1. The recreational value of forests in a transition economy Anna Bartczak, Tomasz Żylicz bartczak@wne.uw.edu.pl, tzylicz@wne.uw.edu.pl

2. Popular perception (FAO/UNECE 2005) Annual forest visitation patterns [benefits in Euro per person] Region West EuropeEast Europe Number of visits 6.52.5 Benefit from a single visit 1.000.25 Total benefits 6.500.63

3. This perception is blatantly inaccurate! Both: the number of visits, benefits derived from a single visit seem to be much higher in Poland

4. General information on forests and forestry in Poland The forest area: 9.2 million hectares = 28.4% of the Polish territory (the average share of forest area in Europe is 31.1%) The average age of the forest stand is 60 years 67% of forest stands are coniferous forest types Forest ownership: 82.5% State-owned forests. Almost all of these are managed by the State Forest Enterprise (SFE)

5. Description of conducted surveys Characteristics: Surveys 12 Place On-site in 10 selected forests In respondents’ homes TimeOctober 2005November 2005 SampleN=1002N=1005 Method of interviewsFace-to-face Interviewers Professional polling agency Aim of survey WTP/NCS per visit in a forest site Total annual number of visits to forest sites in Poland

6. Location of selected sites

7. Description of the forest sites NoName of the site Conservation regime OwnershipLocation Sample size 1Bialowieza Forest National ParkTreasuryNE101 2Barbarka (Torun) NoneSFENW100 3Kampinoski (Warsaw) National ParkTreasuryC100 4Swierklaniec NoneSFESW101 5Zielona Gora NoneSFESW100 6Piatkowski (Poznan) NoneMunicipalW100 7Krzeszowice NoneSFESE100 8Kudypy NoneSFENE100 9Kozienice NoneSFEC100 10Tucholskie Forest „Promotional”SFENW100

8. WTP for entering the forest [PLN 2005, nominal exchange rate: 1 Euro=3,9 PLN] Method WTP per person WTP per household Share of protesters AverageMedianAverageMedian CVM; Open-ended question for WTP 2.62 (1.27) 1.5 (0.0) 5.06 (2.45) 2.0 (0.0) 52% CVM; Dichotomous- choice for WTP 15.68 (10.14) - 26.34 (17.34) - 42% TCM; Average NCS (log-log function) 20.54 - 35.42 - - * Numbers in brackets are estimated for the sample including protesters

9. Other results Survey12SFE* Frequency of recreational visits Average=56 Median=12 Average=41 Median=17 - Share of recreational visits in the total number of visits 91%85% - The average length of a recreational visit 2 hours - Share of population visiting forests - 85%82% * The survey conducted by the State Forest Enterprise (SFE) in 2003.

10. Explanation of the results achieved (a hypothesis) The relationship between the income level and the demand for forest recreation is not a monotonic one (even though richer people may reveal a higher WTP for a single visit to a forest, they go there less frequently) Consequently, the per capita value of the forest in a less developed country may turn out to be higher than in a more developed one But: No international data to verify this hypothesis

11. Weaker hypotheses verified on Polish data only An existence of an inverted U- (or V-) shaped relationship between the annual value of recreational function of forests and the income level Respondents from cities visit the forest less frequently than those from the rural areas.

12. Models Annual demand per visitor defined as: D =  i B i X i Model 1: Demand = ln ((TC x (annual number of visits)) Model 2: Demand = (Open-Ended WTP) x (annual number of visits)

13. Impact of the extreme income groups on the demand for visits (TC) – model 1 Variables (X)Coefficient (B)Standard error Number of observations Significance level Constant4.1230.2557140.000 Forest21.1910.331780.000 Forest31.1970.328870.000 Forest40.9790.339690.004 Forest52.2960.322880.000 Forest61.3390.335740.000 Forest70.9080.340690.008 Forest8-0.8570.347630.014 Forest91.4770.344650.000 Forest101.2180.381860.001 Rural0.5950.2471520.016 Lowest income0.5410.1771560.002 Highest income-0.9810.391260.012 R 2 =0.185

14. Impact of the extreme income groups on the demand for visits (CV-OE) – model 2 Variables (X)Coefficient (B)Standard error Number of observations Significance level Constant-7.02132.4872120.829 Forest2132.03351.483210.011 Forest348.81346.542290.295 Forest4-4.44256.475220.937 Forest5127.28348.633250.010 Forest691.97553.968160.090 Forest749.25866.31090.458 Forest835.56343.881340.419 Forest9142.68149.087230.004 Forest1078.90360.533230.194 Rural130.43244.614370.004 Lowest income12.70431.599420.688 Highest income21.71375.70160.775 R 2 =0.148

15. Key results The value of a single trip in Poland, whether solicited in a CV survey or computed from TC – is closer to 1 EUR (which is typical of Western Europe) than to 0.25 EUR (attributed to Eastern Europe). The annual number of visits is much higher than estimated for Western Europe (6.5) and even more than the one assumed for Eastern Europe (2.5) by the authors of the international forestry report UNECE/FAO, 2005 The rural population (which in Poland makes up 38% of the total) reveals a larger demand for forest visits than the urban one. The lowest income group may reveal (depending on the model applied) a larger demand for the same amenity than the highest one.

16. Alternative explanations (directions for further research) Overestimation of demand for forest recreation, Geographical variations in the demand for forest recreation: Social and historical circumstances => habits and customs, Availability of forest recreation resulting from urbanisation patterns, Quality of forest ecosystems, The demand for forest recreation may depend on the availability of public forest areas.