 2005)

Annual forest visitation patterns[benefits in Euro per person]

Region

West Europe East Europe

Number of visits 6.5 2.5Benefit from a single visit 1.00 0.25

Total benefits 6.50 0.63

This perception is blatantly inaccurate!

Both:

the number of visits,

benefits derived from a single visit

seem to be much higher in Poland

General information on forests and forestry in Poland

The forest area: 9.2 million hectares = 28.4% of the Polish territory (the average share of forest area in Europe is 31.1%)

The average age of the forest stand is 60 years

67% of forest stands are coniferous forest types

Forest ownership: 82.5% State-owned forests. Almost all of these are managed by the State Forest Enterprise (SFE)

Description of conducted surveys

Characteristics:Surveys

1 2

PlaceOn-site in 10 selected forests

In respondents’ homes

Time October 2005 November 2005

Sample N=1002 N=1005

Method of interviews Face-to-face Face-to-face

InterviewersProfessional polling agency

Professional polling agency

Aim of surveyWTP/NCS per visit in a forest site

Total annual number of visits to forest sites in Poland

Location of selected sites

Description of the forest sites

No Name of the siteConservation

regimeOwnership Location

Sample size

1 Bialowieza Forest National Park Treasury NE 101

2 Barbarka (Torun) None SFE NW 100

3 Kampinoski (Warsaw) National Park Treasury C 100

4 Swierklaniec None SFE SW 101

5 Zielona Gora None SFE SW 100

6 Piatkowski (Poznan) None Municipal W 100

7 Krzeszowice None SFE SE 100

8 Kudypy None SFE NE 100

9 Kozienice None SFE C 100

10 Tucholskie Forest „Promotional” SFE NW 100

WTP for entering the forest [PLN 2005, nominal exchange rate: 1 Euro=3,9 PLN]

Method

WTP per person

WTP per household Share of

protestersAverage Median Average Median

CVM; Open-ended question for WTP

2.62 (1.27)

1.5(0.0)

5.06 (2.45)

2.0 (0.0) 52%

CVM; Dichotomous-choice for WTP

15.68 (10.14)

- 26.34 (17.34)

- 42%

TCM; Average NCS

(log-log function)20.54 - 35.42 - -

* Numbers in brackets are estimated for the sample including protesters

Other results

Survey 1 2 SFE*

Frequency of recreational visits

Average=56Median=12

Average=41Median=17

-

Share of recreational visits in the total number of visits 91% 85% -

The average length of a recreational visit 2 hours -

Share of population visiting forests

- 85% 82%

* The survey conducted by the State Forest Enterprise (SFE) in 2003.

Explanation of the results achieved (a hypothesis)

The relationship between the income level and the demand for forest recreation is not a monotonic one (even though richer people may reveal a higher WTP for a single visit to a forest, they go there less frequently) Consequently, the per capita value of the forest in a less developed country may turn out to be higher than in a more developed one

But:

No international data to verify this hypothesis

Weaker hypotheses verified on Polish data only

An existence of an inverted U- (or V-) shaped relationship between the annual value of recreational function of forests and the income level

Respondents from cities visit the forest less frequently than those from the rural areas.

Models

Annual demand per visitor defined as:

D = iBiXi

Model 1:

Demand = ln ((TC x (annual number of visits))

Model 2:

Demand = (Open-Ended WTP) x (annual number of visits)

Impact of the extreme income groups on the demand for visits (TC) – model 1

Variables (X) Coefficient (B) Standard error Number of

observationsSignificance

level

Constant 4.123 0.255 714 0.000

Forest2 1.191 0.331 78 0.000

Forest3 1.197 0.328 87 0.000

Forest4 0.979 0.339 69 0.004

Forest5 2.296 0.322 88 0.000

Forest6 1.339 0.335 74 0.000

Forest7 0.908 0.340 69 0.008

Forest8 -0.857 0.347 63 0.014

Forest9 1.477 0.344 65 0.000

Forest10 1.218 0.381 86 0.001

Rural 0.595 0.247 152 0.016

Lowest income 0.541 0.177 156 0.002

Highest income -0.981 0.391 26 0.012

R2=0.185

Impact of the extreme income groups on the demand for visits (CV-OE) – model 2

Variables (X) Coefficient (B) Standard error Number of

observationsSignificance

level

Constant -7.021 32.487 212 0.829

Forest2 132.033 51.483 21 0.011

Forest3 48.813 46.542 29 0.295

Forest4 -4.442 56.475 22 0.937

Forest5 127.283 48.633 25 0.010

Forest6 91.975 53.968 16 0.090

Forest7 49.258 66.310 9 0.458

Forest8 35.563 43.881 34 0.419

Forest9 142.681 49.087 23 0.004

Forest10 78.903 60.533 23 0.194

Rural 130.432 44.614 37 0.004

Lowest income 12.704 31.599 42 0.688

Highest income 21.713 75.701 6 0.775

R2=0.148

Key results

The value of a single trip in Poland, whether solicited in a CV survey or computed from TC – is closer to 1 EUR (which is typical of Western Europe) than to 0.25 EUR (attributed to Eastern Europe).

The annual number of visits is much higher than estimated for Western Europe (6.5) and even more than the one assumed for Eastern Europe (2.5) by the authors of the international forestry report UNECE/FAO, 2005

The rural population (which in Poland makes up 38% of the total) reveals a larger demand for forest visits than the urban one.

The lowest income group may reveal (depending on the model applied) a larger demand for the same amenity than the highest one.

Alternative explanations(directions for further research)

Overestimation of demand for forest recreation,

Geographical variations in the demand for forest recreation:• Social and historical circumstances => habits

and customs,• Availability of forest recreation resulting from

urbanisation patterns,• Quality of forest ecosystems,

The demand for forest recreation may depend on the availability of public forest areas.