See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332250351

Analysing trade-offs between recreational uses and conservation Issues in the

Bãngr-weoogo urban park in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso)

Article in Journal of Biodiversity Management & Forestry · February 2019

DOI: 10.37532/jbmf.2019.8(1).206

CITATIONS READS

3 96

2 authors:

Sidnoma Traore Jean-Michel Salles

L'institut Agro | Montpellier SupAgro Université de Montpellier
8 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS 188 PUBLICATIONS 5,994 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jean-Michel Salles on 03 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Traoré and Salles, J Biodivers Manage Forestry 2019, 8:1

Journal of Biodiversity
DOI: 10.4172/2327-4417.1000206

Management & Forestry

Research Article A SciTechnol Journal

recommendations for ecosystem management [2]. In this perspective,

Analysing Trade-offs between we used a choice modelling which, to some extent, allows combining
the benefits of evaluation with a more comprehensive approach of the
Recreational Uses and diversity of services provided by ecosystems.

Conservation Issues in the The presence of natural assets (parks and forests) and their
components (water, trees, more or less diverse ecosystems) in an urban
Bãngr-weoogo Urban Park in environment has been recognized as a contribution to the improvement
of the quality of life with an influence on residential choices [3-5]. The
Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) management of urban parks has been shown to be of real importance
Sidnoma Traoré* and Jean-Michel Salles
for the sustainability of large cities [6-8]. It is widely recognized that
urban parks and green spaces have strategic importance in the life of
the inhabitants of large cities [8]. The issue is crucial for expanding
Abstract cities whose population increases at a high rate as it is the case in
developing countries.
We investigate whether visitors’ preferences for recreation and
conservation could be reconciled by identifying management Among the many services that people derive from ecosystems,
tradeoffs. We use a choice experiment based on a random sampling, outdoor recreation is certainly one of the most studied aspects.
and conducted face-to-face interviews on site with 475 respondents. This can be explained by the fact that recreation is a service clearly
Improving biodiversity emerged as the action with most likely effect identified by users for which they can easily be surveyed and express
of increasing the welfare of visitors. The reduction in recreational meaningful preferences. Urban and suburban forests are increasingly
areas, the removal of restrictions on recreational activities and, more
involved in recreational activities and the type of layouts probably
surprisingly, the reduction in the expected number of visits appear to
be the factors reducing the most of the visitors’ welfare. Although the affects the visitors’ preferences for these recreation areas [9-12]. The
park in its current state is fairly appreciated, the welfare of visitors can management plans may result in an intensive use of forests and may
be significantly improved by appropriately combining the biodiversity generate unfavorable habitats for certain species. However, there is a
conservation with an increase in the number of recreational areas, as strong demand for preserved areas for conservation purpose [12,13].
well applying restrictions on certain activities with a significant but not A better knowledge of users’ preferences appears to be really useful for
excessive attendance. designing and providing adequate management solutions [4,14,15].
Keywords Outdoor recreation is considered the main pressure on biodiversity
Biodiversity management; Choice modelling; Recreational in many protected areas and the main factor threatening species [16-
restrictions; Urban forest; Developing countries 18]. Outdoor recreation and biodiversity conservation thus appear as
competing goals, often pursued by distinct actors [19]. The question
addressed here relates to the integration of these two objectives with the
Highlights: priorities and pattern in the management of an urban park. It consists of
o The article provides elements for enlightening trade-offs integrating the socio-economic goals of nature-based tourism with the
between conservation and recreation ecological goals of conservation for sustainable development [16,20].

o A choice modelling method for analyzing the tradeoffs between In this paper, we analyze several tradeoffs related to a park in
different attributes of a protected area the urban area of Ouagadougou, the capital of Burkina Faso: the
urban Park Bãngr-weoogo. The old protected forest from the former
o We study the preferences of visitors for an urban forest on the “Mossi” kingdom (the largest ethnic group in the country), confirmed
outskirts of a large African city by the colonial administration, was recently reassigned to the city
o The welfare of visitors appears particularly sensitive to the government that transformed it into an urban park, opened to the
conservation of biodiversity. public for recreation purposes. The park is facing a rapidly growing
frequentation: the number of visits rose from some 30,000 in 2002
Introduction to more than 300,000 in 2013. A stronger protection of existing
ecosystems and species, and an improvement of recreational facilities
The support for public decision-making is among the first
are among possible options. But it is unclear to precise which one will
motivations for performing economic evaluations. However, the
have the most beneficial impact on the visitors’ welfare and what the
valuation of ecosystem services appears to be of limited use for
preferred management pattern for the park is.
guiding the public policies [1]. The analysis of trade-offs between
ecosystem services bundles appears to be a more relevant way to derive We address these tradeoffs by evaluating the changes in the
visitors’ well-being, using a choice experiment method. We test
*Corresponding author: Sidnoma Traoré, Montpellier SupAgro, CEE-M and
for a series of improvements in the park’s recreational facilities and
LAMETA, Univ. Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, SupAgro, 2 Place Viala - 34060 for operational management attributes, in the line of [21], and for
Montpellier, France, Tel: 33-0-499612668; E-mail: [email protected] recreational restrictions as in Juutinen et al. [22]. In a more original
Received: December 16, 2018 Accepted: February 13, 2019 Published: perspective, these options are analyzed in a developing country where
February 18, 2019 environmental issues are often considered to be a low priority [23], and

All articles published in Journal of Biodiversity Management & Forestry are the property of SciTechnol, and is protected by
International Publisher of Science,
copyright laws. Copyright © 2019, SciTechnol, All Rights Reserved.
Technology and Medicine
Citation: Traoré S, Salles J (2019) Analysing Trade-offs between Recreational Uses and Conservation Issues in the Bãngr-weoogo Urban Park in Ouagadougou
(Burkina Faso). J Biodivers Manage Forestry 8:1.

doi: 10.4172/2327-4417.1000206

they concern an urban park, with a strong historical background on which two hundred and forty (240) are equipped, and it plays an
conservation (the first occurrence in the literature to our knowledge). increasingly important role for several purposes such as environmental
education, research, medicinal plants and ecological services such as
The choice experiment approach allows the users of the park
carbon dioxide storage [29].
to express their preferences related to various attributes. While the
travel costs method is generally considered more robust to evaluate Concerning the preservation of biodiversity and specific plant
recreation than those based on stated preferences [24-26], the choice species, the park has 11 plant groups, and 7 of them are woody
experiment techniques allow studying management with more precise species (Acacia macrostahya, Balanites aegyptiaca, Albizia chevalieri,
options and, to some extent, to compare them. Sometimes described Terminalia avicennioides, Holarrhena floribunda, Mimosa pigra,
as the “holy grail” of valuation methods [27,28], choice experiment Mitragyna inermis) with an abundance varying according to the
allows to highlight the trade-offs between many attributes, especially groups. Mimosa pigrapar, for example, contains only 3 plant species
when it comes to management policy including heterogeneous aspects per survey.
of spatial organization.
The park hosts several ecological formations where trees,
In this perspective, we carried out a choice modeling by asking woodland and bushland dominate, and also forest galleries along the
the visitors of the peri-urban forest of Bãngr-weoogo to prioritize river and some wetland [30]. It is like an oasis in a desert due to the
situations reflecting different trade-offs between the main attributes loss of vegetation cover around housing and the importance of its
of conservation objectives and forms of recreational use (areas set up biodiversity: it is home to more than 1000 plant species. It also shelters
for recreation and recreational restrictions). We considered that, with 60 animal families and 225 species of birds some of which such as
subjects to presenting realistic alternatives to the current situation of hyenas, antelopes, hartebeest, waterbuck, and vultures are protected.
the park, the visitors had the capacity to represent the changes implied The use of this area, organized in educational units (zoo, nurseries,
by the variations of the attributes and to express meaningful preferences botanical gardens, museums), relaxation, leisure and business units
between them. Thus, we aimed at identifying practical trade-offs are now well-known from the local population. However, this area in
between recreational facilities development, biodiversity protection an urban district is subject to many different land use pressures due
and interaction effects between these attributes. Economic valuation to the increase of urbanization and to mismanagement related to the
can help enlightening these tradeoffs and their implementation. Since importance of its frequentation. Indeed, the fauna and flora are the
the matter is to discriminate among management options, the choice victim of numerous attacks such as logging, bush fires, the presence of
experiment technique seems to be appropriate and was therefore plastic waste on the ground and the current flow of motorized vehicles
implemented. endangering not only animals but also users’ lives.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we present the Survey design and data
materials and methods by describing the choice experiment design,
the survey carried out in Bãngr-weoogo and data. In section 3, we We conducted interviews with the stakeholders (the urban park
present the results, which are discussed in section 4. The conclusion manager, five members of organizations that are working with the
summarizes the main findings and provides some comments and park and three visitors of the park chosen randomly) to identify the
perspectives in section 5. park characteristics and develop the questionnaire. These people were
identified for a focus group.
Materials and Methods
The focus group took place in March 2013 within the park with
Study area the stakeholders mentioned above. We had a preliminary idea on our
research question but we had to make sure not only that the biodiversity
Ouagadougou, the capital city and main economic center of
assessment was relevant, but also that we had an idea of the interesting
Burkina Faso, is the largest city in the country. With a population of
over 2.2 million (as of 2015), the city is rapidly growing. The Bãngr- aspects of recreation to take into account.
weoogo urban park is a natural forest dedicated to recreational The group has good knowledge about the park (either by working
and educational uses. A former sacred forest belonging, before the there or simply through an interest). Also, general questions such as
colonization, to the Mosse chiefs, it was classified in 1936 by the the importance of the park and its location in the middle of the city
colonial forest administration (Decree No. 2376/SE), regardless of its were raised.
local significance and history. Formerly located on the outskirts of the
city, it is now coined in the urban area. In January 2001, as part of the We succeeded in identifying our attributes, defining them and
decentralization process, this classified forest was reassigned to the city breaking them down into levels in order to complete the questionnaire.
of Ouagadougou, with an impossibility of alternative use of the site, The resulting questionnaire consisted of four sections (the
by the Ministry of Environment and Water, which renamed it “Bãngr- questionnaire is available on request from the authors). The first part
weoogo” (“forest of knowledge” in Mossi language). contained questions related to the environmental attitudes of the
The overall objectives were, on the one hand, to minimize the respondents (through 7 questions). The second and most important
consequences of a possible problem on the Ouagadougou dams part presents the “choice experiment” method. This section provides
upstream the park and, on the other hand, to create a “green lung” in information about the Bãngr-weoogo Park, and the choice sets related
the growing city of Ouagadougou. A walkway path and relaxation areas to alternative management solutions. It describes the five attributes of
were developed, but the site is also open to environmental education the choice experiment (biodiversity level, expected number of visits,
for schools, universities, researchers and visitors. It is also a place where number of relaxing areas, recreational restrictions, and entrance fees).
management experiments are conducted on restoration and protection The number of attributes included in a choice experiment has to be
of biodiversity, including the fight against desertification. The park limited in order to minimize cognitive demands made on respondents,
covers a total area of two hundred and sixty-five (265) hectares from as well as for statistical reasons [28]. Indeed, according to Louviere et al.

Volume 8 • Issue 1 • 1000206 • Page 2 of 10 •

Citation: Traoré S, Salles J (2019) Analysing Trade-offs between Recreational Uses and Conservation Issues in the Bãngr-weoogo Urban Park in Ouagadougou
(Burkina Faso). J Biodivers Manage Forestry 8:1.

doi: 10.4172/2327-4417.1000206

[31], when the number of attributes included in the choice experiment According to the number of attributes and the levels they can take,
increases, the choices of the respondents are less consistent. The third 486 profiles (3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 6=486) were possible. To present profiles
part addresses some questions related to the motivations for visiting to the respondents in the questionnaire, we applied an efficient design
the park and activities; and the last section collects respondents’ socio- protocol, using Ngene 1.1.2. Ngene has a great flexibility and allows
demographic characteristics (through 13 questions). generating designs with any amount of choice situations, alternatives,
attributes and attributes’ levels, and blocks while maintaining attributes
Bãngr-weoogo Park hosts biodiversity exceptionally rich for
level balance. The problem with this design is that it requires beforehand
an urban park, and recreational activities can obviously impact it
parameters and the purpose of the assessment is the estimation of these
negatively. The numerous existing definitions for biodiversity make
parameters [40]. Thus, we started a pilot survey with orthogonal
its assessment much more complex [32,33]. Therefore, the definition
design (which is without beforehand parameters) that allowed us to
should be done in an intelligible manner for respondents, through
get first estimates of the parameters in order to create an efficient
the focus groups, we retained four (4) attributes for the description of
design. This first procedure resulted in 18 choice sets that we
biological diversity: the known species, the rare or endangered species
considered too large for respondents. Thus we set up the final 3
not yet known, the protection of habitats and species, and ecosystems
blocks of 6 choice sets (see an example of choice set in Table 2).
process [33]. Pearce showed that only a minority of people gives a
Each respondent is faced with one of these three blocks, and has
particular value to biological resources like species, habitat or ecosystem
finally six choice sets; each choice containing two alternative parks
services. In order to better define and present the biodiversity attribute,
and the current situation (status quo).
we examined studies that used biodiversity attribute [34]. Horne et al.
and Birol et al. defined it as the numbers of species and populations We conducted a questionnaire survey on visitors in order to obtain
within those species [15,35]. Carlsson et al. defined it as the number operational results for park management. The survey was conducted
of rare or endangered species [36, 37,22]. For Hanley et al. the type of on-site, in different places of the Bãngr-weoogo Park, for three weeks in
plants is of particular importance [26]. June 2013 with a random sampling so that all individuals (over 15 years)
Given the finding of Christie et al. with an additional literature who come past the survey point were asked for their willingness to take
review of options the question concern the attribute that should be part in the survey as they arrive. We used face-to-face interviews,
retained to represent biological diversity. during weekdays as well as weekends at different opening hours.
The total number of respondents was 500. This number appears
We could have defined the concept of biodiversity through rare or comparable to what is generally found in similar studies. The park
iconic species such as Christie et al. [33]. But the most important species is still visited by students and the characteristic that may change is
for conservation are not always known to the citizens, or they can on the number of visits. Given these informations, we do not think that
the contrary be so present in their lives that it is difficult for them to our data are out of date.
appraise their dependence. These two reasons tend to make it difficult
to evaluate by questionnaire, and these effects inevitably influence the Models
results. In addition, we were unable to identify iconic species (through
Morey and Hanley et al. showed that the value of leisure depends
the focus group) that could motivate the ecosystem protection. The
not only on its price (i.e. the consumer income), but also on its quality
most intelligible indicator of a loss of biological diversity due to outdoor
[41, 42]. The theory of the characteristic value of Lancaster states that
recreation and tourism is the reduction of the number of species and/or
the value provided by a product can be decomposed into the sum of the
of populations within those species [38-39]. Thus, we have chosen, as
value of its features taken separately Adamowicz et al. [43,44].
an attribute for biodiversity, the expected number of species of plants
and animals, and populations in these species over the next 5 years. U in = U ( Z i ; S n )
The number of visits to Bãngr-weoogo is currently estimated by Ui is the utility provided by alternative i to individual n, i ϵ C the
the managers of the park around 300,000 per year. It is important to set of alternatives, Zi, the attributes of i and Sn socio-demographic
notice that this number on certain periods of the year depending on characteristics of n.
the number of visits (between February and June). The increasing visits
number can make the park crowded, with more disturbances and other This theory was combined with the theory of random utility
negative impact (more garbage and erosion of nature, the decreasing of of Thurstone that states that it is not possible to identify all factors
wilderness feeling). On the other hand, it can be pleasant to meet other influencing preferences [45,46]. The utility can thus be separated into
people in the park, and this has the advantage of strengthening the a deterministic term (Vin) which depends on the preferences, and the
feeling of safety. Relaxing area is one of the most important recreation described effect on the alternative level, and a stochastic term ( that
facilities of urban parks. The increase in the number of visits creates takes into account the unobserved determinants [47].
crowding which could be reduced by developing more of such areas.
The threats related to the increase of these spaces are the loss of species
U=
in Vin + ε in
and the fear of the wilderness decrease. As noted above, recreational The utility provided by i can thus be written:
activities may represent a threat to biodiversity. One way to limit their
negative impact is to implement adequate restrictions. Currently, in =U in V ( Z i ; S n ) +  ( Z i ; S n )
Bãngr-weoogo, cycling and levies are allowed. Obviously, management
and development of the park entail costs, and visitors are currently The probability that an individual chooses the option i instead of j
paying an entrance fee of 100 Fcfa1/visit. other options is given by:

The discussions within the focus group resulted in a definition of | C ) Pr (Vin + ε in > V jn + ε jn , ∀j ∈ C , j ≠ i )
Pr ( i=
the meaningful variations of the attributes shown in Table 1. Data from the survey were analyzed using conditional logit (CL)
1
Fcfa: currency of francophone community of Africa (1 euro=655.957 Fcfa) and mixed logit (ML) also called Random Parameter Logit (RPL). The

Volume 8 • Issue 1 • 1000206 • Page 3 of 10 •

Citation: Traoré S, Salles J (2019) Analysing Trade-offs between Recreational Uses and Conservation Issues in the Bãngr-weoogo Urban Park in Ouagadougou
(Burkina Faso). J Biodivers Manage Forestry 8:1.

doi: 10.4172/2327-4417.1000206

Table 1: Attributes and attribute levels.

Attributes Levels

Decrease at 10%

1. Number of plants and animals species over the

next 5 years Stable*

Increase at 10%

Decrease 250,000
2. Expected number of visits Stable* 300,000
Increase 350,000
0
3. Relaxing areas 1*
2
Without restriction (cycling, motorized vehicles, levies, bird hunting and no forbidden zone access)

4. Recreational restrictions
Current situation* (cycling and levies)

Total restriction (no cycling, no motorized vehicles, no levies, no bird hunting)

5. Entrance fees (Fcfa) 0; 100*; 200; 300; 400; 500

*Current Situation

Table 2: Example of choice set.

Park 1 Park 2 Park 3 (current park)

Biodiversity

Expected number of visits 250,000 350,000 300,000

Relaxing areas 2 0 1

Recreational restrictions

Entrance fee 500 200 100

I prefer… (Please select one only)

CL is the model used for the analysis of data from the choice experiment The probability that an individual chooses the option i rather than
[35]. It considers that all preferences are homogenous and assumes that the option j is given by:
the error term follows a Gumbel distribution and is independently exp ( X 'in βi )
and identically distributed (IID). This law respects the assumption of Pin = ∫ J f (β |θ ) dβ,
independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) which is compulsory in ∑ j =1 exp ( X ' jn βi )
the random utility theory [26].
with f ( β | θ ) the distribution function of β .
The probability that the individual chooses option i instead of j
The evaluation of visitors’ preferences for different levels of
others is given by:
attributes through the marginal WTP is defined by:
exp (Vin ) exp ( β n' X in ) dx p
Pr (U=
in > U jn ) = β
wtpα =
− =
− a
∑ j∈C exp (V jn ) ∑ j∈Cexp ( β n' X jn ) dxα βp
with βα the parameter on the attribute α and βp the parameter on
The latent class model is an alternative to CL that takes into
entrance fees
account respondents’ preferences heterogeneity. According to some
authors, latent class logit underestimates the degree of heterogeneity With the effect coding data, the marginal WTP for the attributes
and the mixed logit (ML) model developed by McFadden and Train level of the basic alternative option can be calculated from the two WTP
is increasingly used to take into account preferences’ heterogeneity in of the attribute in question as a negative sum of these two values (see
discrete choice models. It solves the problem of IIA [48, 49]. In the RPL Juutinen et al.) [22]:
model, utility is given by the formula:
wtpbasic alternative =
− wtp1 − wtp2
( β ηn ) X in + ε in ,
U in =+ With wtp1, the WTP related to the reduction of the current level of
with ηn the standard deviation of the nth person compared to the the attribute, and wtp2, the WTP related to the increase of the current
average. level of the attribute.

Volume 8 • Issue 1 • 1000206 • Page 4 of 10 •

Citation: Traoré S, Salles J (2019) Analysing Trade-offs between Recreational Uses and Conservation Issues in the Bãngr-weoogo Urban Park in Ouagadougou
(Burkina Faso). J Biodivers Manage Forestry 8:1.

doi: 10.4172/2327-4417.1000206

Results quite different of that of the general population of Burkina Faso, but
the park is located in the heart of the capital, not far from universities.
In this section, we present successively the profile of the respondents, Regarding employment status, 78% of respondents were students or
the results of the economic estimates and analyze the preferences of the new graduated, followed by professionals (nurses, teachers…) who
visitors. represented 8% of the sample, and 2% were unemployed. The average
Respondents’ characteristics age was 24 years, with a maximum of 60. In order not to compel the
respondents to directly reveal their income, which can be difficult, they
We surveyed 500 visitors and among them, 174 respondents were proposed to place themselves in class.
consistently chose to maintain the current situation. 25 respondents
were removed from treatment. This choice was made according to Regarding the main activity in the park, 37% of respondents have
the follow-up question that asked respondents to give the reasons of come to picnic, 29% to study, 27% scenery and relaxation. Sporting
this choice. We selected the 149 questionnaires from the visitors who activities include 4.84% of respondents and come last. The sample
explained their choice by the fact that the current situation is really can be considered representative of the general park attendance: the
suitable for them, or that alternatives do not suit them. As for the 25 questionnaire was addressed randomly across the park and at different
questionnaires that were removed, the reasons cited by respondents opening hours, in working days and weekends. The high number
of students reflects the fact that the park is situated not far from the
were that it was not their responsibility to pay for the park, or it was not
university in the Zogona Distict mentioned on the map (Figure 1).
their concern to decide how the park should be managed. These were
considered protest responses. Estimation
The data base finally includes 475 respondents. Among them, there In this section, we discuss the direction of change without
are almost as many men as women, most of whom were nationals. 56% addressing the magnitude of the coefficients. The following section
of respondents had a high education level and 40% a secondary level addresses the central point of the paper: the assessment of preferences
of education. Only 0.2% of them were illiterate. This distribution is through the marginal willingness to pay (WTP).

Figure 1: Bãngr-weoogo urban park location in Ouagadougou.

Source: Geographical Institute of Burkina (2015)

Volume 8 • Issue 1 • 1000206 • Page 5 of 10 •

Citation: Traoré S, Salles J (2019) Analysing Trade-offs between Recreational Uses and Conservation Issues in the Bãngr-weoogo Urban Park in Ouagadougou
(Burkina Faso). J Biodivers Manage Forestry 8:1.

doi: 10.4172/2327-4417.1000206

It should be kept in mind that the conditional logit described above to calculate the WTP for all attribute levels and to analyze variations in
considers visitors’ preferences as homogeneous and thus gives estimates visitors’ welfare.
on average. All parameters from this model are significant at 1% risk
level, except the variable “total restriction” which is significant at 5% Welfare analysis
risk level. We used effect-coding data so that the alternative specific Table 4 allows the assessment of visitors’ preferences for different
constant (ASC) which is significant and negative, reflects the utility levels of attributes through the marginal WTP reported in the Table 5.
associated to the basic choice option per se, i.e. the factor not described The attribute for which the welfare improves significantly, is the
by our attributes (see Bech and Gyrd-Hansen) [50]. This shows that the increase of the biodiversity level. In addition, the increase of the number
status quo for all other attributes (attributes that are not considered in of visits has a significant and positive effect on welfare compared to
this study) is preferred on average. its current level. Moreover, the attribute which significantly reduces
Still considering the CL model, decreasing the biodiversity level, the welfare is the removal of recreational restrictions followed by the
the number of relaxing areas and the number of visits reduce the decrease in the level of biodiversity. In order to analyze the visitors’
probability of choosing an option and vice versa due to the negative sign welfare, we calculated their WTP for each attributes level and proposed
associated to their estimator. Suppression of recreational restrictions three management scenarios (the basic, the best and the worst) given
reduces this probability too. As expected, the higher the entrance fee, our results. Therefore, according to the basic scenario, the WTP for the
the less respondents choose an alternative option. current park is 2,020 Fcfa (about 3 Euros). Note that this value is not the
total value of the park. It has to be interpreted as an entrance fee. Some
Note that mixed logit analyses visitors’ preferences on average and components of the total value, such as option value or non-use values,
also allows capturing preferences’ heterogeneity. All parameters from are ignored in calculation [21]. The aim of this study is not to assess the
this model are significant at 1% risk level, except the variable “total total value of this park but capture and analyze the trade-offs between
restriction” that is not significant. We also used effect-coding data so certain characteristics of the park for management purpose.
that the alternative specific constant (ASC) which is also significant and
negative, reflects the utility associated to the basic choice option per Although the current park is evaluated positively, visitors are willing
se, i.e. the factor not described by our attributes [50]. This shows that to pay more for several improvements such as improving the level of
the status quo for all other attributes (attributes that are not considered biodiversity or increasing the expected number of visits. In quantitative
in this study) is preferred on average. Estimates from this model are terms, they are willing to pay about 2,760 Fcfa (4.2 Euros) that is 740
close to those of the conditional logit; they have the same signs. It also Fcfa more (about 1.2 Euros) than for the current level. Reciprocally,
confirms that visitors’ preferences are heterogeneous. In this model, actions that tend to reduce the level of biodiversity and/or to remove
a variable is treated “random” if its standard deviation coefficient is recreational restrictions are not encouraged.
significant at 10% risk level and the variables Biodiv+, Numvisitor— Focusing on the group-specific results of respondents through
and Numvisitor+ are not randomly distributed, as shown in the Table 3. conditional logit (Table 6), we calculated the average WTP for each
On average, visitors expressed a positive appreciation for the other group based on respondent’s characteristics and their reported number
attributes of the current park regardless of the studied attributes. This of visits per year and their main activities in the park. The results
is not the case for 19%2 of them according to the ASC. Table 4 allows parameter standard deviation)] where φ[χ] is the cumulative standard normal
2
The value of 19% is calculated as φ [- (mean parameter estimate/the random distribution.

Table 3: Respondents’ characteristics.

Min Max Mean Stand. D

Age (year) 15 60 23.43 5.88
Number of visits 1 99 16.66 20.18
Percentage
Male 52
Burkinabè 96.21
An environmental association member 87.16
Single 14.40
Education level
Non-literate 0.21
Literate people 2.53
Islamic school 0.42
Primary school 0.21
Secondary school 40.63
University 56
Occupation
Unemployed 2.32
Student and students 78.74
Liberal professions 6.10
Intermediate professions 8.21
Executives 4.21
Main reason for visit
Sport 4.84
Landscape/relaxation 26.95
Education/study outing 28.84
Picnic lunch 37.26
Others 2.10

Volume 8 • Issue 1 • 1000206 • Page 6 of 10 •

Citation: Traoré S, Salles J (2019) Analysing Trade-offs between Recreational Uses and Conservation Issues in the Bãngr-weoogo Urban Park in Ouagadougou
(Burkina Faso). J Biodivers Manage Forestry 8:1.

doi: 10.4172/2327-4417.1000206

Table 4: Results of the conditional logit and random parameter logit models.
Attributes and Conditional logit model Random parameter logit model
levelsa,b LL : -2177,15 LL : -2011,05
Coeff. p-value Coeff. p-value Coeff. Std. p-value
ASC -0.4225 0.000 -0.5377 0.000 0.6656 0.000
Biodiv- -0.4476 0.000 -0.6305 0.000 -0.3533 0.000
Biodiv+ 0.3455 0.000 0.4940 0.000 -0.0794 0.679
Numvisitor- -0.1471 0.010 -0.1944 0.010 -0.2092 0.128
Numvisitor+ 0.1604 0.004 0.2206 0.002 0.7545 0.634
Area- -0.3948 0.000 -0.5112 0.000 0.3213 0.007
Area + 0.1725 0.000 0.2603 0.000 -0.3440 0.005
Restriction- -0.4963 0.000 -0.8518 0.000 0.7807 0.000
Restriction + 0.0911 0.089 0.1265 0.147 0.7887 0.000
Payment -0.00056 0.010 -0.00068 0.009 - -
a
effect coded. bsuperscript — (+) indicates a reduction (increase) compared with the basic alternative.

Table 5: Willingness to pay (WTP) estimates and the welfare of selected scenarios of park management from CL.

WTP CL RPL Basic alternative Best scenario Worst scenario

ASC -749.96 -790.16 749.96 749.96 749.96
Biodiv- -794.46 -926.45 -794.46
Biodiv 181.26 200.57 181.26
Biodiv+ 613.20 725.88 613.20
Numvisitor- -261.12 -285.69 -261.12
Numvisitor -23.61 -38.50 -23.61
Numvisitor+ 284.73 324.19 284.73
Area- -700.76 -751.20 -700.76
Area 394.56 368.69 394.56 394.56
Area + 306.20 382.51
Restriction- -880.75 -1251.67 -880.75
Current restriction 718.99 1065.75 718.99 718.99
Restriction + 161.76 185.92
Total welfare 2021.16 2761.48 -1887.13

Table 6: Number of respondents, average WTP by respondents’ characteristics and activity.

Number
Grouping criteria ASC Bio+ Bio- Aire+ Aire- Visit+ Visit- Rest+ Rest—
Of resp.
Gender
Men 247 -760.10 686.75 -913.27 418.66 -818.87 374.56 -279.81 -721.64
Women 228 -723.94 534.62 -678.76 -568.77 -239.28 407.12 -1019.4
Age
>24 154 -443.88 828.22 -1203.47 338.94 -490.93 -322.24 -1077.41
≤24 327 -913.30 501.34 -559.02 297.46 -816.97 343.83 -225.46 -766.28
Number of visits
Visit≥16/year 152 -345.66 512.86 -633.36 255.06 -624.21 -249.29 246.12 -954.39
Visits<16/year 323 -1037.99 631.34 -868.51 306.37 -713.17 438.43 -794.25
Recreation activity
Walking and
153 -564.36 745.18 -1080.96 414.65 -503.97 -913.45
landscape
Picnic 168 -2204.86 788.24 -941.34 492.88 -2016.73 984.34 -1243.17
studies 178 -397.04 452.41 -532.99 -432.39 -328.98 229.68 -789.76

indicate that there are no significant differences between the groups While the visitors with a larger number of visits (number>16 visits/
since all the WTP have the same sign. According to the ASC, women year) do not care about the increase of the number of visits, those with
value the other characteristics of the park more than men. Also, they are smaller number of visits are willing to pay for it.
indifferent to the increase in the number of resting places and number Finally, considering the main activities in the park (Table 6), visitors
of visits. There is also no significant difference between the group of who come for studying purposes, do not state preferences for an increase
individuals who have more than the group average (age>24) and the in the number of resting place and visits. Those who come for picnics are
others. The only notable difference is that the younger ones prefer an not sensitive to the price. Otherwise, all parameters have the same sign with
increase in the number of visits while the older ones are indifferent. the other groups (those who come for studying, or walking and scenery).

Volume 8 • Issue 1 • 1000206 • Page 7 of 10 •

Citation: Traoré S, Salles J (2019) Analysing Trade-offs between Recreational Uses and Conservation Issues in the Bãngr-weoogo Urban Park in Ouagadougou
(Burkina Faso). J Biodivers Manage Forestry 8:1.

doi: 10.4172/2327-4417.1000206

Discussion An important feature is the expected number of visits in the park.

A massive increase in the number of visits would create congestion
In its present state, Bãngr-weoogo is valued positively by the and pressure on resources [55]. Visitors’ preference for this attribute
visitors and the park is considered to be currently well managed. This is rather unexpected. Visitors’ welfare increases with the number of
result was rather expected since the survey was targeted at visitors
visits and decreases when it declines. This result appears divergent with
and, for 89% of them, the park is considered either important or very
the study of Juutinen et al. and that of Jin et al. [22,56]. This could be
important. Although visitors appreciate the park as it is, this does not
explained by the fact that congestion is part of a psychological sensation
exclude positive WTP for certain improvements. However, we note
and visitors do not feel it currently. The pressure is also mitigated by
a low heterogeneity of preferences between the visitors of the park
the construction by the current manager of secondary tracks parallel
according to the mixed logit model.
to the old roads. It is equally important to note the interest in security,
The most notable result is that visitors are willing to pay for an contact and pro-social behaviours expressed by some visitors (for most
increase in the level of biodiversity compared to the current situation. of them, it is important to visit the park with friends or relatives, and
Indeed, visitors are sensitive to the level of biodiversity which appears to meet people there). This result is consistent with the finding of Shoji
to be the most likely attribute to improve their well-being if it increases and Yamaki concerning the reduction in the number of visitors by 50%
by 10% over the next 5 years. The presence of animals in the wild such [57]. The attractiveness of the park can be increased and visitors are in
as hartebeest, waterbuck, and antelope may explain the preferences of favor of an increase in the biodiversity level. Improving the biodiversity
visitors to biodiversity. 31% and 15% of visitors come respectively to in the Park thus appears as the best way to increase visitors’ welfare
the zoological park and the botanical garden, and 27% declare being since it is both a good strategy for conservation but also for the well-
attracted by the scenery. This suggests a tangible recognition of the being of visitors.
importance of biodiversity. This result is consistent with previous studies
Grünewald et al., Juutinen et al., Horne et al., Deng et al. [51,52,22,15]. Moreover, even if visitors prefer an increase in the number of areas
Carlsson et al. in a study focusing on wetland management [36], Le et of relaxation, when considering the mixed logit, the difference of WTP
al. in a study focusing on a national park showed that local population with the current level is insignificant. Thus, considering the conditional
welfare is greatly impacted by the biodiversity level [53]. How can logit, they prefer on average the current level. In fact, they do not all
the park manager do to increase or at least maintain the biodiversity pass through the recreation areas. The preference for the current
level? With the agreement of a scientific board, the park manager situation can be explained by the fact that only 37% of visitors
could increase the share of trees and shrubs that contribute to human say they are there for a picnic and the availability of many other
nutrition or are used in the traditional pharmacopoeia; as well as by landscape units in the park. If needs increase, recreation areas can
introducing endangered species of the area. A few threatened animal be created in less biodiversity areas and close to existing facilities,
species, or those with high attractiveness, but not dangerous for the so as to stem nuisances and limit the negative impact of recreational
human, could also be introduced. activities Kangas et al. [58].
Visitors’ preferences are almost homogenous for this characteristic. We also found that visitors’ preferences are not very heterogeneous
In fact, the degree of heterogeneity is null and 4% respectively for an according to group-specific WTP analysis (Table 6). Men and women
increase and a decrease of the biodiversity level. This situation can be have almost the same preferences; those with more than the average
explained by the education level of the respondents (university for 56% number of visits and those with fewer visits also. Note that there is no
and high school for 41%) and their attitude towards the environment. significant difference between those who are older than the mean of
Indeed, 83% consider nature to be very important, while 40% think that the visitors and other. The little difference that we can point out here,
its rate of degradation is very high. Furthermore, 67% of visitors regard beyond the amplitude of the values, is the insensitivity to the price of
the park as very important. visitors who come for a picnic. In fact, those who come for this activity
generally go to the resting place and use electrical outlets and other
We must point out the lack of correlation between recreational
facilities. For this, they pay in addition to the entrance fee a flat fee
restrictions and the level of biodiversity. Hunting affects only birds.
depending on the number of people in the group. This may explain
Thus, choosing to remove restrictions on hunting is not directly
their low sensitivity to entry fees.
inconsistent with an increase in the level of biodiversity that is
primarily related to vegetation. Generally, visitors appear opposed to Conclusion
the removal of recreational restrictions. As stated by their WTP, they
appear satisfied with the current level of restriction regardless of the Choice modelling can, to some extent, combine the benefits of
evaluation with a more comprehensive approach of the diversity of
model used. It is important to note here that the attribute that can
services provided by ecosystems. Many studies have focused on natural
significantly decrease the level of welfare is the removal of recreational
protected areas in developed countries, and biodiversity has often been
restrictions. This suggests that the security and conservation concerns
the main focus of many studies [59,60,22,35,21,15]. Through the use
exceed the recreational needs, hence the need for a minimum of
of choice modeling, we study the preferences of the visitors of Bãngr-
recreational restrictions. This remains consistent with what can be
weoogo for management options that involve several services related to
found in the literature Cetin and Sevik, Adamowicz et al. [54,44]. Since
this park. This study allowed us to identify the trade-offs between the
recreation and tourism are the main threats to species and exert pressure
park characteristics and different effects which can exist between several
on biodiversity management of recreation (number of visits and restriction
of them. Visitors’ WTP estimated by conditional logit and mixed logit
of activities) can be considered as a key to nature conservation in protected
has the same signs. The other characteristics of the park (according to
areas [38,18]. Regarding heterogeneity, 14% of visitors are in favor of the
ASC) are preferred at their current situation.
removal of recreational restrictions and this could be explained by the fact
that some young people, who only focus on the recreational aspect of the The most notable result is that visitors are willing to pay for an
park, have not integrated the interest of conservation. increase in the level of biodiversity, while the less expected results is

Volume 8 • Issue 1 • 1000206 • Page 8 of 10 •

Citation: Traoré S, Salles J (2019) Analysing Trade-offs between Recreational Uses and Conservation Issues in the Bãngr-weoogo Urban Park in Ouagadougou
(Burkina Faso). J Biodivers Manage Forestry 8:1.

doi: 10.4172/2327-4417.1000206

the fact that visitors are valuing positively an increase in the number of References
visitors of the park and negatively the removal of current recreational 1. Laurans Y, Rankovic A, Billé R, Pirard R, Mermet L (2013) Use of ecosystem
restrictions. It is therefore possible to better understand the tradeoffs services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature
between improvements in biodiversity or recreation. While improving blindspot. J Environ Manage 119 : 208-219.
biodiversity receives a WTP of 613 Fcfa (0.93 Euros) with the CL model, 2. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010) Ecosystem service
725 Fcfa (1.1 Euros) with the ML model, increasing relaxing area bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107 :
5242-5247.
receives 382 (0.58 Euros) Fcfa (that is not really different from the WTP
for the current level of relaxation areas), and visitors are opposed to the 3. Traoré, S (2019) Residential location choice in a developing country: What
removal of recreational restrictions. Visitors’ preferences seem divided matter? A choice experiment application in Burkina Faso. Forest Policy Eco
102: 1-9.
between ecological and recreational oriented management. These two
options, a priori divergent, thus appear to be reconciled in our case 4. Tu G, Abildtrup J, Garcia S (2016) Preferences for urban green spaces and
peri-urban forests: An analysis of stated residential choices. Landsc Urban Plan
study that concerns a city park in the context of a developing country. 148 : 120-131.
This study shows that the improvement of the welfare of visitors 5. Bolund P, Hunhammar S (1999) Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol Econ
requires an increase in the level of biodiversity which could at the same 29 : 293-301.
time increase the attractiveness and therefore the number of visits. 6. Elmqvist T, Setälä H, Handel SN, Van Der Ploeg S, Aronson J, et al. (2015)
The level of recreational restrictions could be maintained or increased Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Curr Opin Environ
but the development of any new resting area should be done in areas Sustain 14 : 101-108.
less rich in biodiversity potential and close to existing areas in order 7. Brander LM, Koetse MJ (2011) The value of urban open space: Meta-analyses
to preserve the conservation aspect that seems important for visitors. of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results. J Environ Manage 92 :
2763-2773.
However, the concentration can create congestion and the solution
may lie in a spatially differentiated management of the park that is large 8. Chiesura A (2004) The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc
Urban Plan 68 : 129-138.
enough to make this approach credible. Finally, more communications
on the importance and missions of the park would be necessary for the 9. Lupp G, Förster B, Kantelberg V, Markmann T, Naumann J, et al. (2016) Assessing
environmental awareness of visitors and citizens. the recreation value of urban woodland using the ecosystem service approach in
two forests in the Munich Metropolitan Region. Sustainability 8 : 1156.
In order to compare these results with studies held in developed 10. Cole DN (1996) Wilderness recreation in the United States-trends in use, users,
countries, we compared the part of the WTP in the GDP per capita. and impacts. Int J Wilderness 2 : 14-18.
The WTP for increasing biodiversity level was worth 1.5‰ of the GDP 11. Endreny T, Santagata R, Perna A, De Stefano C, Rallo RF, et al. (2017)
per capita of Burkina Faso for 2013 (about 711 US$). Juutinen et al. Implementing and managing urban forests: A much needed conservation strategy
in a similar study found a WTP of around 6 Euros for increasing the to increase ecosystem services and urban wellbeing. Ecol Model 360 : 328-335.
level of biodiversity in the Oulanka National Park in Finland [22]. It 12. Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Kolehmainen O (2003) Ecological and aesthetic
is consistent with what can be found in most studies and corresponds values in urban forest management. Urban For Urbain Green 1: 135-149.
to 0.18‰ of the country GDP per capita in PPP in the same period. 13. Sanesi G, Colangelo G, Lafortezza R, Calvo E, Davies C (2017) Urban green
The finding that visitors to the Bãngr-weoogo urban park would be infrastructure and urban forests: a case study of the Metropolitan Area of Milan.
Landsc Res 42 : 164-175.
willing to pay a larger share of GDP/Capita than those in rich countries
is rather unexpected, but should be subdued by the fact that household 14. Aasetre J, Gundersen V, Vistad OI, Holtrop EJ (2016) Recreational preferences
income in the urban area of Ouagadougou is significantly higher than along a naturalness-development continuum: Results from surveys in two
unequal urban forests in Europe. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 16 : 58-68.
the country average.
15. Horne P, Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2005) Multiple-use management of forest
In short, we can summarize our recommendations and remarks recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. For Ecol Manage 207 :
with regard to the park manager: 189-199.

16. Pouwels R, Sierdsema H, Henkens RJHG, van Eupen M (2017) Harmonizing

• The park can be managed in the same way; outdoor recreation and bird conservation targets in protected areas: Applying
available monitoring data to facilitate collaborative management at the regional
• The manager could increase the level of biodiversity with scale. J Environ Manage 198 : 248-255.
species that offer beautiful landscapes for example, which
17. Balfors B, Mörtberg U, Gontier M, Brokking P (2005) Impacts of region-wide
would attract many visitors and satisfy the preference for an urban development on biodiversity in strategic environmental assessment. J
increase in the number of visits; Environ Assess Policy Manag 7 : 229–246.

• The same level of restriction can be maintained; 18. Cole DN, Landres PB (1996) Threats to wilderness ecosystems: impacts and
research needs. Ecol Appl 6 : 168-184.
• The manager could create an additional relaxation area in less
19. Sikorska D, Sikorski P, Hopkins RJ (2017) High biodiversity of green infrastructure
sensitive areas; does not contribute to recreational ecosystem services. Sustainability 9 : 334.
• He could improve its communication to attract more visitors by 20. Puhakka R (2008) Increasing role of tourism in Finnish national parks. Fenn J
ensuring that the rules of biodiversity conservation are respected. Geogr 186 : 47-58.

21. Christie M, Hanley N, Hynes S (2007) Valuing enhancements to forest

Furthermore, it is important to remember the hypothetical nature recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods. J For
of this study, which focused on five (5) characteristics of the urban park; Econ 13 : 75-102.
the others remaining fixed. It is also clear that individuals take into 22. Juutinen A, Mitani Y, Mäntymaa E, Shoji Y, Siikamäki P, et al. (2011) Combining
account other characteristics of Bãngr-weoogo such as information ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice
boards or distance to their residential location. Limiting the sample to experiment application. Ecol Econ 70 : 1231-1239.
visitors is certainly debatable but they know more about the park and 23. Martinez-Alier J (2003) The environmentalism of the poor: A study of ecological
they are more concerned with its possible development. conflicts and valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, UK.

Volume 8 • Issue 1 • 1000206 • Page 9 of 10 •

Citation: Traoré S, Salles J (2019) Analysing Trade-offs between Recreational Uses and Conservation Issues in the Bãngr-weoogo Urban Park in Ouagadougou
(Burkina Faso). J Biodivers Manage Forestry 8:1.

doi: 10.4172/2327-4417.1000206

24. Parsons GR (2003) The travel cost model In: A primer on nonmarket valuation. 49. McFadden D, Train K (2000) Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Appl
Springer 269-329. Econom 15 : 447-470.

25. Shrestha RK, Seidl AF, Moraes, AS (2002) Value of recreational fishing in the 50. Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D (2005) Effects coding in discrete choice experiments.
Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis using count data models. Ecol Econ Health Econ 14 : 1079-1083.
42 : 289-299.
51. Grünewald C, Schleuning M, Böhning-Gaese K (2016) Biodiversity, scenery
26. Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz V (1998) Using choice experiments to value and infrastructure: Factors driving wildlife tourism in an African savannah
the environment. Environ Resour Econ 11 : 413-428. national park. Biol Conserv 201 : 60-68.

27. Carson RT, Czajkowski M (2012) The discrete choice experiment approach to 52. Deng J, King B, Bauer T (2002) Evaluating natural attractions for tourism. Ann
environmental contingent valuation, Handbook of choice modelling, Edward Tour Res 29 : 422-438.
Elgar Publishing, USA.
53. Le THT, Lee DK, Kim YS, Lee Y (2016) Public preferences for biodiversity
28. Bennett J, Blamey R (2001) The choice modelling approach to environmental conservation in Vietnam’s Tam Dao National Park. Forest Sci Technol 12 : 144-
valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, USA. 152.

29. Gnoumou A, Thiomboano A, Hahn-Hadjali K, Abadouabou B, Sarr M, et al. 54. Cetin M, Sevik H (2016) Evaluating the recreation potential of Ilgaz Mountain
(2008) Le Parc Urbain Bangr-Wéoogo : une aire de conservation de la diversité National Park in Turkey. Environ Monit Assess 188: 52.
floristique au coeur de la ville de Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Flora Veg
55. Clawson M, Knetsch JL(1969) Economics of outdoor recreation, In : Resources
Sudano-Sambesica 11 : 35-48.
for the Future (edtn 2). Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, London, UK.
30. Dana D (1990) Contribution à l’étude des Combretaceae de la forêt classée du
56. Jin Q, Hu H, Kavan P (2016) Factors influencing perceived crowding of tourists
barrage. Mémoire DEA. Univ Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
and sustainable tourism destination management. Sustainability 8 : 976.
31. Louviere JJ, Street D, Burgess L, Wasi N, Islam T, et al. (2008) Modeling the
57. Shoji Y, Yamaki K (2004) Visitor perceptions of the inscription on the world
choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment
heritage list: the use of stated choice methods. Finnish Forest Research
designs with extra preference information. J Choice Model 1 : 128-164. Institute, Finland.
32. Bartkowski B, Lienhoop N, Hansjürgens B (2015) Capturing the complexity 58. Kangas K, Sulkava P, Koivuniemi P, Tolvanen A, Siikamäki P (2007) What
of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological determines the area of impact around campsites? A case study in a Finnish
diversity. Ecol Econ 113 : 1-14. national park. For Snow Landsc Res 81 : 139-150.
33. Christie M, Hanley N, Warren J, Murphy K, Wright R, et al. (2006) Valuing the 59. Lanz B, Dietz S, Swanson T (2018) The expansion of modern agriculture and
diversity of biodiversity. Ecol Econ 58 : 304-317. global biodiversity decline: An integrated assessment. Ecol Econ 144 : 260-277.
34. Pearce DW (2001) The economic value of forest ecosystems. Ecosyst Heal 7 : 60. Alvey AA (2006) Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest.
284-296. Urban For Urban Green 5 : 195-201.
35. Birol E, Hanley N, Koundouri P, Kountouris Y (2009) Optimal management of
wetlands: Quantifying trade-offs between flood risks, recreation, and biodiversity
conservation. Water Resour Res 45 : 1-11.

36. Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Liljenstolpe C (2003) Valuing wetland attributes: an

application of choice experiments. Ecol Econ 47 : 95-103.

37. Jacobsen JB, Boiesen JH, Thorsen BJ, Strange N (2008) What’s in a name?
The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing
biodiversity. Environ Resour Econ 39 : 247-263.

38. Chape S, Spalding M, Jenkins M (2008) The world’s protected areas: status,
values and prospects in the 21st century. Univ de Castilla La Mancha, Spain.

39. Pickering CM, Hill W (2007) Impacts of recreation and tourism on plant
biodiversity and vegetation in protected areas in Australia. J Environ Manage
85 : 791-800.

40. Choice Metrics, 2012. Reference guide: The Cutting Edge in Experimental
Design 255 p.

41. Morey ER (1981) The demand for site-specific recreational activities: a

characteristics approach. J Environ Econ Manage 8 : 345-371.
Author Affiliation Top
42. Hanley N, Alvarez-Farizo B, Shaw WD (2003) Using economic instruments
Montpellier SupAgro, CEE-M and LAMETA, Univ. Montpellier, CNRS, INRA,
to manage access to rock-climbing sites in the Scottish Highlands. New Econ
SupAgro, 2 Place Viala - 34060 Montpellier, France
Outdoor Recreat, Edward Elgar Publishing, UK.

43. Lancaster KJ (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74 :132-
157.

44. Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J (1998) Stated preference Submit your next manuscript and get advantages of SciTechnol
approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and
contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 80 : 64-75.
submissions
™™ 80 Journals
45. Thurstone LL (1927) A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 34: 273-286. ™™ 21 Day rapid review process
™™ 3000 Editorial team
46. Baltas G, Doyle P (2001) Random utility models in marketing research : a ™™ 5 Million readers
survey. J Bus Res 51 : 115–125. ™™ More than 5000
™™ Quality and quick review processing through Editorial Manager System
47. Bonnieux F, Carpentier A (2007) Préférence pour le statu quo dans la méthode
des programmes : illustration à partir d ’ un problème de gestion forestière. Rev
Econ Polit 117 : 699-717. Submit your next manuscript at ● www.scitechnol.com/submission
48. Allenby GM, Rossi PE (1998) Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity. J
Econom 89 : 57-78.

Volume 8 • Issue 1 • 1000206 • Page 10 of 10 •

View publication stats