Evaluation of the Recreational Uses of Rural Land: A Case Study

  • Guido Maria Bazzani
  • Davide Viaggi
  • Giacomo Zanni

Summary

The recreational use of agricultural land is emerging as one of the main opportunities for income production and rural development in many rural areas of the world. Many agri-environmental measures are directly aimed at improving the recreational value of rural land through the provision of direct services or landscape improvement.

The aim of this study is to assess the value for the consumers of such recreational improvements. In particular, an assessment was carried out in an area of Bologna Hills in order to evaluate the willingness to pay (WTP) for the provision of a set of given recreational services. The collection of information was achieved through a questionnaire addressed to households living in the Province of Bologna. The information collected includes recreational behaviour of the households, as well as the WTP for the services proposed. Results are discussed in relation to actual policy implementation, comparing recreational benefits with the public expenditure necessary to produce such benefits.

The results show that the provision of recreational goods in the countryside is valued by households as a relevant good, the quality of which significantly affects their behaviour in relation to the use of the countryside. Nevertheless, the WTP is probably not sufficient to fully cover the public expenditure necessary to carry out the proposed intervention. Fine tuning is thus necessary to target intervention, to improve policy efficiency and to create mechanisms for direct payment the services provided.

Keywords

Income Coherence Tempo OECD Oates 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Basile E.,Cecchi C. (1997), Differenziazione e integrazione nell’economia rurale, Rivista di Economia Agraria, 1-2: 3–27.Google Scholar
  2. Baumol W.J.,Oates W.E. (1988), The theory of environmental policy, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beuret J.E. (1997), L’agriculture dans l’espace rural. Quelles demandes pour quelle functions?, Economie Rurale, 242: 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanc M. (1997), La ruralité: diversité des approches, Economie Rurale, 242: 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bromley D.W. (1991), Environment and economy - Property rights and public policy, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Bromley D.W. (1997), Rethinking markets, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79(5): 1383–1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casini L.,Bernetti I - Menghini S. (1997), Teoria delle “libertà” e metodi multicriterio per l’analisi delle condizioni di sviluppo territoriale, Rivista di Economia Agraria, 1-2: 29–59.Google Scholar
  8. Castello L.,Viaggi D.,Zanni G. (1997), Agri-environmental policies and protected areas: a case study in the “Parco del Taro ”, Parma (Italy), Proceedings of the 52nd Seminar of the European Association of Agricultural Economists, “EU Typical and Traditional Productions: Rural Effect and Agro-industrial Program”, Parma, June 19-21, 1997, pp. 453–462.Google Scholar
  9. Cavailhes J.,Dessendre C.,Goffette-Nagot F.,Schmitt B. (1994), Analyses des evolutions récentes de l’espace rural, Economie rurale, 223: 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choe C.,Fraser I. (1998), A note on imperfect monitoring of agri-environmental policy, Journal of agricultural economics, 49(2): 250–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clawson M.,Burnell Held R.,Stoddard C.H. (1960), Land for the future, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  12. Clawson M.,Knetsch J.L. (1971), Economics of Outdoor Recreation, Johns Hopkins University Press, London.Google Scholar
  13. Colman (1991), Land purchase as a means of providing external benefits from agriculture, in: Farming and the countryside, Hanley N., ed., CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 215–229.Google Scholar
  14. Dillman B.L.,Bergstrom J.C. (1991), Measuring environmental amenity benefits of agricultural land, in: Farming and the countryside, Hanley N., ed., CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 250–271Google Scholar
  15. Dowson B.,Hill T. (1998), Community Forest Recreation: a Dynamic model for our Future Countryside?, Managing Leisure, 3(1): 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drake L. (1992), The non-market value of the Swedish agricultural landscape, European Review of Agricultural Eonomics, 19(3): 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gallerani V.,Zanni G. (1998), L’inserimento dei campi da golf nel territorio italiano. Problemi e criteri di valutazione dell’impatto, Agribusiness, Paesaggio &Ambiente, 2(2): 164–177.Google Scholar
  18. Guglielmi M. (1995), Vers de nouvelles fonctions de l’ agriculture dans l’espace?, Economie rurale, 223: 17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanley N. (1989), Valuing rural recreation benefits: an empirical comparison of two approaches, Journal of agricultural economics, 40(3): 361–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanley N. (ed., 1991), Farming and the countryside, CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
  21. Hodge I. (1991), The provision of public goods in the countryside: how should it be arranged?, in: Farming and the countryside, Hanley N., ed., CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 179–196.Google Scholar
  22. ISTAT (1997a), Annuario statistico italiano - 1997, Roma.Google Scholar
  23. ISTAT (1997b), Musica, sport, computer e altre attività del tempo libero - Year 1995, Roma.Google Scholar
  24. Marinelli A.,Casini L.,Romano D. (1990), Valutazione economica dell’impatto aggregato e dei benefici diretti della ricreazione all’aperto di un parco naturale della Toscana, Genio Rurale, 9: 51–58.Google Scholar
  25. OECD (1996), Amenities for rural development. Policy examples, Parigi.Google Scholar
  26. Pearce D.W.,Turner R.K. (1989), Economics of natural resources and the environment, Harvester and Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  27. Pruckner G.J. (1995), Agricultural landscape cultivation in Austria: an application of the CVM, European Review of Agricultural Economics, (22) 2: 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Romano D. (1990), Tempo e domanda di ricreazione all’aperto, Studi di economia e diritto, 1: 159–186.Google Scholar
  29. Signorello G. (1990), La stima dei benefici di tutela di un’area naturale: un’applicazione della “contingent valuation”, Genio Rurale, 9: 59–66.Google Scholar
  30. Signorello G. (1994), Valutazione contingente della “WTP” per la fruizione di un bene ambientale: approcci parametrici e non parametrici, Rivista di Economia Agraria, (XLIX) 2: 219–238.Google Scholar
  31. Slangen L.H.G. (1992), Policies for nature and landscape conservation in Dutch agriculture: an evaluation of objectives, means, effects and programme costs, European Review of Agricultural Eonomics, (19) 3: 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stellin G.,Rosato P. (1990), Un approccio multicriteriale alla gestione del territorio: il caso del Parco Naturale Regionale delle Valli di Caorle e Bibione, Genio Rurale, 9: 67–75.Google Scholar
  33. Tempesta T. (1990), Una stima delle variazioni di prodotto netto aziendale conseguenti al ripristino dei caratteri del pesaggio agrario tradizionale in un parco del Veneto, Genio Rurale, 9: 86–93.Google Scholar
  34. Tempesta T. (1995), La stima del valore ricreativo del territorio: un’analisi comparata delle principali metodologie, Genio Rurale, 12: 15–34.Google Scholar
  35. Tempesta T. (ed., 1997a), Paesaggio rurale e agro-tecnologie innovative, FrancoAngeli, Milano.Google Scholar
  36. Tempesta T. (1997b), La valutazione del paesaggio nell’area tra Isonzo e Tagliamento: un approccio di tipo monetario, in: Paesaggio rurale e agro-tecnologie innovative, Tempesta T., ed., FrancoAngeli, Milano, pp. 195–263.Google Scholar
  37. Viaggi D. (1998), L’applicazione del reg. CEE 2078/92 in Italia: una valutazione, Agribusiness, paesaggio & ambiente, (2) 1: 58–66.Google Scholar
  38. Walsh R.G. (1986), Recreation economic decisions: comparing benefits and costs, Venture Publishing, State College, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  39. Whitby M. (1991), The changing nature of rural land use, in: Farming and the countryside, Hanley N., ed., CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 12–25.Google Scholar
  40. Zanni G. (1997), Non profit e sport: proposta per la definizione di criteri di utilità sociale, in: Enti non profit: quale futuro per lo sport?, Zanni G.,Bertolotti A., eds., Maggioli, Rimini, pp.73–88.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Maria Bazzani
    • 1
  • Davide Viaggi
    • 2
  • Giacomo Zanni
    • 3
  1. 1.CNR Land and Agri-System Management Research Centre (Ge-STA)BolognaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural Economics and EngineeringUniversity of BolognaItaly
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of FoggiaItaly

Personalised recommendations