Recreation and experience

To test the sensitivity of the results obtained based on the previous valuation functions and to provide an alternative when they are not usable, we rate the different cultural services separately in this section. We make a distinction between the experience value for recreationists and tourists, local residents and the non-use value.

Experience of recreationists and tourists

Description

One of the most important services of green open space is recreation and tourism. Here we consider visits of a maximum of one day as recreation and visits with at least one stay as tourism.

This manual describes various forms of recreation and tourism. In addition to specific nature-oriented activities (bird watching, nature study, etc.), it also includes so-called soft, informal recreation (walking and cycling) and specific activities such as playing, walking, mountain biking, swimming, boating, hunting and fishing.

There are various motives for a visit, namely relaxation and recovery, social motives (going out with family and friends) and to a lesser extent specifically nature-oriented (Goosen 2003). The main motive of activities such as hunting and fishing here is relaxation and not the acquisition of goods such as game and fish. In that case, the services would be classified under the provisioning services.

Required input data:

• scores for relief, cultural-historical quality, noise disturbance, horizon pollution (to determine the scores, see De Nocker, Verachtert et al. 2016)
• land use
• path density
• extent that paths are part of a network or route
• recreational facilities such as benches, information boards, visitor centres, etc.
• number of hikers, cyclists, people who arrive by pre-transport and tourists in the current area.

This data is all extracted from pre-calculated maps in the tool.

Method

The method included in the model is a simplification of the methodology developed by VITO (De Nocker, Verachtert et al. 2016). In the model, four types of recreation (= walking, cycling, recreation with pre-transport and visits by tourists) are calculated within Flanders and the number of visitors is allocated to the various green areas (connected nature and agriculture) in the project area. This takes into account the attractiveness of the landscape and the size of the green areas within the area and around it (supply), as well as the number of potential recreationists in the area (demand). By combining supply and demand, taking into account the attractiveness of other surrounding areas and certain distance relationships, an estimate is made of the supply of recreation in the area.

For more detailed information, reference is made to the report published by VITO (De Nocker, Verachtert et al. 2016).

Qualitative valuation

The qualitative valuation is a score based on the attractiveness and layout of the area for recreation.

A series of factors are taken into account that make the landscape more or less attractive for recreation. The calculation starts from a basic score based on land use, after which a series of positive (presence of water, cultural-historical value, biodiversity, etc.) and negative effects (horizon pollution, noise, etc.) are taken into account.

In addition, the layout of the area is also taken into account: How many paths are there? Are they signposted? Are there recreational facilities such as information boards, benches or a visitor centre?

The size of these effects was calculated by VITO based on its own research into preferences of recreationists and literature.

The following formula is used for the attractiveness of the landscape:

Basic score = % nature, forest and water x 0.1 + % agriculture x 0.05 + % urban x 0

Positive and negative effects:

Basic score x (0.1 if water + score for species diversity + score for landscape diversity + score for relief + score for cultural-historical value – score for horizon pollution – score for noise)
These scores can be read from input maps in the Nature Value Explorer web tool.

The score for the design of the landscape is calculated based on the current path density calculated by VITO and adjustments to the area (see table) and the facilities that have been or are being constructed there (see table).

Change in path density in future area and impact on score

Change in path density	Drops sharply (--)	Descends (-)	Same (0)	Increases (+)	Is increasing sharply (++)	% signposted or part of route network and paths that disappear or are added.
Number of paths	-0.2	-0.1	0	+0.1	+0.2	-0.1% Or +0.1%

Answer to the question to what extent recreational facilities are available

Answer	Score
None (if none of the facilities are indicated)	0
Limited (max 2 from list included, except visitor center)	0.1
Comprehensive (between 3 and 6 from list included, except visitor center)	0.3
Extensive (visitor center or >6 others)	0.5

These scores are calculated for both the current and future areas. An average of the attractiveness score and the facility score is made to determine the final qualitative rating.

Quantitative valuation

For the quantitative valuation, the total number of visits per year is estimated for an area.

This number of visits is estimated based on the following factors:

• The attractiveness and layout of the area
• Extent of the entire green area of which the selected area is a part.
• The population density and the average number of visits per person per type of recreation (see table)
• Other green areas in the surroundings.
• Distance of the population from the area.

Based on these characteristics, a redistribution model was used to distribute the number of visits across all green areas in Flanders. These maps are used in the Nature Value Explorer to estimate the current number of visitors. The future number of visitors is estimated proportionately based on changes in the attractiveness score and the layout.

Table: Average number of visits per resident per year by activity type

Activity type	Max Distance (km)	Visits/resident.year (Flanders)
Local walking	5	20
Cycling	20	10
Supralocal with pre-transport	100	5
Supralocal abroad	n/a	n/a
Total per resident		35
Tourists with overnight stay		2.1

Monetary valuation

The monetary valuation is derived by multiplying the number of estimated visits (quantification) by a value per visit. To estimate the social benefits of recreation, we look at the additional prosperity and well-being for the recreationist per visit.

The economic recreational value is an indicator of the benefits (welfare gains) that people experience from their visit to open green space, and they reflect the reasons for the visit (e.g. mental rest and relaxation, a physical activity and challenge, nature experience). This value has been determined based on an average estimate from (international) literature, taking into account the duration of a visit and the distance to the place of residence.

A broad set of studies is available on the welfare value of a visit to green spaces for recreational users. These studies broadly use two methods. In a first approach, the value that the recreationist attaches to a visit is derived from the costs and efforts he makes, in particular the “giving up” or “investment” of free time and any travel costs (travel costs method). In a second approach, people are asked how much they would be willing to pay to, for example, create a walking forest in their area. The exact value per area depends on a series of factors, including survey methodology, type of nature, type of recreation, duration of the visit, income level, etc.

For ECOPLAN we follow the approach from the UK NEA study (Bateman et al., 2014). The valuation of visits is based on a recent meta-analysis of 250 studies worldwide into the value of a visit to a forest or nature reserve (Sen, 2011). We also compare this approach with data from other studies and our own rough estimate based on travel costs and time spent. The average value for a visit is then €4.4/visit with a bandwidth between €3 and €9.

Because we want to make a difference between local (frequent, relatively short visits to open green space near your own home, both walking and cycling) and supra-local visits (longer visits, usually with pre-transport) and this was not taken into account in the above literature, we ourselves make an estimate based on the expected duration and distance of the visit.

We note that families in the area (up to +/- 1 km) of an accessible, green space, in addition to travel costs, also pay an additional price when renting or purchasing a home to live in the vicinity of such an area. To avoid the risk of double counting, this additional cost is not included or calculated separately. We do include the additional cost for homes with a view on green space separately because this is mainly about visual enjoyment and therefore goes beyond recreation (see below).

Assumptions

• When redeveloping the area, specific interventions can ensure that different green areas are connected with each other. In principle, this has an impact on the size of the green area and therefore on its attractiveness with regard to the area design. No recalculation of the green clusters is provided. The effects of specific interventions aimed at increasing or connecting green areas (nature and agriculture together) can therefore only be calculated to a limited extent.
• For walking, the population is evaluated up to a distance of 5 km from the project area. For supra-local recreation, this distance increases to a maximum distance of 100 km or up to the Flemish border. Recreation and tourism from the border areas (with the exception of Brussels) are not included.

Numbers to use

Table: key figures for valuation of a visit (€/visit)

Activity	Value (€ /visit )
Walking, hiking	€1.5
Cycling	€3
Supralocal visits with pre-transport	€12
Tourism	€12

Source: VITO's own assessment based on literature

Translation to an indicator

The number of visits to an area speaks for itself. We also translate this further into what this means for the recreation/catering sector in the area by translating the expenditure that recreationists make into the number of jobs that are created in the sector.

Table: Average expenditure per visit per recreation type.

Activity	Source	€/visit
Local walking	NPHK, 2009	3
Short bike rides	Prov. Antwerp	8
Day trips	Tourism Flanders	18.6
Stay-over tourism	Tourism Flanders	57
Weighted average		8.35

These expenditures result in 15.37 full-time equivalents (FTE) per million expenditures.

An example

For the example, we refer to the Dutch version of the manual.