Next Article in Journal
Assessment of Ecological Efficiency and Environmental Sustainability of the Minjiang-Source in China
Previous Article in Journal
Tracing Paths from Research to Practice in Climate Change Education
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Assessing the Preservation of Parks and Natural Protected Areas: A Review of Contingent Valuation Studies

Laboratory of Operations Research, Department of Economics, University of Thessaly, 28hs Octovriou 78, 38333 Volos, Greece
Graduate Program of Sustainable Development, Department of Home Economics and Ecology, School of Environment, Geography and Applied Economics, Harokopio University, El. Venizelou 70, 17671 Athens, Greece
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(11), 4784;
Submission received: 14 May 2020 / Revised: 8 June 2020 / Accepted: 9 June 2020 / Published: 11 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Urban and Rural Development)


The existence of parks is particularly important and offers many benefits both to the environment and to humans. Parks are recreational spaces, which contribute to the improvement of the microclimate, reduce atmospheric pollution and protect biodiversity. Their importance for the urban environment is even greater because they offer pure oxygen to the city and people feel close to nature in them. The aim of this study is to review studies which took place globally as well as in Greece, relying on the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) for parks. The reason that this method is used is the valuation of non-market goods and services through the development of a hypothetical market. Additionally, a distinction is made among previous empirical studies depending on the nature of the parks and the country where the survey was conducted, while the disadvantages that must be considered from the use of Contingent Valuation Method are mentioned. According to the findings of the literature review, studies using Contingent Valuation in Greece, particularly in the case of urban parks, are limited. As far as we know, the valuation of existing urban parks has not yet been studied, so this could be a field for further research. The economic valuation of parks in a country like Greece, which suffered with the financial crisis, can lead to conclusions about the value that citizens attribute to parks and the identification of possible protest responses.

1. Introduction

Parks contribute to the improvement of microclimates through their coolness and low temperature, which impacts the adjacent structured environment [1]. It is worth mentioning, in this context, the study findings on the entertainment services of green spaces [2,3]. People visit parks in order to relax, to get close to nature, to escape from the daily routine, to spend time with family and friends. As such, intangible human needs are met. Moreover, the benefits to people’s health must not be omitted [4]. Parks strengthen the physical and mental health of visitors through the activities they do, such as walking, sports and picnics, hereby reducing stress and enhancing spiritual well-being. The urbanization phenomenon further enhances the importance of parks as well as their existence, especially in an urban environment.
The value that people ascribe to the environment is valued through certain methods. The methods of economic environmental assessment depend on the revealed and stated preferences of people, and they are categorized accordingly, as shown in Chart 1 [5]. The most widespread methods that have been implemented are: Hedonic pricing [6,7,8,9], travel cost (TCM) [10,11,12,13,14,15], contingent valuation [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27] and choice modeling [28,29,30,31,32,33,34].
The contingent valuation method has been used for parks and protected areas in many previous empirical surveys. In this way, people’s assessment of these spaces was estimated. The visitors stated their preference for using parks and willingness to pay for them, or their willingness to allow the loss or damage of these goods and the services they offer and to accept compensation.
It is worth mentioning the fact that the economic valuation of parks also has an economic dimension. Policymakers can administrate parks from the visitors’ perspective, based on the reasons for their visits. The strategy and the funds that will be given for the conservation, improvement or creation of urban parks are determined, and the sustainability of cities is ensured [35].
Based on the above, it is important to determine the value of parks in countries such as Greece, which has been plagued by the financial crisis. The present paper presents a large amount of empirical surveys which have been carried out internationally using the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). Summarizing previous empirical studies will help to identify, in future research, areas that need further research and compare factors that influence individuals’ willingness to pay (hereafter WTP) for parks. The following research questions have arisen in our effort:
  • RQ1: What studies have been conducted on parks using the CVM?
  • RQ2: What is the economic value of parks in countries that have been plagued by the economic crisis, such as Greece?
  • RQ3: What disadvantages should be taken into account when performing a CVM study?
Due to the plethora of researches involving the CVM on parks and protected areas, we start by classifying parks according to the country they are located in as well as their nature. The structure is the following. Section 2 presents the methodology and empirical studies for urban parks and green spaces, forest parks and natural areas, marine parks, wetlands, protected areas and animal parks. All the discussed studies, throughout the different sections, have used the CVM as an analytical method for policymaking. In Section 3 the results of previous empirical studies are presented, and in Section 4 there is a discussion about the results. Finally, in the last section some conclusions and essential points of the paper are mentioned.

2. Methodology

2.1. Data Sources and Processing

The Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was applied in the present review paper [36]. First of all, we determined our research questions. We defined the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of previous studies. We searched for relevant literature, selected the researches we would use and analyzed their results.
Several databases (Scopus-Elsevier, Science Direct -Elsevier, Google Scholar) were used in order to find studies related to the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), willingness to pay (WTP), urban parks and natural protected areas. Based on our inclusion criteria, 125 studies were selected, 85 of which were empirical.
The following are the criteria for the inclusion of previous studies in our analysis: (1) researches that used primary data; (2) applied the CVM; (3) were studies of urban parks; (4) were studies of natural protected areas; (5) were published between 1996 and 2020; (6) were conducted in as many different countries as possible in order to compare their results; (7) analyzed primary data to identify factors affecting the willingness to pay using the most widespread models (Ordinary Least Square, Logit, Double-bounded, Double-hurdle).
On the contrary, we decided to exclude: (1) repeated articles due to the use of multiple databases; (2) articles that used the CVM but did not study urban parks or natural protected areas; (3) studies that did not use primary data; (4) repeated studies for a specific country/park/protected area.

2.2. Description of CVM Studies

2.2.1. CVM Studies for Urban Parks and Green Spaces

As mentioned above, we selected 85 empirical studies for urban parks and protected areas. Before proceeding with the presentation of the research, we consider it appropriate to mention the following definition:
“Urban green spaces” are considered as “urban spaces covered by vegetation of any kind. This includes: Smaller green space features (such as street trees and roadside vegetation), green spaces not available for public access or recreational use (such as green roofs and facades, or green space on private grounds) and larger green spaces that provide various social and recreational functions (such as parks, playgrounds or greenways)” [37].
Bowman et al. [38] used transactional analysis, hedonic pricing and CVM in order to examine the willingness of residents in Iowa, USA, to pay for ensuring additional open space in their neighborhoods. The value of urban forests in the US state of Georgia was assessed through the imposition of an entrance ticket by Majumdar et al. [39]. The limitation of climate change through the adjustment of a scenario which will lead to a 5% expansion in urban forests was estimated in the city of Atlanta, in the US state of Georgia [40]. In this case study, the aspects concerning climate change and the sources of information about it, as well as the perceptions of the residents about the characteristics of the forests and the benefits they receive from them were estimated.
Remarkable are the studies by Brandli et al. [41] and Da Silva et al. [42], in Brazil. In the first case, the possibility of park improvement in Passo Fundo was considered through the increase of an annual property tax. In the second case study, the respondents’ WTP in order to use and preserve the ecological park Rio Coco was studied. The perceptions of the state of conservation of the park, the number of visits, the expenses for a visit and the time spent in the park are some of the factors that were studied.
The CVM was used in urban parks in China by Jim and Chen [43], Song et al. [44], Song et al. [45] and Chen and Qi [46]. The evaluation of green areas in Guangzhou city, in South China, and the residents’ WTP for the use of these spaces was examined by Jim and Chen [43], while the activities in which residents partake were examined through the responses of the 340 people who participated in the research. The visitors’ WTP for the use of five parks in Tainan city was studied with on-site research from March to June 2010 [44]. The researchers attempted to deduce the visit frequency, the activities in which the visitors participated, their satisfaction with urban parks and the people they visited them with, but also the reasons for their refusal to pay. Two years later, Song et al. [45] researched people’s WTP for the visit and preservation of eight green areas in Jinan, in North China.
A hypothetical scenario in which the facilities of Fuzhou National Forest Park are downgraded was presented to its visitors [46]. Moreover, an entry ticket was proposed. A total of 249 people participated in the research in October 2015 and in January 2016. Similarly, the probability of the residents accepting to pay a certain amount of money in order to preserve the public parks in Nagasaki city, in Japan, was investigated by Ahmed and Gotoh [47]. The reasons that led people to visit the parks and the reasons for their willingness or refusal to pay were examined.
The value of green spaces in Hong Kong was evaluated through a scenario which envisaged a reduction of about 20% of urban green spaces for the next five years and the willingness of the residents to pay a monthly tax in order to prevent this scenario [48]. The researchers examined the frequency of visits to parks, the reasons for the visits and the motivation of people to either accept of refuse to pay. Social and demographic characteristics, but also the frequency of visits to parks, were considered for the outcome. The significance of trees in the city Kota Kinabalu, in Malaysia, and the willingness of the residents to pay a donation in order for their number to be increased was researched by Hilmi and Mojiol [49].
Researches for the valuation of urban parks were conducted in Pakistan. Residents’ perspectives regarding the recreation services offered by parks in the city of Karachi were researched by Anwar [50]. The 200 people who participated in the research were asked if they would pay an entry fee in order to use the parks in their city. Another remarkable research in Pakistan was the one by Khan et al. [51]. The object of this survey was the Park Bagh-e-Naran and the Park Tatara in Peshawar. The probability of respondents accepting to pay for the improvement of the services provided by parks as well as the amount of money were examined.
In Tehran, in Iran, the WTP for the use of the Javanmardan Park was assessed [52]. Similarly, Membrebe et al. [53] evaluated the Arroceros Urban Forest Park in Philippines and the probability of the residents accepting to pay an entry ticket to visit the park, for it not to be replaced by buildings and continue to exist for future generations. Popoola and Ajewole [54] studied the willingness of the residents of Ibadan city, in Nigeria, to pay for the restoration of the urban environment, while the aspects regarding who should handle these funds were investigated.
An improvement scenario of the services provided within Wanda Park was examined, as well as the visitors’ WTP a more expensive entrance ticket in order for it to be implemented [55]. Apart from the demographic characteristics of visitors, questions were asked about the reasons for the willingness or refusal to pay as well as the activities that visitors partook in, the frequency of their visits and their level of satisfaction with the existing facilities.
In Senegal, the value of Parc Zoologique de Hann was examined, as well as the respondents’ WTP an entrance for the improvement of the quality of the services provided—and, more specifically, for the increase of biodiversity of the animals in the park [56]. The demographic characteristics of visitors, the distance, the frequency of visits and the magnitude of groups were examined.
There are many researches conducted in Europe on the assessment of parks using the CVM. Cook et al. [57] examined the Heiomork open space, in the southeast of Reykjavik, in Iceland, and the willingness of taxpayers to pay an additional lump sum tax for its conservation. The research was performed through the use of a network. Opacak and Wang [58] studied the willingness of Zagreb’s residents to pay for the creation of a park in a current landfill.
In the southern countries of Europe, some researches refer to Spain and Italy. Specifically, the advantages derived from the creation of a park in Valencia, in Spain, were researched by Del Saz Salazar and Menendez [59]. The people who participated in the research were asked to answer whether they would be willing to pay a certain tax for the area where the old railway station was to be transformed into a park. A few years later, in 2005, Del-Saz Salazar and Rausell-Koster [60] examined the benefits derived from the use of El Jardin del Turia Park, in Valencia. Participants were asked to declare whether they accepted a tax increase for using the park and the improvement of its facilities. The activities undertaken by visitors, the number of visits to the park, the length of stay as well as the demographic characteristics of participants were examined. The valuation of two more parks was estimated in Spain, in Monte San Pedro Park (A Coruna) and Grajera Natural Park (Logrono) [61]. Visitors were asked whether, and how much, they would pay for an entry ticket in order to visit the parks and contribute to their conservation. They were also asked to answer questions about their demographic characteristics, their satisfaction with their visits to the parks and the frequency of their visits. Those who refused to pay were asked for the reasons of their refusal. In a research conducted in Italy by Forleo et al. [62], the respondents’ WTP for the use and the benefits of the non-use of a green space in Monte Vairano were examined.
The studies that were conducted in Greece in urban parks using the CVM are limited [24,63,64]. The eagerness of citizens in the center of Attica to contribute money for the creation of a foundation aimed at the conservation and the extension of urban forests constituted a research field for Kalavrytinos and Damigos [63]. This research combined the CVM, hedonic pricing and the perception of respondents regarding the importance of urban forests, as well as the information sources. Xifilidou et al. [64] studied people’s WTP for the creation of more parks in the center of Thessaloniki. This study also applied the hedonic pricing method. Another interesting study is that of Latinopoulos et al. [24]. They studied the residents’ WTP a “green tax” and the maximum amount for the creation of a park following the relocation of the Thessaloniki International Fair. People who participated in the research answered questions about the importance that they attribute to green areas, the effects they judge such a project will have, the reasons for their willingness and the reasons for their refusal to pay.

2.2.2. CVM Studies for Forest Parks and Natural Protected Areas

A protected area is: “A clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” [65]. Furthermore “Natural or unmodified areas are those that still retain a complete or almost complete complement of species native to the area, within a more-or-less naturally functioning ecosystem” [65].
Several surveys around the world used the CVM in order to assess the value of forest parks and natural areas. People’s WTP for the preservation of Morro do Diabo State Park and the Atlantic tropical forest was studied by Adams et al. [66]. The payment vehicle that was proposed was a monthly tax in the water bill. Another research studied visitors’ WTP a higher entry ticket for five protected areas in Mexico and the determinants for their decision [67].
The CVM has been applied extensively for the valuation of forest reserves in Iran. Amirnejad et al. [68] examined the value that citizens attribute to the northern forests of Iran. This value is expressed through their WTP a special tax to preserve forest reserves. Two years later, Granbarpour et al. [69] investigated the recreation value of Baba Aman Natural Park. The 201 visitors who participated in the research were invited to state if they would pay for the current state of the park and the enhancement of the facilities provided. The economic assessment of National Parks in Iran has been estimated through a network survey in 2012 [70]. The researchers studied the respondents’ willingness to pay an entrance ticket for the preservation of National Parks and whether local people would benefit from ecotourism. Finally, Limaei et al. [71] conducted a research about the willingness of Saravan Forest Park’s visitors to pay an extra entrance ticket to use the park. Similarly, the willingness of visitors of Khangchendzonga National Park in India to pay for its preservation was examined [72], while the willingness of visitors of the protected Annapurna area, in Nepal, to pay a higher entrance fee was investigated [73].
In Vietnam, Khuc et al. [74] examined the willingness of residents affected by lack of water and electricity due to drought to pay for the restoration of forests. Another research in the same country was conducted in Tam Dao National Park, using the CVM [75]. People who participated in the research were asked for their WTP an increased entrance ticket for the conservation of the park and, in particular, for the conservation of the opisthotropis tamdaoensis species. The questionnaire included questions about the reasons for the willingness or refusal to pay and about the views of the respondents on environmental issues.
The willingness of visitors of three parks in Hong Kong to pay an annual tax for five years in order to develop ecotourism was studied by Chen and Jim [76]. The objects of this study were the Pok Fu Lam, Shing Mun and Clearwater Bay parks. Another research assessed the willingness of visitors to pay for maintaining the quality of Huisun National Forest Park, in Taiwan [77]. 223 people participated in the research. Lee and Han [78] and Lee and Moon [79] used the CVM to assess natural resources in Korea. Specifically, visitors’ willingness to pay entrance tickets to use the parks or taxes aimed at the parks’ conservation was investigated [78]. The parks that were examined were Mt Soraksan, Mt Pukansan, Mt Kayasan, Hallyo-Haesang and Taean-Haean. Furthermore, Lee and Moon [79] proposed gain and loss scenarios in order to assess hikers’ WTP. The TCM and CVM were used for the valuation of the Kayabasi forest location in Turkey, with the survey’s respondents asked to declare their willingness to pay for one conservation and two improvement scenarios [80]. The CVM was also used in case studies in Malaysia [81,82,83,84,85] and in Indonesia [86,87,88].
The willingness of local residents to pay for the quality of ecotourism services in Cross River National Park, in Nigeria, was studied by Ezebilo et al. [89]. Similarly, in a study on Nyungwe National Park, in Rwanda, the willingness of international and national tourists to pay for recreational services and the entrance to park was assessed [90]. Bamwesigye et al. [91] studied the willingness of 203 residents in Uganda to pay for the existence of the forest.
In Europe, Tyrvainen and Vaananen [92] studied the willingness of the residents of Finland to pay for forest parks. Half of the participants were asked if they would pay a monthly entry ticket and the other half if they would be willing to pay a seasonal fee for the use of recreational areas. Reynisdottir et al. [93] examined the value ascribed by visitors to two natural resources in Iceland, the Gullfoss waterfall and Skaftafell National Park. People who participated in this research stated their WTP an entry ticket for the conservation or improvement of these areas. Bernabeu and Samos [94], in Spain, estimated visitors’ WTP for Calares del Mundo and Sima Natural Park. Furthermore, Patti’s [95] survey in Sicily should be taken into account.
The valuation of forest reserves was also implemented in Greece by using contingent valuation analysis. Matsiori et al. [96] studied the willingness of the visitors of Pertouli forest to pay for an entry ticket. Moreover, Machairas and Hovardas [97] investigated respondents’ WTP for an entry ticket for a mountain complex in central Rhodope to be turned into a National Park.
The transformation of Whian Whian State Forest into a new National Park, in New South Wales, was studied by Duthy [98]. This study area is of major importance both for the forest and for the timber. The demographic characteristics of individuals, their attitude toward the environment and the importance they attach to the uses of the area were examined in this research. Flatley and Bennett [99] conducted a survey on the willingness of Australian tourists to pay for the maintenance of two tropical forests. The study area was the Republic of Vanuatu, and the survey was conducted for two weeks in 1994. The respondents were asked about the importance of maintaining the area and the possible visit to a tropical forest.

2.2.3. CVM Studies for Marine Parks, Wetlands and Protected Areas

Regarding CVM studies assessing marine parks, wetlands and protected areas, the results are the following: Lee et al. [100] applied the CVM in order to assess the importance that visitors attribute to the SunCheon Bay ecological park, in Korea. A random sample of 586 visitors were asked if they would accept a proposed entry fee in order to visit the park. In a research in Korea, Kim et al. [101] aimed to identify the advantages arising from the characterization of Baegnyeong island as a protected area, and the willingness of residents to pay a tax for this aim for the next ten years.
Similar researches were conducted in Thailand. The willingness of visitors of the Mu Ko Similan National Marine Park to pay for scuba diving was studied by Asafu-Adjaye and Tapsuwan [102]. Piriyapada and Wang [103] examined the willingness of residents to allocate money to the creation of a wastewater treatment plant in Ko Chang National Marine Park. The same researchers examined the willingness of the visitors of Ko Chang Marine Park to pay an entrance ticket in order to preserve and improve the park’s resources [104].
In Malaysia, the research of Ahmad and Hanley [105] stands out for its assessment of visitors’ WTP for Payar, Redang and Tioman Marine Parks, with the purpose of reducing the number of visitors for the parks’ protection. Visitors’ WTP for the preservation of Pulau Redang and Pulau Payar Marine Parks was also examined by Yacob et al. [106]. Anna and Saputra [107] combined the TCM and CVM aiming to examine respondents’ WTP for Cenderawasih Bay National Park, in Indonesia.
Martin-Lopez et al. [108] researched the willingness of residents to pay in order to preserve Donana National Natural Park, in Spain, while the reasons of payment refusal were researched. The willingness of Al-Prespa park’s visitors in Albania to pay a higher entrance ticket was examined by Grazhdani [109]. The CVM was also applied to wetland parks in Greece. Halkos and Jones [110] examined respondents’ WTP to improve biodiversity in the Evros Delta and Axios-Loydias-Aliakmonas Delta parks. Three scenarios were presented: in the first one, the payment vehicle was a monthly government tax; in the second one, the payment model was an entrance ticket; and in the third one it was a monthly community tax. Halkos and Matsiori [111] examined the willingness of 400 residents of Volos to pay in order to improve the quality of the coastal zone of the Pagasitikos gulf. The impact of environmental attitudes, demographic characteristics and preferences for coastal zones were examined with regard to individuals’ willingness to pay. Another research in the Greek area is Jones et al.’s [112], who examined respondents’ WTP for the preservation of the National Park of East Macedonia and Thrace.
The recreational value of lake Mokoan was examined by Herath [113] using the TCM and CVM. Ndebele and Forgie [114] studied the economic value of the restoration and maintenance of Pekapeka Swamp, in New Zealand. The questionnaire examined the participants’ awareness regarding the study area, their participation in the recreational activities offered and their attitude toward environmental protection. The willingness to pay was expressed through the special offer of an annual amount for the next five years.

2.2.4. CVM Studies for Wildlife Parks

Sharahi et al. [115] and Abedini et al. [116] used the CVM in wildlife parks in Iran. In the first case study, the willingness of visitors of Chitgar Park to pay an entrance ticket to visit it was examined. In the second case study, Abedini et al. [116] estimated the value of the recreation of Lavizan Jungle Park, in Tehran. Visitors’ WTP for the preservation of Bhitarakanica National Park, in India, was examined by Bal and Mohanty [117]. The questions of the questionnaire were about the demographic features of visitors, their beliefs about ecotourism resources, their visit frequency, the duration of their stays in the park and their travel expenses.
Pandit et al. [118] examined the value that visitors ascribe to Chitwan National Park, in Nepal. The participants were asked to declare if they would pay a more expensive entrance ticket. Rathnayake [119,120] carried out two studies in Sri Lanka. The first study was about Horton Plains National Park, using the TCM and CVM [119]. A total of 352 visitors were questioned, and two recreational scenarios were proposed to improve the satisfaction of the park’s visitors. The same author examined the respondents’ willingness to pay an entry fee in Minneriya National Park [120]. People who had a negative attitude toward payment were requested to give the reasons for their refusal.
Adamu et al. [121] estimated the value that visitors would give to the Yankari animal shelter, in Nigeria, through their willingness to pay for its preservation. The willingness of local people to pay in order to preserve the Semien Mountain National Park, in Ethiopia, was studied by Walle [122]. The social and demographic characteristics of residents, the beneficial effects of natural spaces and the level of awareness were examined in this survey.

2.3. Main Methods

One of the prevalent econometric methods in contingent valuation studies is logistic regression. According to this model, the estimated probabilities will vary between zero and one and will be non-linearly correlated with the explanatory variables [123]. The dependent variable Y is dichotomous, taking values 1 with probability Θ and values 0 with probability 1−Θ. The discrete probability distribution of this variable is defined according to Halkos [123]:
Pr(Yi, Θi) = ΘiYi (1 − Θi)1 − Yi
The regression coefficients of the proposed models quantify the relationship between the explanatory variables and the dependent variable, including the so-called Odds Ratio (OR). The specification of the Logit model is a conversion of probability Pr(Y = 1) specified as the natural logarithm of WTP taking place at E(Y = 1). That is,
log i t [ Pr ( Y = 1 ) ] = log e [ o d d s ( Y = 1 ) ] = log e [ Pr ( Y = 1 ) 1 Pr ( Y = 1 ) ]
Latinopoulos et al. [24], Da Silva et al. [42], Song et al. [45], Ahmed and Gotoh [47], Khan et al. 2014 [51], Fardanesh and Zeraatkish [52], Membrebe et al. [53], Lopez-Mosquera et al. [61], Forleo et al. [62], Xifilidou et al. [64], Amirnejad et al. [68], Baral et al. [73], Bernabeu and Samos [94], Iasha et al. [87] and Halkos and Matsiori 2018 [111] used this method.
Another method that has also been used in many empirical studies is the Ordinary Least Square (OLS). A general pattern of multiple linear regression with k + 1 unknown population parameters is defined as:
YI = b0 + b1X1i + b2X2i +…+bkXki + e
The dependent variable YI depends at the same time on the independent variables (Xji) [123].
Anna and Saputra [107], Jones et al. [112], Bal and Mohanty [117] and Rathnayake [119] applied Ordinary Least Square in their research.
Bowman et al. [38] and Le Tran et al. [40] used the Tobit model in their analysis. The Tobit model is applied as follows:
Y* = X’β + ε ε~Ν (0, σ2)
Tobit is used in order to avoid endogeneity bias.
Yi = Yi* if Y>0i
Yi = 0 if Y* missing
The Tobit model was modified to tackle the excess of zero responses, proposing the double-hurdle model [124,125]. The first hurdle refers to the participation decision and the second to the level of participation. This model is presented as follows:
Yi = Y*2i if Y*2i > 0 and Y*1i > 0
Yi = 0 otherwise
The double-hurdle model was used by Del Salazar and Rausell-Koster [60] and Halkos and Jones [110]. Other widely applied models are the Probit [106,121] and double-bounded [47,57] methods.

3. Results

Due to the plethora of previous researches, and apart from the nature of the parks, a distinction was made based on the reference country. Therefore, in this chapter, we will analyze the results in the Americas, Asia, Africa, Europe and Australia. In order to be able to compare the results, we converted the amount of willingness to pay for each case study into euros. The exchange rates of convergence to € are presented in Table 1.

3.1. Results of Previous Empirical Studies in the Americas

Sixty-six percent of respondents were willing to pay in order to enjoy more open space in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, USA [38]. The average willingness to pay was 4,012.75 €. According to another study [39], demographic factors such as educational level and income, but also the frequency of visits to urban forests of Savannah, affect the tourists’ WTP. In this case study, interviewees were willing to pay 10.4 € for access to the urban forest. Le Tran et al. [40] concluded that the willingness to pay was 63.56 € per household for 5 years, while Da Silva et al. [42] recorded a WTP of 1.91 € in order to enter the park. The demographic characteristics as well as the visits to other parks were statistically significant prognostic factors for willingness to pay [41]. The results showed that the average WTP was 6.63 € as additional property tax. The population was found to be willing to pay 1,953,173,03 € per year as a tax in water billing for the preservation of the tropical forest [66]. Finally, Witt [67] stated that visitors’ willingness to pay ranged from 14.51 € to 23.87 € for an entrance ticket.

3.2. Results of Previous Empirical Studies in Africa

The main determinants of the respondents’ decisions were found to be their employment situation and the vicinity of forest reserves [54]. The average monthly willingness to pay was equal to 0.38 €. Demographic as well as behavioral factors significantly affect the probability of accepting an increased entry ticket to Warda Park [55]. Visitors were willing to pay 0.53 €–0.56 € for an entrance ticket. The results of another empirical study revealed that visitors were willing to pay an entrance ticket three times more expensive than the current one [56].
In the case of forest parks, the mean WTP for female and male interviewees was 2.1 € and 0.51 €, respectively [89]. Bamwesigye et al. (2020) stated that residents were willing to pay 13.87 € per year for the existence of the forest. A previous empirical study on wildlife parks revealed that 77.9% of the sample declared itself willing to pay in order to preserve the shelter [121], while respondents’ willingness to pay was 0.67 € per household per year [122].

3.3. Results of Previous Empirical Studies in Asia

The contingent valuation method has been widely applied to urban parks in China. Jim and Chen [43] proved that income statistically affects respondents’ decisions in an important way, while Song et al. [44] stated that satisfaction affects residents’ answers in a positive way. In another research by the same authors [45], the monthly income, visit frequency and educational level were found to be important prognostic factors. Alternatively, gender, age, the satisfaction gained from the park visit and the access time seem not to affect the respondents’ answers in a statistically significant way. The average WTP was estimated to range from 1.43 € to 1.8 € depending on the model used [46]. Respondents declared a willingness to pay 9.23 € per household per month for green spaces in Hong Kong [48] and 12.05 € per year as an annual tax for 5 years in order to develop ecotourism [76].
The amount of the special offer, frequency of visits, income and age affect the residents’ WTP for the conservation of public parks in Japan [47]. The amenity value of Huisun National Forest Park, in Taiwan, was estimated to be 88.57 € per person per year in winter and 89.21 € per person per year in summer [77]. In Korea, the proposed amount for payment was found to be a major factor in both models for all National Parks examined by Lee and Han [78], while hikers’ WTP was found to be 5.59 € and 9.17 € under a gain and loss scenario, respectively [79]. Results showed that the proposed amount, information for marine species in danger, number of children in a household and income affect WTP in the case of Baegnyeong island [101], and visitors of SunCheon Bay ecological park were willing to pay 2.71 € for the entrance ticket [100].
In Malaysia, the amount proposed for payment, the means of transportation in the city, the tribe of the respondent and the educational level were found to affect the answers of the sample. In contrast, other demographic variables, but also the perceptions and satisfaction with the existing condition of the trees, seemed not to have a statistically important effect on WTP for urban trees [49]. The willingness to pay was found to amount to 3.24 € for non-visitors, 3.64 € for Malaysians and 7.28 € for foreigners for an entrance ticket [81], 3.42 € and 1.56 € for foreigners and locals, respectively [82], 1.78 € [83], 0.61 € per visitor [84] and 4.97 € for an entrance ticket [85]. All the above studies concern national parks. Furthermore, visitors declared a willingness to pay 13.02 €–14.04 € for an entrance ticket for marine parks [105], and the respondents’ income was an important predictor of their decisions [106].
Empirical findings in the Philippines showed that even if respondents are not willing to pay in order to visit the urban forest park, they give special importance to its existence and inheritance [53]. Furthermore, 57% of respondents refused to pay for forest restoration in Vietnam [74], but were willing to pay 1.39 € for ecosystem conservation and 0.85 € for the protection of the opisthotropis tamdaoensis species [75].
In Indonesia, tourists’ origin influences in an important way their willingness or refusal to pay for Cenderawasih Bay National Park [107]. In the case of forest parks, visitors were willing to pay 0.57 € [87], 0.46 € [88] and 0.41–1.53€ [86] as an entrance fee. Empirical studies in Thailand showed that 89% of the sample were willing to support a program for about 6.03 $ per household per month [103], while participants were willing to pay 6.72 €–11.1 € to enter the Marine Park [104]. However, Asafu-Adjaye and Tapsuwan [102] noted the need for further research combining the CVM and TCM.
According to Anwar [50], the impact of participants’ income on their WTP was minimal, while income, educational level, travel cost, distance and quality of services were important prognostic factors in the case of public parks in Pakistan [51]. Maharana et al. [72] showed that the willingness to pay amounted to 8.17 € per visit for foreigners, 5.73 € per year for locals and 1.76 € per visit for domestics. Another research in India recorded 0.48 € as an average entrance fee [117]. People’s income, the educational level, the distance from the park and the proposed amount were found to affect their willingness to pay [119], and 60% of respondents were willing to pay more than the current entrance ticket in order to view the elephants in the park in Sri Lanka [120].
In Iran, Fardanesh and Zeraatkish [52] stated that the bid amount and the demographic characteristics affected respondents’ answers. 65.8% of the respondents declared that they would pay for the conservation of forests and the prevention of their destruction [68]. The income of the respondents was found to affect their responses in a positive way [69] and the overwhelming majority of visitors (91.2%) was willing to pay an average amount of 1.67 € per visit [71]. The use value for national parks was equal to 1.08 € [70], and the average WTP amounted to 0.068 € per visitor [115].
Studies in Nepal showed that the WTP was equal to 63.95 € [73] and 16.81 € for international visitors, 13.17 € for visitors from South Asia and 2.49 € for local visitors to enter the park [118]. Respondents were willing to pay 0.082 € for the existing benefits, 0.14 € for installation improvement and 0.17 € for more recreational activities as an entrance ticket in Turkey [80].

3.4. Results of Previous Empirical Studies in Europe

Cook et al. [57] revealed that participants in Iceland were willing to pay 107.4 €–156.26 € as lump sum tax for the preservation of an urban open space. In the case of national parks, respondents were willing to pay 2.1 € for the entrance ticket to Gullfoss and 3.2 € to Skaftafell [93]. The results of another study in Finland showed that the WTP ranged between 18.16 € to 23.71 € in the form of seasonal payments [92]. According to Opacak and Wang [58], the residents were willing to pay 3.57 € for the entrance ticket in the case of the creation of a park in a landfill area.
Del Saz Salazar and Menendez [59], Del Saz Salazar and Rausell-Koster [60] and Lopez-Mosquera et al. [61] applied the CVM to urban parks in Spain, while Bernabeu and Samos [94] applied the method to a forest park and Martin-Lopez et al. [108] to a marine park. An important factor was people’s proximity to future parks [59], and the WTP amounted to 53.61 € as a special tax for five years [59], 7.6 € as an annual increased tax [60], 1.01 € for San Pedro and 0.58 € for Grajera as an entrance ticket for use value [61], 0.69 € for San Pedro and 0.65 € for Grajera as an entrance ticket for preservation value [61], 3.70 €–4.61 € for the entrance in the park [94] and 23.9 € annually, as a donation [108]. In case studies in Italy, 30% of the participants refused to pay [62], while the average willingness to pay was 11.5 € for an entrance ticket [95]. It is worth mentioning the research by Grazhdani [109], who concluded that the average WTP ranged between 1.4 € and 1.6 € per person.
The valuation of parks and protected areas was also implemented in Greece by using contingent valuation analysis. In the case of urban parks, the view of the park, age, professional situation and educational level of respondents were found to affect in an important way the willingness to pay [63]. The type of ownership and people’s income were important prognostic factors for their annual contribution [63]. Furthermore, income, use of free green spaces by people and their satisfaction with the existing green spaces affect their WTP [64]. Respondents’ WTP was found to amount to 41.5 € as a donation [63] and 4 €–4.5 € per household as a bimonthly green tax [24]. Contingent valuation studies in national parks revealed that the recreational value of the area under consideration was approximately 565 million euros per year [96], while most participants responded positively to the introduction of paid tickets for the creation of a park [97]. Halkos and Jones [110] found that respondents were willing to pay from 4.40 € to 5.18 € for two national parks, while Halkos and Matsiori [111] concluded that the willingness to pay amounted to 23.06 € as a lump sum payment. Finally, 43.9% of citizens declared their intention to pay for the park’s protection [112] and the average WTP amounted to 7.84 € per month.

3.5. Results of Previous Empirical Studies in Australia

It is worth highlighting the studies of Duthy [98] and Flatley and Bennett [99] on forest parks. In the first study, the response rate of the sample was 26.5%, and the willingness to pay amounted to 11.14 € per year for 3 years, while in the second study respondents were willing to pay 11.93 € as a lump sum payment. Herath [113] showed that the bid value and family size were significant prognostic factors. The estimated willingness to pay for the wetland was 2.89 € per person per year for open-ended questions and 3.93 € per person per year for dichotomous choice questions [113]. Similarly, respondents’ WTP amounted to 38.51 € and 26.62 € per family per year for 5 years for logistic regression and OLS, respectively [114].

4. Discussion

Previous surveys widely used entrance tickets as a payment vehicle. The results showed that participants in different countries are willing to pay from 0.017 € to 63.95 € to visit forest parks. The WTP amounted to 0.068 €–16.81 € per visit for wildlife parks, 1.4 €–13.53 € for marine parks and 0.058 €–10.4 € for urban parks and green areas. Apparently, the maximum WTP is expressed for forest parks and the minimum for urban parks. This may be related to people’s preferences and the value they give to the nature of each park. It may also be affected by their origin.
The distinction between countries in the climate zone to which they belong had the following results. The average WTP for parks and protected areas that belong to the tropical zone ranged from 0.41 € to 23.87 € per visitor. On the other hand, the visitors of parks and protected areas in temperate zones were willing to pay 0.017 € as a minimum and 63.95 as a maximum entrance fee.
Another comparison that can be drawn is the WTP between developed and developing countries. Taking into account the classification of countries by the International Monetary Fund [126], the WTP in case studies of developed countries ranged from 0.58 € to 11.5 € per visitor for an entrance ticket. On the other hand, the results showed that the WTP ranged from 0.017 € to 63.95 € per visitor to enter the park. The high willingness to pay in developing countries may be affected by the responses of foreign tourists.
One of the main objectives of this paper was to estimate the economic valuation of parks and protected areas in countries that have been plagued by the economic crisis. Greece, Iceland, Italy and Spain are the countries most affected by the financial crisis in the European Union since 2008. Based on the year in which the survey was conducted, the results are as follows: 73.59% of the sample stated that they wanted the Heiðmork urban space to be preserved; 60.76% of them accepted the first proposed amount of payment; and 25.37% the second amount presented to them. The average WTP ranged from 107.4 € to 156.26 € as a lump sum tax [57]. In Italy, only 30% claimed they were not willing to pay to maintain an urban green area. The main reason for the refusal is related to the belief that the urban green area is a public good [62].
Lopez-Mosquera et al. [61] estimated the use and the conservation value of two parks. Regarding the use value, respondents were willing to pay on average 1.01 € and 0.58 € for an entry ticket for San Pedro and Grajera Park, respectively. The average WTP was equal to 0.69 € and 0.65 € for the two parks in the case of the estimation of conservation value. Another research in Spain revealed that visitors’ WTP ranged between 3.70 €–4.61 € to enter the park [94].
In the case of Greece, the majority of the sample stated that they were willing to contribute to the creation of a new urban park. The average WTP was 4 €–4.5 € as a bimonthly green tax [24]. According to the authors, the WTP did not show a significant difference during the period 2010–2013. Citizens were eager to contribute from 4.40 € to 5.18 € to improve the biodiversity protection [110]. Halkos and Matsiori [111] concluded that respondents were willing to pay 23.06 € on average as a lump sum payment. In this case study, a significant percentage of the sample were willing to pay to improve the quality of the coastal zone.
In conclusion, previous empirical studies showed that citizens were willing to pay for a park despite the economic crisis. This may be due to the increased interest of people in parks and protected areas and the subsequent benefits they afford. All these results of previous empirical studies worldwide are presented in the tables of the Appendix A.

5. Conclusions

As shown, the sustainability of cities is negatively affected by a degraded environment and reduced natural resources [127]. Public parks and open spaces are considered important for managing the effects of climate change [128]. The positive influences which result from parks and green spaces have been the subject of many research studies and affect both the environment and humans [129].
The multiple benefits that the parks offer to humans as well as to the environment are widely recognized by both the public and specialists. The significance of these benefits is currently very high, especially in the case of cities, due to climate change and its impact on the urban environment. The need to estimate the value that people attach to parks has led to the development of valuation methods for the value of non-market goods. One of the most widespread methods is contingent valuation. The aim of the CVM is to assess whether and how willing people are to pay in order to enjoy goods such as the parks, or to avoid their loss.
The present study aimed to record a large amount of empirical studies which have been carried out globally for parks by using the CVM. Given the plethora of investigations that have been carried out, it was judged useful to classify them according to the nature of each park. This way, the use of the CVM for urban parks and green areas, for forest parks and natural protected areas, for marine parks, wetlands and animal parks was discussed.
The reference to multiple researches that have been carried out on the economic valuation of parks and protected areas shows that the corresponding empirical studies in Greece have thus far been limited. This conclusion is further strengthened for the case of the existing urban parks. As a result, further research is needed for the economic assessment of urban parks in Greece, based on the determinants of the WTP according to previous empirical studies and the detection of new influential factors.
However, the use of the CVM, although widespread, has been criticized for some disadvantages which should be considered. These disadvantages concern the validity and reliability of the results [130]. The literature review shows that the results of a survey are influenced by the way it is conducted. More specifically, surveys conducted through face-to-face interviews [43,61] had higher response rates compared to those who used other techniques, such as telephone interviews [63] or mail distribution [40].
Another important parameter is the type of questions for determining the willingness to pay. Some surveys used open-ended questions [82,84] to ensure the maximum willingness to pay of individuals. Other studies used dichotomous (single or double-bounded) choice questions [105] or payment cards [45], because some of the respondents may not be familiar with the concept of environmental goods market. Similarly, the payment vehicle used in the survey is a major issue. In most cases of parks valuation, the entrance ticket is used to determine the WTP [39,87], while in other cases a tax is used [24].
Last but not least, the management of protest responses is also important. Questions are raised about how exactly the protest responses are defined, what happens to the results and whether protest zero bidders differ from others. According to Halkos and Jones [110], the WTP differs when protest responses are removed.
Based on the above, the format of questions, the possible protest responses due to the nature of goods as well as the fact that the surveys are based on hypothetical scenarios constitute some limitations. Therefore, the variations in respondents’ answers between a hypothetical scenario and a real situation should be presented.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed equally to each section of this paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


The research work was supported by the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI) and the General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT), under the HFRI PhD Fellowship grant (GA. no. 1640).


Thanks are due to the Editors and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments. Any remaining errors are solely the authors’ responsibility.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) studies in urban parks and green spaces.
Table A1. Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) studies in urban parks and green spaces.
ReferencesPreservation ofCity CountrySample Size/Time PeriodEconometric ApproachMean WTP
[24]Creation of parkThessaloniki Greece600 face-to-face interviews to residents of Thessaloniki in 1/2013Logit, single-bounded choice models, double-bounded choice models 4–4.5 € per household as a bimonthly green tax
[38]Open spacesCedar Rapids USA296 persons spring 2004 (51% responses)Probit Tobit4012.75 €
[39]Urban forestsSavana USA640 face-to-face interviews (478 used) 7/2008 and 7–8/2009Maximun Likelihood Estimation10.4 €
[40]Urban Parks
(5% expansion of urban parks as mitigation to climate change)
Atlanta Georgia USA470 urban residents through mail in 2013Tobit63.56 €/households for 5 years, no protest responses
[41]Conservation-improvement of ParkPasso Fundo Brazil338 households at their homesOrdinary Least Square6.63 € as additional property tax
[42]Ecological ParkRio Coco Brazil159 visitorsLogit model1.91 €
[43]Green spaces Guangzhou China340 face-to-face 26/2–19/3/2003Probit2.27 € per person per month
[44]Urban parks Tainan China576 visitors personal interviews 3–6/2010Spearman correlations5.5 €–5.62 €
[45]Green spaces Jinan China606 persons
Logit10.66 €/year
[46]Fuzhou National Forest ParkChina249 face-to-face interviews 10/2015–1/2016Interval regression Heckman 2-step Full Information Maximum Likelihood1.8 €
1.43 €
1.51 €
[47]Public parksNagasaki Japan194Logit
44.92 €/household
[48]Urban Parks 20% limiting green areas for 5 years urban developmentHong Kong495 interviews, 477 valid
(only weekends)
Ordinary Least Square, chi-square9.23 € per household/month
[49]Urban treesKota Kinabalu Malaysia154 interviews, (121 analyzed)Ordinary Least Square1.66 €
as a donation
[50]Public parks green spaceKarachi Pakistan200 persons
Probit0.058 € entrance ticket
[51]Improved recreational servicesBagh-e-Naran and Tatara Parks Pakistan500 visitors (220 Tatara, 280 Bagh-e-Naran
Ordinary Least Square LogitPark visiting demand was found to be significantly income elastic for both parks.
[52]Javanmardan ParkTehran Iran Logit 0.65 € household/month
[53]Urban Forest ParkArroceros Philippines64 face-to-face interviewsLogit Most respondents eager to pay entrance ticket for parks
[54]Forests’ restorationIbadan Nigeria370 residents
Ordinary Least SquareCorrelations0.38 €
[55]Park’s improved servicesWarda Africa160 personsLogit
Turnbull lower bound estimator
0.53 €–0.56 € per person for entrance ticket
[56]Recreational value of Parc Zoologique de HannDakar Senegal477 visitors face-to-face interviews 3–4/2014Single- and Double-bounded
Entrance ticket three times higher than the current one
[57]Preservation of parkHeiðmork Iceland2185 persons on line research 2 weeks 6/2010Double-bounded dichotomous choice model107.4–156.26 € as lump sum tax
[58]Creation of a park on an existing landfillZagreb Croatia391 residents
Double-bounded models
3.57 € per person for an entrance ticket
[59]Creation of anew urban parkSpain900 residents 3/2001Parametric and non-parametrics
Spike l- Logit
53.61 € as special tax for five years
[60]Urban ParkEl Jardin del Turia Spain1480 face-to-face interviews Spring 2005Tobit and double-hurdle models7.6 € as annual increased tax
[61]A Coruna and Logrono Natural ParksMonte San Pedro and Grajera Spain785 face-to-face interviews (381 sample of 2008 and 404 in 2010)Logit and Probit
Double censored Tobit (Heckman)
San Pedro 1.01 € Grajera 0.58 € for entrance ticket (2008 use value)
San Pedro 0.69 € Grajera 0.65 € for entrance ticket (2010, preservation value)
[62]Conservation of urban green areaMonte Vairano Italy242 students of Molise university via email 3/2014Logit30% refused to pay
[63]Conservation-expansion of urban forestsAttica Greece296 households 14/7–30/7/2004 phone interviewChi-square, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis41,5 € as a donation
[64]More urban green spacesThessaloniki Greece100 personsLogitIncome was found to significantly affect decisions
Table A2. CVM studies in forest parks and natural protected areas.
Table A2. CVM studies in forest parks and natural protected areas.
ReferencesPreservation of City
Sample Size/
Time Period
Econometric ApproachMean
[66]Preservation of National Park
and tropical forests
Morro do Diabo
of 648 persons personal interviewsTobitPopulation is WTP 1,953,173,03 €/year for preservation of Morro do Diabo park (tax in water billing)
[67]Five protected areasMexico877 visitors 12/2016 and 8/2018Double-bounded choice model14.51 €–23.87 €
[68]Preservation of north forestsIran950 face-to-face interviews during 6 months in 2004Logit2.32 € monthly or 27.83 € per household per year as government tax
[69]Recreational value of Natural Park 2 scenarios (current situation of park and improvement)Baba Aman
201 on site interviews
Ordinary Least Square0.017 €–0.025 € 1st and 2nd scenario for entrance ticket
[70]Preservation of national parks and locals’ benefits Iran2121 online interviews
LogitUse value for parks 1.08 €
[71]Forest ParkSaravan Iran480 visitors in 2014 and 2015Logit1.67 € per visitor for entrance ticket
[72]Conservation of National ParkKhangchendzona
545 face-to-face interviews
5/1997, 10–12/1997
Ordinary Least Square8.17 € foreigners per visit,
5.73 € locals/yr
1.76 domestic visitors/visit
[73]Annapurna areaNepal315 foreign visitors 4–5/2006Logit63.95 € for entrance ticket
[74]Forest restorationVietnam211 face-to-face interviews 11/2014Maximum Likelihood Estimation1.49 € per family
[75]Conservation of National Park and protection of o. tamdaoensisTam Dao
250 face-to-face interviews of residents (224 used) 4–5/2015Logit
Double-hurdle models
1.39 € for ecosystem conservation 0.85 € for protection of
o. tamdaoensis
[76]Pok Fu Lam, Shing Mun and Clearwater BayHong Kong613 visitors
Personal interviews 8–10/2009
Double-bounded DC models12.05 €/yr as annual tax for 5 years
[77]Amenity value of Huisun National Forest Park Taiwan223 face-to-face interviews Anova
Ordered Probit
amenity value 88.57 € per person/yr (winter)
89.21 € per person/yr (summer)
[78]Use Assessment and conservation of 5 National ParksKorea2300 on site interviews
summer 1999
LogitParks’ use value higher than current entry ticket
[79]A loss and a gain scenario were usedBukhansan Dulegil
360 hikers on site 12/2013Logit model5.59 € in Gain scenario as donation
9.17 € in loss
[80]forest location
Three scenarios
130 interviews summer 2000TCM0.082 € per visitor
entrance ticket for existing benefits,
0.14 € for installation improvement
0.17€ for more recreational activities
[81]Ecotourism at National ParkKubah
618 face-to-face interviews (303 visitors, 315 non-visitors)Logit3.24 € non-visitors
3.64 € Malaysians
7.28 € foreigners for entrance ticket
[82]Conservation of National ParkGunung Gading
270 visitors
Face-to-face interviews 4–5/2012
Ordinary Least Square3.42 € foreigners 1.56 € locals
[83]Conservation value of National ParkGunung Santubong
360 face-to-face interviewsFactor analysis1.78 €
[84]Conservation and improvement of ecosystem Kionsom Recreation Centre
100 interviews two weeks at weekendsOrdinary Least Square0.61 € per visitor
[85]National ParkTaman Negara
196 interviews
10–17/3 and
4.97 € for an entrance ticket
[86]Gunung Pancar Forest Park
(5 scenarios of improvement)
Indonesia30 visitors at weekdays and 100 at weekends 5–8/2014Tobit0.41, 0.57, 0.75, 0.9 and 1.53 € per scenario
for entrance ticket
[87]Ecotourism on ParkPuncak Lawang
300 visitors personal interviewsLogit0.57 € for entrance ticket
[88]Preservation of resources at National ParkGunung Gede Pangrango
423 face-to-face interviews
Logit0.46 € per visit
for entrance ticket
[89]Cross River National Park and ecotourism improvementOkwangwo
150 households
Ordinary Least SquareTobit2.1 € for female 0.51 € for male
[90]National ParkNyungwe
304 on site and in person interviews 2–7/2015Ordinary Least Square13.26 € foreigners
5.68€ national tourists extra money for recreational services
[91]Forest existence valueUganda203 interviews
13.87 € per year
[92]Urban forestJoensuu
500 residents spring 1995Ordinary Least Square and Tobit 18.16 €–23.71 €
seasonal payments
[93]National ParkGullfoss waterfall and Skaftafell
252 persons (130 in Skaftafell
18–19/6 and 122 in Gullfoss 20–21/6/04
Ordinary Least Square2.1 € (Gullfoss)
3.2 € (Skaftafell)
entrance ticket
[94]Natural parks
Segmentation of visitors of lifestyle
Calares del Mundo and Sima
410 visitors
Factor analysis
3.70 €–4.61 € for park entrance
[95]Three Regional Nature ParksEtna, Nebrodi and Madonie
3000 visitors, 1000 of each park, 4–6/2015.
2200 answers valid
Logit11.5 €
[96]Pertouli forestGreece591 in person interviews of park’s usersOrdinary Least SquareTotal recreational value of forest 565,197,652 €/yr
[97]Conversion of mountain complex into National ParkCentral Rhodope
516 visitors during summer-autumn 2001 and 2002Logit
Cross tabulations
More than 80% willing to pay an entrance ticket
[98]Whian Whian State ForestNew South Wales, Australia435 questionnaires were mailed with 26.5% response rateMultiple linear regressions11.14 €/yr for 3 years
[99]Conservation of tropical forestsRepublic of Vanuatu231 visitors
Ordinary Least Square11.93 € as a lump sum payment
Table A3. CVM studies in marine parks, wetlands and protected areas.
Table A3. CVM studies in marine parks, wetlands and protected areas.
ReferencesPreservation of City
Sample Size/
Time Period
Econometric ApproachMean
[100]Ecological ParkSunCheon Bay
586 on site interviews in 6/2009Logit 2.71 € for entrance ticket
[101]Protected areaBaegnyeong island Korea600 households face-to-face interviews 10/2015One-and-one-half-bounded (OOHB) DC spike model2.7 € per family per year as tax.
For 10 years
[102]National ParkMu Kο Similan
421 scuba divers 1/2004Logit models single-bounded double-bounded25.01 €–57.88 € per person/yr
[103]National Marine Park and better water quality by wastewater treatment plantKo Chang
300 interviews at respondents’ homes 4–5/2013Tobit5.57 € per household per month as tax
[104]Conservation of Marine National ParkKo Chang
409 on site interviews
Single- and double-bounded6.72–11.1 € locals for entrance ticket WTP of tourists twice of locals
[105]Marine Parks and reduction of tourism damagesPayar, Redang and Tiοman
338 on site interviewsSingle and double bounded choice Logit and Probit13.02 €–14.04 € entrance ticket
[106]Marine ParkPulau Redang
and Pulau Payar
215 in Pulau Redang and 153 visitors in Pulau Payar
1.67 € locals 2.26 € foreigners (Pulau Redang)
1.54 € locals and 1.69 € foreigners (Pulau Payar)
[107]National ParkCenderawasih Bay Indonesia71 touristsOrdinary Least Square0.15 € locals
0.39 foreigners
[108]Conservation of National ParkDonana
663 face-to-face interviews
Ordinary Least Square
23.9 € annually as donation
[109]Recreational value of ParkAl-Prespa
134 visitors
Probit and
Tobit models
1.4 €–1.6 € per person
[110]Two National ParksEvros Delta, Axios-Loudias-Aliakmonas Delta Greece501 personal interviews
Probit, Tobit heckman Double-hurdle4.40 €–5.18 €
[111]Coastal zone quality improvementsPagasitikos gulf, Volos, Greece400 personal interviewsPrincipal component
Cluster analysis
Logistic regressions
23.06 € per person as a lump sum payment
[112]National ParkEastern Macedonia and Thrace Greece114 individuals summer 2006Ordinary Least Square Factor analysis94.08 €/yr 7.84 €/month
(tackling protest)
[113]Recreational value of lake MokoanVictoria, Australiapersonal interviewsMaximum likelihood method2.89 € per person/yr (open-ended)
3.93 € per person/yr (dichotomous choice)
[114]Conservation and restoration of a wetlandPekapeka Swamp,
New Zealand
958 households
Logistic regression
Ordinary Least Square
38.51 € per family/yr
26.62 € per family/yr
For 5 years
Table A4. CVM studies in wildlife parks.
Table A4. CVM studies in wildlife parks.
ReferencesPreservation of City
Sample Size/
Time Period
Econometric approachMean
[115]Recreational value of Jungle ParkChitgar
140 visitorsLogit model0.068 € per visitor for entrance ticket
[116]Recreational value of Jungle ParkLavizan
125 persons, 106 were analyzedLogit0.081 €
[117]National ParkBhitarakanica
400 on site interviews 11/2010 and 3/2011Ordinary Least Square0.48 € for entrance ticket
[118]National ParkChitwan
40 locals, 48 visitors from South Asia and 222 international 5–12/2011Logit16.81 € for international, 13.17 for South Asia and 2.49 € for locals visitors for entrance ticket
[119]Recreational benefits of National Park
2 improved scenarios of satisfaction
Horton Plains
Sri Lanka
352 visitorsOrdinary Least Square Probit0.63 € and 0.91 € for 1st and 2nd scenarios for an entrance ticket
[120]Minneriya National Park and view of elephantsSri Lanka407 face-to-face interviewsProbit model0.82 € for entrance ticket
[121]Preservation of Yankari Game ReserveNigeria346 tourists Face-to-face interviews
77.9% would pay for preservation
[122]Preservation of National ParkSemien Mountain
250 households from 6 villages around the parkProbit model0.67 € per household/yr


  1. Yu, C.; Hien, W.N. Thermal benefits of city parks. Energy Build 2006, 38, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chiesura, A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cohen, D.A.; McKenzie, T.L.; Sehgal, A.; Williamson, S.; Golinelli, D.; Lurie, N. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. Am. J. Public Health 2007, 97, 509–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lee, A.C.K.; Maheswaran, R. The health benefits of urban green spaces: A review of the evidence. J. Public Health 2011, 33, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Halkos, G. Economy and Environment: Methods of Valuation and Management; Liberal Books: Athens, Greece, 2013. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  6. Baranzini, A.; Ramirez, J.V. Paying for quietness: The impact of noise on Geneva rents. Urban Stud. 2005, 42, 633–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dijk, D.; Siber, R.; Brouwer, R.; Logar, I.; Sanadgol, D. Valuing water resources in Switzerland using a hedonic price model. Water Resour. Res. 2016, 52, 3510–3526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Kim, C.W.; Phipps, T.; Anselin, L. Measuring the benefits of air quality improvement: A spatial hedonic approach. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2003, 45, 24–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Pearson, L.J.; Tisdell, C.; Lisle, A.T. The impact of Noosa National Park on surrounding property values: An application of the hedonic price method. Econ. Anal. Policy 2002, 32, 155–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Carr, L.; Mendelsohn, R. Valuing coral reefs: A travel cost analysis of the Great Barrier Reef. AMBIO 2003, 32, 353–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Shrestha, R.K.; Seidl, A.F.; Moraes, A.S. Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: A travel cost analysis using count data models. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 42, 289–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shrestha, R.K.; Stein, T.V.; Clark, J. Valuing nature-based recreation in public natural areas of the Apalachicola river region, Florida. J. Environ. Manage. 2007, 85, 977–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Thapa, A.K. Recreational demand for Fewa lake: An application of travel cost method. Econ. Lit. 2013, XI, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Driml, S. Travel cost analysis of recreation value in the wet tropics world heritage area. Econ. Anal. Policy 2002, 32, 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Prayaga, P. Estimating the value of beach recreation for locals in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia. Econ. Anal. Policy 2017, 53, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Adzawla, W.; Kudadze, S.; Mohammed, A.R.; Ibrahim, I.I. Climate perceptions, farmers’ willingness-to-insure farms and resilience to climate change in Northern region, Ghana. Environ. Dev. 2019, 32, 100466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Birol, E.; Karousakis, K.; Koundouri, P. Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: A survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 365, 105–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Birol, E.; Koundouri, P.; Koundouris, Y. Using the Contingent Valuation Method to Inform Sustainable Wetland Management: The Case of the Akrotiri Wetland in Cyprus; DEOS Working Papers: Athens, Greece, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  19. Damigos, D.; Menegaki, M.; Kaliampakos, D. Monetizing the social benefits of landfill mining: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey in a rural area in Greece. Waste Manag. 2016, 51, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Gaglias, A.; Mirasgedis, S.; Tourkolias, C.; Georgopoulou, E. Implementing the contingent valuation method for supporting decision making in the waste management sector. Waste Manag. 2016, 53, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Khan, H.; Iqbal, F.; Saeed, I.; Khan, I. Estimating willingness to pay for improvements in drinking water quality: Evidence from Peshawar, Northern Pakistan. Environ. Econ. 2010, 1, 38–43. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jones, N.; Sophoulis, C.M.; Malesios, C. Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece. J. Socio Econ. 2008, 37, 2478–2491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kontogianni, A.; Langford, I.H.; Papandreou, A.; Skourtos, M.S. Social preferences for improving water quality: An economic analysis of benefits from wastewater treatment. Water Resour. Manag. 2003, 17, 317–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Latinopoulos, D.; Mallios, Z.; Latinopoulos, P. Valuing the benefits of an urban park project: A contingent valuation study in Thessaloniki, Greece. Land Use policy 2016, 55, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Marzetti, S.; Disegna, M.; Koutrakis, E.; Sapounidis, A.; Marin, V.; Martino, S.; Roussel, S.; Rey-Valette, H.; Paoli, C. Visitors’ awareness of ICZM and WTP for beach preservation in four European Mediterranean regions. Mar. Policy 2016, 63, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Park, T.; Bowker, J.M.; Leeworthy, V.R. Valuing snorkeling visits to the Florida Keys with stated and revealed preference models. J. Environ. Manage. 2002, 65, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Pate, J.; Loomis, J. The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: A case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecol. Econ. 1997, 20, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Brey, R.; Riera, P.; Mogas, J. Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: An application to Spanish forests. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 305–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Han, S.Y.; Kwak, S.J.; Yoo, S.H. Valuing environmental impacts of large dam construction in Korea: An application of choice experiments. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2008, 28, 256–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Guimaraes, M.H.; Nunes, L.C.; Madureira, L.; Santos, J.L. Measuring birdwatchers preferences: A case for using online networks and mixed-mode surveys. Tour Manag. 2015, 46, 102–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Halkos, G.; Galani, G. Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A case study in Greece. Munich Pers. RePEc Arch 2016, 68767, 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  32. Horne, P.; Boxall, P.C.; Adamowicz, W.L. Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: A spatially explicit choice experiment. For. Ecol. Manage. 2005, 207, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tempesta, T.; Vecchiato, D. Riverscape and groundwater Preservation: A choice experiment. Environ. Manage. 2013, 52, 1487–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Woldemariam, G.; Seyoum, A.; Ketema, M. Residents’ willingness to pay for improved liquid waste treatment in urban Ethiopia: Results of choice experiment in Addis Ababa. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2016, 59, 163–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. European Commission. European Sustainable Cities; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  36. Khan, K.S.; Kunz, R.; Kleijnen, J.; Antes, G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J. R. Soc. Med. 2003, 96, 118–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. World Health Organization. Urban Green Space Interventions and Health: A Review of Impacts and Effectiveness; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  38. Bowman, T.; Thompson, J.; Colletti, J. Valuation of open space and conservation features in residential subdivisions. J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 90, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Majumdar, S.; Deng, J.; Zhang, Y.; Pierskalla, C. Using contingent valuation to estimate the willingness of tourists to pay for urban forests: A study in Savannah, Georgia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011, 10, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Le Tran, Y.; Siry, J.P.; Bowker, J.M.; Poudyal, N.C. Atlanta households’ willingness to increase urban forests to mitigate climate change. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 22, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Brandli, L.L.; Marques Prietto, P.D.; Neckel, A. Estimating the willingness to pay for improvement of an urban park in southern Brazil using the contingent valuation method. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2014, 141, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Da Silva, C.R.M.; Lima, D.S.V.R.; Farias, I.F.; Oliveira, L.V.C.; Fontenele, R.E.S. Are visitors willing to pay for a green park; A study in a Brazilian ecological park. XIX Engema 2017, 11, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  43. Jim, C.Y.; Chen, W.Y. Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75, 81–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Song, X.H.; Cho, T.D.; Lang, X.X.; Piao, Y.J. Influencing the willingness to pay for urban park service functions. J. Environ. Sci. Int. 2013, 22, 1279–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Song, X.; Lv, X.; Li, C. Willingness and motivation of residents to pay for conservation of urban green spaces in Jinan, China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2015, 35, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chen, B.; Qi, X. Protest response and contingent valuation of an urban forest park in Fuzhou city, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ahmed, S.U.; Gotoh, K. Estimation of the willingness to pay for preserving public parks in Nagasaki city by using contingent valuation method. Nagasaki Univ. Acad. Output Site 2007, 37, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lo, A.Y.; Jim, C.Y. Willingness of residents to pay and motives for conservation of urban green spaces in the compact city of Hong Kong. Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Hilmi, M.A.; Mojiol, A.R. Contingent valuation on urban trees in city of Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. Trans. Sci. Technol. 2017, 4, 166–173. [Google Scholar]
  50. Anwar, M.M. Recreational opportunities and services from ecosystem services generated by public parks in Megacity Karachi-Pakistan. Sindh Univ. Res. J. Sci. Ser. 2012, 44, 23–28. [Google Scholar]
  51. Khan, H.; Ali, F.; Khan, H.; Shah, M.; Shoukat, S. Estimating willingness to pay for recreational services of two public parks in Peshawar, Pakistan. Environ. Econ. 2014, 5, 21–26. [Google Scholar]
  52. Fardanesh, A.; Zeraatkish, Y. An investigation on the promenade value of Javanmardan park in Tehran, using contingent valuation method (CVM). Int. Bus. Manag. 2016, 10, 1639–1641. [Google Scholar]
  53. Membrebe, Z.O.; Santos, A.J.G.; Valeroso, J.C.C.; Ancheta, A.A. Urban forest park as eco-space for liveable city: Arroceros forest park, Manila, Plilippines. Int. J. Real Estate Stud. 2017, 11, 23–34. [Google Scholar]
  54. Popoola, L.; Ajewole, O. Willingness to pay for rehabilitation of Ibadan urban environment through reforestation projects. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2002, 9, 256–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tameko, A.M.; Donfouet, H.P.P.; Sikod, F. The economic valuation of improved urban parks: A case study of Warda park. J. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 4, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Seck, A. A dichotomous-choice contingent valuation of the Parc Zoologique de Hann in Dakar. Afr. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2016, 11, 226–238. [Google Scholar]
  57. Cook, D.; Eiríksdottir, K.; Davíðsdottir, B.; Kristofersson, D.M. The contingent valuation study of Heiðmork, Iceland-Willingness to pay for its preservation. J. Environ. Manage. 2018, 209, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Opačak, Μ.; Wang, Ε. Estimating Willingness to Pay for a Future Recreational Park Atop the Current Jakuševec Landfill in Zagreb, Croatia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Del Saz Salazar, S.; Menendez, L.G. Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: Does proximity matter? Land Use policy 2007, 24, 296–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Del Saz-Salazar, S.; Rausell-Koster, P. A double-hurdle model of urban green areas valuation: Dealing with zero responses. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 84, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lopez-Mosquera, N.; Garcia, T.; Barrena, R. Economic assessment of the use and conservation of suburban parks. Two cases in Spain. New Medit 2014, 13, 59–69. [Google Scholar]
  62. Forleo, M.B.; Gagliardi, N.; Romagnoli, L. Determinants of willingness to pay for an urban green area: A contingent valuation survey of college students. Int. J. Manag. Knowl. Learn. 2015, 4, 7–25. [Google Scholar]
  63. Kalavrytinos, N.; Damigos, D. The economic value of urban green spaces in the Attica Basin. Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG 2006, 2, 18–21. [Google Scholar]
  64. Xifilidou, A.; Vagiona, D.; Karanikolas, N. Estimating the willingness to pay of Thessaloniki’s residents for the increase of the green spaces and exploring its effects to the real estate values. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2014, 23, 2750–2754. [Google Scholar]
  65. IUCN. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Adams, C.; da Motta, R.S.; Ortiz, R.A.; Reid, J.; Aznar, C.E.; de Almeida Sinisgalli, P.A. The use of contingent valuation for evaluating protected areas in the developing world: Economic valuation of Morro do Diabo state park, Atlantic rainforest, Sao Paulo state (Brazil). Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 359–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Witt, B. Tourists’ willingness to pay increased entrance fees at Mexican protected areas: A multi-site contingent valuation study. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Amirnejad, H.; Khalilian, S.; Assareh, M.H.; Ahmadian, M. Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 58, 665–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ghanbarpour, M.R.; Sajjadi, S.; Hajiseyedjavadi, S.T. Investigation of visitors’ participation and willingness to pay for the Baba Aman recreational park, Iran. Res. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 2011, 3, 722–728. [Google Scholar]
  70. Kolahi, M.; Sakai, T.; Moriya, K.; Yoshikawa, M.; Trifkovic, S. Visitors’ characteristics and attitudes towards Iran’s national parks and participatory conservation. Parks 2014, 20, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Limaei, S.M.; Safari, G.; Merceh, G.M. Recreational values of forest park using the contingent valuation method (case study: Saravan forest park, north of Iran). J. Forest Sci. 2016, 62, 452–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Maharana, I.; Rai, S.C.; Sharma, E. Environmental economics of the Khangchendzonga national park in the Sikkim Himalaya, India. GeoJournal 2000, 50, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Baral, N.; Stern, M.J.; Bhattarai, R. Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Khuc, Q.V.; Alhassan, M.; Loomis, J.B.; Tran, T.D.; Paschke, M.W. Estimating urban households’ willingness-to-pay for upland forest restoration in Vietnam. Open J. For. 2016, 6, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Le, T.H.T.; Lee, D.K.; Kim, Y.S.; Lee, Y. Public preferences for biodiversity conservation in Vietnam’s Tam Dao National Park. Forest Sci. Technol. 2016, 12, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chen, W.Y.; Jim, C.Y. Contingent valuation of ecotourism development in country parks in the urban shadow. Int. J. Sust. Dev. World 2012, 19, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Liu, W.Y.; Lin, Y.Y.; Chen, H.S.; Hsieh, C.M. Assessing the amenity value of forest ecosystem services: Perspectives from the use of sustainable green spaces. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Lee, C.K.; Han, S.Y. Estimating the use and preservation values of national parks’ tourism resources using a contingent valuation method. Tour Manag. 2002, 23, 531–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lee, W.S.; Moon, J. Examination of loss aversion and its role in willingness to pay for leisure services using the contingent valuation method. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2018, 19, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Pak, M.; Turker, M.F. Estimation of recreational use value of forest resources by using individual travel cost and contingent valuation methods (Kayabasi forest recreation site sample). J. Appl. Sci. 2006, 6, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  81. Bakar, N.A.A.; Radam, A.; Samdin, Z.; Yacob, M.R. Willingness to pay in Kubah national park and Matang wildlife centre: A contingent valuation method. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2016, 17, 131–144. [Google Scholar]
  82. Kamri, T. Willingness to pay for conservation of natural resources in the Gunung Gading national park, Sarawak. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 101, 506–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Kamri, T.; Ali, J.K.; Harum, N.F.A. Willingness to pay for conservation of natural resources in Santubong national park. J. Manaj. dan Kewirausahaan 2017, 19, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Mojiol, A.R.; Zamri, Z.; Hilmi, M.A.; Gitom, M. Visitors’ willingness to pay (wtp) at Kionsom recreation centre, Inanam, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. Trans. Sci. Technol. 2017, 4, 174–182. [Google Scholar]
  85. Samdin, Z.; Aziz, Y.A.; Radam, A.; Yacob, M.R. Sustainability of ecotourism resources at Taman Negara national park: Contingent valuation method. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2013, 14, 235–244. [Google Scholar]
  86. Avenzora, R.; Sunarminto, T.; Pratiekto, P.E.; Lee, J.H. Pricing strategy for quasi-public forest tourism park: A case study in Gunung Pancar forest tourism park, Bogor Indonesia. Indones. J. For. Res. 2016, 3, 65–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Iasha, A.; Yacob, M.R.; Kabir, I.; Radam, A. Estimating economic value for potential ecotourism resources in Puncak Lawang park, Agam district, west Sumatera, Indonesia. Procedia Environ Sci. 2015, 30, 326–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Nuva, R.; Shamsudin, M.N.; Radam, A.; Shuib, A. Willingness to pay towards the conservation of ecotourism resources at Gunung Gede Pangrango national park, West Java, Indonesia. J. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 2, 173–186. [Google Scholar]
  89. Ezebilo, E.E.; Mattsson, L.; Afolami, C.A. Economic value of ecotourism to local communities in the Nigerian rainforest zone. J Sustain. Dev. 2010, 3, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Lal, P.; Wolde, B.; Masozera, M.; Burli, P.; Alavalapati, J.; Ranjan, A.; Montambault, J.; Banerjee, O.; Ochuodho, T.; Mugabo, R. Valuing visitor services and access to protected areas: The case of Nyungwe National Park in Rwanda. Tour Manag. 2017, 61, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bamwesigye, D.; Hlavackova, P.; Sujova, A.; Fialova, J.; Kupec, P. Willingness to Pay for Forest Existence Value and Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Tyrvainen, L.; Vaananen, H. The economic value of urban forest amenities: An application of the contingent valuation method. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1998, 43, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Reynisdottir, M.; Song, H.; Argusa, J. Willingness to pay entrance fees to natural attractions: An Icelandic case study. Tour Manag. 2008, 29, 1076–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Bernabeu, R.; Samos, A. Determinants of public forest management decisions: The Calares Delmundo and Sima natural park (SPAIN). Int. J. Environ. Res. 2014, 8, 1341–1348. [Google Scholar]
  95. Patti, S. Contingent valuation of “Green” tourism within regional natural parks of Sicily: A willingness to pay analysis. Econ. Marche J. Appl. Econ. 2017, XXXVI, 34–54. [Google Scholar]
  96. Matsiori, S.; Anagnos, N.; Aggelopoulos, S.; Soutsas, K. Economic valuation of forest recreation: The case of the University Forest of Pertouli in Greece. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2012, 10, 866–870. [Google Scholar]
  97. Machairas, I.; Hovardas, T. Determining visitors’ dispositions toward the designation of a greek national park. Environ. Manage. 2005, 36, 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Duthy, S. Whian Whian-State forest or national park: Community attitudes and economic values. Econ. Anal. Policy 2002, 32, 91–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Flatley, G.W.; Bennett, J.W. Using contingent valuation to determine Australian tourists’ values for forest conservation in Vanuatu. Econ. Anal. Policy 1996, 26, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Lee, W.S.; Graefe, A.R.; Hwang, D. Willingness to pay for an ecological park experience. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2013, 18, 288–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kim, J.; Lim, S.Y.; Yoo, S.H. Measuring the economic benefits of designating Baegnyeong Island in Korea as a marine protected area. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2017, 24, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Asafu-Adjaye, J.; Tapsuwan, S. A contingent valuation study of scuba diving benefits: Case study in Mu Ko Similan marine national park, Thailand. Tour Manag. 2008, 29, 1122–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Piriyapada, S.; Wang, E. Quantifying the costs and benefits of coastal water quality improvements in the Ko Chang marine national park, Thailand. Environ. Process. 2014, 1, 149–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Piriyapada, S.; Wang, E. Modeling willingness to pay for coastal tourism resource protection in Ko Chang marine national park, Thailand. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2015, 20, 515–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Ahmad, S.A.; Hanley, N. Willingness to pay for reducing crowding effect damages in marine parks in Malaysia. Singap. Econ. Rev. 2009, 54, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Yacob, M.R.; Radam, A.; Shuib, A. A contingent valuation study of marine parks ecotourism: The case of Pulau Payar and Pulau Redang in Malaysia. J. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 2, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Anna, Z.; Saputra, D.S. Economic valuation of whale shark tourism in Cenderawasih Bay National Park, Papua, Indonesia. Biodiversitas 2017, 18, 1026–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Martin-Lopez, B.; Montes, C.; Benayas, J. Influence of user characteristics on valuation of ecosystem services in Donana natural protected area (south-west Spain). Environ. Conserv. 2007, 34, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Grazhdani, D. Estimating residents’ willing to pay using contingent valuation for ecological restoration and recreational benefits of AL-Prespa protected area in Albania. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2014, 12, 365–370. [Google Scholar]
  110. Halkos, G.; Jones, N. Modeling the effect of social factors on improving biodiversity protection. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 78, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Halkos, G.; Matsiori, S. Environmental attitudes and preferences for coastal zone improvements. Econ. Anal. Policy 2018, 58, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Jones, N.; Iosifides, T.; Evangelinos, K.I.; Florokapi, I.; Dimitrakopoulos, P.G. Investigating knowledge and perceptions of citizens of the National Park of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, Greece. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2012, 19, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Herath, G. Estimation of community values of lakes: A study of lake Mokoan in Victoria, Australia. Econ. Anal. Policy 1999, 29, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Ndebele, T.; Forgie, V. Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach. Econ. Anal. Policy 2017, 55, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Sharahi, M.K.; Mohamadi, M.H.; Abedini, A. Estimating the outdoor recreational value of Chitgar forestial park of Tehran with the use of contingent valuation method (CV). J. Econ. Dev. Environ. People 2015, 4, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Abedini, A.; Mohamadi, M.H.; Sharahi, M.K. Estimating the outdoor recreational value of Lavizan Jungle park of Tehran using continent valuation method (CV). Open J. Ecol. 2016, 6, 225–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Bal, D.P.; Mohanty, S. Determination of willingness to pay for entrance fee to national park: An empirical investigation. Int. J. Ecol. Econ. Stat. 2014, 35, 65–73. [Google Scholar]
  118. Pandit, R.; Dhakal, M.; Polyakov, M. Valuing access to protected areas in Nepal: The case of Chitwan national park. Tour Manag. 2015, 50, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Rathnayake, R.M.W. Economic values for recreational planning at Horton Plains national park, Sri Lanka. Tour. Geogr. 2016, 18, 213–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Rathnayake, R.M.W. Pricing the enjoyment of ‘elephant watching’ at the Minneriya national park in Sri Lanka: An analysis using CVM. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2016, 18, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Adamu, A.; Yacob, M.R.; Radam, A.; Hashim, R. Factors determining visitors’ willingness to pay for conservation in Yankari Game Reserve, Bauchi, Nigeria. Int. J. Econs Mgmt. 2015, 9, 95–114. [Google Scholar]
  122. Walle, Y. Local community’s valuation of ecological conservation benefits of Semien mountain national park. Sch. J. Econ. Bus. Manag. 2015, 2, 934–943. [Google Scholar]
  123. Halkos, G. Econometrics: Theory, Applications and Use of Programs; Gutenberg: Athens, Greece, 2011. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  124. Tobin, J. Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica 1958, 26, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Cragg, J. Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica 1971, 39, 829–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. International Monetary Fund. World Economic and Financial Surveys. Available online: (accessed on 20 October 2019).
  127. Van Dijk, M.P.; Mingshun, Z. Sustainability indices as a tool for urban managers, evidence from four medium-sized Chinese cities. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2005, 25, 667–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Cobbinah, P.B.; Poku-Boansi, M.; Peprah, C. Urban environmental problems in Ghana. Environ. Dev. 2017, 23, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Kabisch, N.; Qureshi, S.; Haase, D. Human- environment interactions in urban green spaces- A systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2015, 50, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Venkatachalam, L. The contingent valuation method: A review. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2004, 24, 89–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chart 1. Economic valuation methods of the environment [5].
Chart 1. Economic valuation methods of the environment [5].
Sustainability 12 04784 ch001
Table 1. Exchange rates of convergence to € (26/4/2020) 1.
Table 1. Exchange rates of convergence to € (26/4/2020) 1.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Halkos, G.; Leonti, A.; Sardianou, E. Assessing the Preservation of Parks and Natural Protected Areas: A Review of Contingent Valuation Studies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4784.

AMA Style

Halkos G, Leonti A, Sardianou E. Assessing the Preservation of Parks and Natural Protected Areas: A Review of Contingent Valuation Studies. Sustainability. 2020; 12(11):4784.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Halkos, George, Aikaterini Leonti, and Eleni Sardianou. 2020. "Assessing the Preservation of Parks and Natural Protected Areas: A Review of Contingent Valuation Studies" Sustainability 12, no. 11: 4784.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop