Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Visitor support for growth and funding in public built environments: the case of an arboretum

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study conducts a choice experiment survey to find the value for the potential installation of structural improvements in an urban arboretum. These potential improvements were chosen to guide policy decisions for potential revenue generation and to accommodate new visitors without deterring current users. Results show the greatest positive user willingness to pay for a pollinator garden at $3.56 per user per month. While the commuter bike path and perimeter fence were considered controversial issues in this arboretum, results show that on average users were willing to pay a moderately high amount to install the commuter bike path, but also willing to pay a high amount to avoid installation of a perimeter fence. Respondents were strongly opposed to vending machines. These results provide evidence for arboretum management to make informed funding and infrastructure decisions most harmonious with public values.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This number also includes cemeteries that double as arboreta.

  2. Example of a gardening society and publication is the National Garden Clubs and The National Gardener Magazine. Currently, NGC has almost 200,000 members (National Gardens Club, Inc. 2015).

  3. Community is defined as those who lived within 65 miles, and visitors are those who attended Piney Woods Heritage Festival at the arboretum.

  4. It is important to note that the RBG does charge an admission fee to those looking to gain access to the facility.

  5. Cambridge University Botanical Garden, Sheffield City Botanic Garden, Royal Botanic Garden in Edinburgh, and Westonbirt (which charged a £1.80 entrance fee at the time of the study in 1990).

  6. Garrod et al. (1993) mention that with a larger sample size, estimated benefits could equal financial costs, but were outside the scope of their study.

  7. In the survey, the fence was identified as exclusionary fence. Other types of fences were discussed, such as hedge plants, but were not adopted due to their high cost of maintenance, infeasibility in the climate of Kentucky, or incompatibility with the design and appearance of The Arboretum.

  8. During the design and focus group discussion phases of the survey, individuals interpreted vending machines as the conventional types dispensing soda and snacks. In addition, they focused more over the fact whether any vending machines should be placed in The Arboretum at all instead of the contents of the vending machines.

  9. Each respondent was asked to complete 7 scenarios in total. There was no statistical difference among respondents who did not complete the scenarios when compared with respondents who completed all scenarios.

References

  • Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1207–1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, J. R., & Drackett, P. R. (2011). A survey method to gauge public interest in programs, activities, and events at arboreta and botanic gardens. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 29(1), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, R. G., & Taylor, L. O. (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review, 89, 649–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dadvand, P., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Esnaola, M., Forns, J., Basagaña, X., Alvarez-Pedrerol, M., et al. (2015). Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 7937–7942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demir, A. (2014). Determination of the recreational value of botanic gardens. A case study royal botanic gardens, Kew, London. Revista de Cercetare şi Intervenţie Socială, 44, 160–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing, M., & Roberts, R. K. (1991). Estimating visitor use-value of arboreta: The case of the University of Tennessee Arboretum 1, 2. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 9(4), 207–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberle, D. W., & Hayden, G. F. (1991). Critique of contingent valuation and travel cost methods for valuing natural resources and ecosystems. Journal of Economic Issues, 25(3), 649–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, G., Pickering, A., & Willis, K. (1993). The economic value of botanic gardens: a recreational perspective. Geoforum, 24(2), 215–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, S.-K., Kim, J.-H., Jung, S.-J., & Tae, Y.-L. (2010). An economic valuation of arboretum using choice experiments. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture, 37(6), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, K.-R., Ha, S.-G., & Lee, K.-C. (2011). A study on measuring the environmental value of gyeongnam arboretum using the CVM. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture, 39(1), 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochhar, R. (2014). 10 projections for the global population in 2050. Pew Research Center, Last Modified February 3, 2014 Accessed January 12, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/10-projections-for-the-global-population-in-2050/.

  • Lancaster, K. (1971). Consumer demand: A new approach. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., de Vries, S., Spreeuwenberg, P., Schellevis, F. G., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2009). Morbidity is related to a green living environment. Journal of epidemiology and community health, 63(12), 967–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaivor. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.

  • Michaud, C., Llerena, D., & Joly, I. (2012). Willingness to pay for environmental attributes of non-food agricultural products: A real choice experiment. European Journal of Agricultural Economics, 40(2), 313–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton Register. The Morton arboretum Accessed January 2. http://www.arbnet.org/about-register.

  • Murphy, J. J., GeoffreyAllen, P., Stevens, T. H., & Weatherhead, D. (2005). A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental & Resource Economics, 30(3), 313–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Garden Clubs, Inc. (2015). Our history and mission. National Garden Clubs, Inc. Accessed May 10, http://www.gardenclub.org/about-us/mission-and-history.aspx.

  • Orme, B. K. (2005). Getting started with conjoint analysis: Strategies for product design and pricing research. Glendale: Research Publishers, LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penn, J. J., & Hu, W. (2018a). Understanding hypothetical bias: An enhanced meta-analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. (forthcoming).

  • Penn, J. J., & Hu, W. (2018b). Determinants of cheap talk efficacy: A meta-analysis. In Working Paper, Department of Agricultural Economics & Agribusiness, Louisiana State University.

  • Reeder, K. (2015). What is an arboretum? Last Modified March 7, 2014. Accessed January 12, 2015, http://www.arboretum.psu.edu/faq/what.html.

  • Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. National Arboretum. (2015). Fast facts about the arboretum. Last Modified May 1, 2015. Accessed May 10, http://www.usna.usda.gov/Information/historymissn.html.

  • United Nations. (2014). World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision, highlights. New York: Population Division Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • What is an arboretum? Accessed January 12, http://www.klehm.org/our-trees/about-the-arboretum/#.VLWNC4rf_iR.

  • Wu, C.-D., McNeely, E., Cedeno-Laurent, J. G., Pan, W.-C., Adamkiewicz, G., Dominici, F., et al. (2014). Linking student performance in Massachusetts elementary schools with the “greenness” of school surroundings using remote sensing. PloS ONE, 9, e108548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by University of Kentucky and Huazhong Agricultural University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

    Nathanial Trull

  2. Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA

    Jerrod Penn

  3. College of Economics and Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China

    Wuyang Hu

  4. Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Wuyang Hu

Authors
  1. Nathanial Trull
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jerrod Penn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wuyang Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wuyang Hu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Trull, N., Penn, J. & Hu, W. Visitor support for growth and funding in public built environments: the case of an arboretum. J Hous and the Built Environ 33, 829–841 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-018-9592-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-018-9592-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation