Regular Article
Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland

https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2001.0421Get rights and content

Abstract

Urban development projects may cause loss of amenity values of green areas, which should be taken into consideration in planning. Therefore, quantitative information on residents’ valuation concerning urban forests is needed for assessing urban land use. The purpose of this investigation was to study the valuation of urban forests in two different urban environments Joensuu and Salo, Finland. The aims were to study the attitudes towards and benefits related to the use of urban forests and, in particular, to measure the valuations in monetary terms using contingent valuation, i.e. measure the residents’ willingness-to-pay for larger wooded recreation areas and for small forested parks.

Urban forests were seen in both towns as clearly producing positive benefits rather than causing negative effects. The negative features of forests were related to the management of the areas rather than their existence. The main values were related to nature and social functions of forests. In contrast, timber production achieved a distinctively low priority in both study towns. The results stress the importance of defining urban forest policies for municipalities in Finland.

More than two-thirds of the respondents were willing to pay for the use of recreation areas. Good location and active management raised the average WTP. Moreover, approximately half of the respondents were willing to pay for preventing construction in urban forests. The results also show that the monetary value of amenity benefits in recreation areas is much higher than the present maintenance costs. The examples concerning the advantageousness of construction on green areas suggest that a limit could be found where the infill of housing areas is not worthwhile from the point of view of society, if the losses of green space benefits are taken into account.

References (59)

  • R.T. Carson

    Constructed markets

  • R.G. Cummings et al.

    Valuing Environmental Goods. An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method

    (1986)
  • R. Cummings et al.

    Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice incentive compatible?

    American Economic Review

    (1995)
  • J.F. Dwyer et al.

    Urbanities willingness to pay for trees and forests in recreation areas

    Journal of Arboriculture

    (1989)
  • P. Elsasser

    Recreational benefits of Forests in Germany: methodological aspects and results of a contigent valuation study

    Evaluation of forest benefits through a Total Evaluation of Production, Environmental and Social Functions of Forests

    (1994)
  • J. Falck

    Skogskötsel i tätortnära skog

    Skog and Forskning

    (1994)
  • Forrest, M. Randrup, T.B. Konijnendijk, C. 1999, Urban Forestry: Research and Development in Europe,...
  • A.M. Freeman

    The measurement of Environmental and Resource Values. Theory and Methods

    (1993)
  • P. Grahn

    Om parkers betydelse. Stad and Land. Movium/Institut för landskapsplanering

    (1991)
  • O. Gåsdal

    Uteliv i byen (Outdoor recreation in towns)

  • A. Hiltunen

    Raakamaan hinta Suomessa vuosina 1985–1992. Kiinteistöopin ja talousoikeuden julkaisuja A 16

    (1997)
  • Hultman, S.-G. 1983, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, Avdelningen för landskapvård, Rapport 28, 91, Public Judgement of...
  • E. Jaatinen

    Recreation utilization of Helsinki’s forests. Tiivistelmä: Helsingin metsien virkistyskäyttö

    Folia Forestalia

    (1974)
  • R. Jalkanen et al.

    Asuinaluesuunnittelu

    (1997)
  • F.S. Jensen

    Forest recreation

  • Jensen, F. S. 1998, Forest Recreation in Denmark from the 1970s to the 1990s, 166, Danish forest and landscape research...
  • Joensuun metäsuunnitelma vuosille 1998–2007

    (1998)
  • P.O. Johansson et al.

    Economic value of non-timber forest goods and services

  • L. Kardell et al.

    Stockholmer’s outdoors: use of nature areas. A mail questionnaire and interview study

    (1978)
  • Cited by (0)

    Email of author: [email protected]

    View full text