Irish Geography
Vol. 44, Nos. 23, JulyNovember 2011, 291302
Forestry in Ireland: An examination of individuals’ preferences and
attitudes towards the non-market benefits of forests
Peter Howleya*, Mary Ryanb and Cathal O. Donoghuea
a
Rural Economy Development Programme, Teagasc, Athenry, Galway, Ireland; bForestry
Development Unit, Teagasc, Athenry, Galway, Ireland
In addition to their importance for timber production, Ireland’s forests represent
a multi-faceted resource that enhances the environment, promotes biodiversity,
sequesters atmospheric carbon and facilitates recreational activity. Within this
context, the overall aim of this paper is to examine some of the non-market or
rather non-timber production related benefits of forests. Forestry investment
has been identified as a means of promoting economic development in rural areas.
The survey results presented here suggest that there are likely to be substantial
public good benefits to the promotion of the forestry sector. More specifically,
given the frequency of visits nationally, forest parks are shown to be a recreational
resource which is highly valued by the general public. Results suggest, however,
that individuals are not a homogeneous group with regard to their use of forest
parks as there are significant differences between likely users and non-users. In
terms of visual amenity, the general public rated forest landscape elements quite
highly relative to a variety of other landscape elements. For the most part, those
surveyed did not feel that too much of the country’s land area was currently in
forestry use. Finally, respondents held the biodiversity and carbon sequestration
benefits of forestry to be more important than benefits in terms of timber
production.
Keywords: afforestation; forest parks; forest landscapes; public good
Introduction
As the world’s population becomes more urbanised and as issues such as obesity and
mental health problems (such as stress) increase, access to nature and the potential
benefits of outdoor recreation have started to climb higher on the policy agenda (Bell
et al. 2009). Forests provide one of the main environments where individuals can
participate in outdoor recreation. While originally Irish state involvement in forestry
was principally concerned with timber production, over the last few decades policies
have also considered the provision of forests that are suitable for public access for
recreational activities. Increased wealth and disposable income has given rise to
increased car ownership and extended leisure time, enabling people to partake in a
host of outdoor recreation activities, with forests throughout the country being key
destinations for many of these (Fitzpatrick Associates 2005). This paper examines the
frequency of visits to forest parks by members of the general public, the effect of
spatial proximity to forest parks on the demand for access and whether distinct
cohorts of the population are more likely to visit forest parks. It is hoped that a better
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 0075-0778 print/ISSN 1939-4055 online
# 2011 Geographical Society of Ireland
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00750778.2011.643392
http://www.tandfonline.com
292 P. Howley et al.
understanding of the demand for access to forest parks, and of the individuals who
use this resource for recreational purposes, will provide guidance in terms of an
appropriate allocation of land resources and public funds.
Forest cover in Ireland occupies just over 10% (709,000 ha) of the total land area,
having started from a low base of 1% (70,000 ha) in 1920. This increase in forest
cover is the direct result of heavy subvention of afforestation by the EU and
successive Irish governments. Despite a considerable increase in the proportion of
agricultural land in forestry use, the Irish government has sought to bring about
further significant increases in the rate of afforestation. In 1996, the Irish government
published Growing for the Future, A Strategic Plan for the Development of the
Forestry Sector in Ireland. It set a target of achieving a productive forest area of 1.2
million ha by 2030, or 17% of the land area of the country (Nı́ Dhubháin et al. 2010).
Given that the government’s strategic plan for forestry envisages a significant
alteration in the character of the Irish landscape, it is important to ascertain the
general publics’ views regarding the visual amenity of forest landscapes. As such this
paper also examines individuals’ perceptions regarding the benefits of forests relative
to other landscape elements and determines individuals’ attitudes towards the current
level of land cover in forestry use. Finally, we outline what the general public perceives
to be the main benefits of having land in forestry use. In terms of structure, this paper
in the following section will first, by way of background, discuss the Irish
government’s forestry policy. This is followed with a discussion of the general
publics’ use of forest parks. Next, the survey data and methodology are outlined,
followed by a discussion of the empirical results. We conclude with an evaluation of
the survey’s main findings and their implications for the forestry sector.
Irish forestry policy
Forest cover in Ireland has increased from 1% of the total land area in 1920 to just
over 10% (709,000 ha) today. This increase in forest cover is the direct result of
successive government policies to promote the planting of forests from the early
1920s to the present day (Kearney 2001). Prior to the 1980s, private afforestation
played a very small part of the overall afforestation programme, accounting for
12,000 ha or 4% of the total area planted. Since 1980, a variety of incentives have
been introduced by the Irish government and the EU to encourage private
landowners to consider forestry as a worthwhile land-use investment and an
alternative to agricultural production systems. The result has been a dramatic
reversal in the relative importance of the state and the private forestry sector. Since
2001, virtually all afforestation is now carried out by private individuals or
institutions and private ownership of forest land has increased from 24% of the
total forest area in 1980 to 45% (326,000ha) in 2007 (Forest Service 2007). Various
subsidy payments, such as the Western Package Grant Scheme (1981), the Forest
Premium Scheme (1990), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Afforestation
Scheme (2003) and more recently, the Forest Environment Protection Scheme (first
piloted in 2007), have led to a much greater proportion of Ireland’s land cover being
converted into forestry use. In addition to changes in the level and structure of
payments, previous research has determined that changes in the forestry market
margin, market returns from competing agricultural alternatives as well as changes in
Irish Geography 293
the wider macroeconomy have also affected the rates of afforestation (Barrett and
Trace 1999, Clinch 1999, McCarthy et al. 2003, Beach et al. 2005).
Despite the significant increase in the private ownership of land in forestry use, the
Irish government, through the state-owned forestry company Coillte, still owns over 1
million acres of land which is mostly forested. In addition to the production of timber,
state forests serve as an important resource for outdoor recreation. This is because,
unlike many other European countries, Ireland has no ‘right to roam’ legislation
giving the public a general right to access privately owned land for recreational
purposes. In recent times, there has been considerable tension between outdoor
recreationalists and farmers in relation to public access to the countryside (Howley
et al. 2012). Therefore, by making over 440,000 ha of forest land available for use by
the general public, Coillte provides an important source of outdoor recreation. The
first forest park in the Republic of Ireland was opened in 1966 at Gougane Barra, Co.
Cork (see Plate 1 and Figure 1), prior to which entry into forest lands was prohibited.
Since then there has been a major expansion in the number of forest parks made
available for access by the general public, as forests have increasingly been seen as
having a number of public good benefits in addition to their role in timber
production. Coillte currently has 11 official designated forest parks (see Figure 1)
as well as a further 150 recreation sites distributed throughout the country.
Demand for access to forest parks
Public demand for access to forest parks has been increasing significantly in recent
years (Fitzpatrick Associates 2005). Clinch (1999) estimated that there were 8.5
million visits to Irish forests in 1999, while Fitzpatrick Associates (2005) estimated
that this figure had increased to 18 million visitors per year in 2005. Previous work
has also established that the public good benefits of Irish forestry have a significant
social and economic impact. For example, using both the travel cost method (TCM)
and the contingent valuation method (CVM), Nı́ Dhubháin et al. (1994) estimated
the value of recreational activities associated with forests at t15.9 million annually.
Clinch (1999) used a CVM approach to account for the willingness to pay for
landscape, wildlife and recreational benefits from Irish forests. Results indicated that
in 1999 the net present value of Irish forests amounted to £129 million. A more
recent report, also using the CVM, estimated the non-market value of forests at t97
million per year (Fitzpatrick Associates 2005).
It is now widely recognised that rurally based recreational activities such as use of
forest parks have the potential to deliver significant economic benefits to rural areas
through tourism-based revenue, and can be an important tool for rural and regional
development (Moore and Barthlow 1998, Lane 1999, Vaughan et al. 2000, Fáilte
Ireland 2005). In particular, forests are used extensively for the development of
walking routes and are increasingly seen by policymakers as a vital resource for the
development of tourism and recreational facilities. Furthermore, there have been
numerous reported positive health-related outcomes associated with outdoor
recreation (Gebel et al. 2007). A growing proportion of the population in western
societies is not physically active, with links between sedentary lifestyle and the
increased prevalence of obesity. Recent research has determined that environmental
changes such as the provision of walking trails and public outdoor recreational
294 P. Howley et al.
Plate 1. Forest workers building picnic tables and picnic site in the Republic’s first forest park
at Gougane Barra, Co. Cork. Photo courtesy of Coillte.
settings can increase the likelihood of more active behavioural choices (Sallis et al.
1998, Bauman et al. 2002, Sallis and Owen 2002).
Research design
A survey of 430 individuals living in Ireland was conducted between August 2010
and October 2010 by Ipsos MRBI. A quota-controlled sampling procedure was
Irish Geography 295
Figure 1. Coillte-designated forest parks.
followed to ensure that the survey was nationally representative for the population
aged 15 years and above, using quotas based on known population distribution
figures for age, sex and region of residence taken from the 2006 Irish National
Census of Population. Interviews were spread across different days of the week and
across different times of day to ensure all population sub-groups had an equal chance
of being interviewed. Pilot testing of the survey instrument was conducted prior to
the main survey. Along with expert judgement, the results from the pilot were used to
296 P. Howley et al.
refine the questions asked in the main survey. Survey respondents were asked a
number of questions in relation to their personal characteristics such as age, gender,
location, income, family status and involvement (either personally or via relatives) in
the agricultural sector. In addition, they were asked about their frequency of visits to
forest parks, and their attitudes to the environment, their opinions regarding forest
landscapes and their view as to the main benefits of having forests.
Results
Recreation and forest use
Table 1 illustrates the frequency of visits to forest parks for recreational purposes.
One striking result is the high frequency of visits to forest parks by the general
public. Sixteen percent of individuals visit at least once a week, and this figure rises
to 35% when individuals who visit at least once a month are included. Only 15% of
respondents have never visited a forest park for recreational purposes, while a further
16.5% have visited less than once a year. Therefore, these results show that forest
parks are a resource that is widely used by the general public. The following analysis
examines the factors which influence the probability of individuals using forests
parks for recreational purposes.
Logistic regression model-selection of variables
A binary logistic regression model was formulated to provide a deeper understanding
of the major factors influencing visits to forest parks (see Greene 1997, Long 1997
for a more detailed description of this type of estimation). The model utilised in this
analysis was developed to examine the effect of personal characteristics (such as age,
education, employment status and farming background), proximity to a forest park
and opinions on the visual amenity of forests on the likelihood of individuals visiting
a forest park. The dependent variable chosen for the analysis was how often
individuals visit forest parks. This variable was split into two categories,
Table 1. Forest park visits.
Everyday
A few times a week
About once a week
A few times a month
About once a month
34 times a year
About twice a year
About once a year
Less often than once a year
Never
Not sure
Total
Frequency
Valid per cent
Cumulative per cent
11
21
38
37
45
64
37
28
71
66
12
2.6
4.9
8.8
8.6
10.5
14.9
8.6
6.5
16.5
15.3
2.8
2.6
7.4
16.3
24.9
35.3
50.2
58.8
65.3
81.9
97.2
100
430
100
Irish Geography 297
namely those visit forest parks at least once a month and those who visit less often or
never visit.
For ease of use in the model it was necessary to convert the coding of each
variable into binary form. The odds ratios for the coefficients of the independent
variables allows us to see the likelihood that this variable category is associated with
visiting forest parks at least once a month rather than less often. The odds ratio is a
way of comparing whether the probability of a certain event is the same for two
groups. All the variables in the model were split into two categories with the
exception of travel distance which was split into three. The reference category is
respondents who have to travel for 45 minutes or more to get to a forest park. The
two travel dummies used in the model specification compare the effect of being 15
minutes or less from a forest park or being between 15 and 45 minutes from a forest
park on the probability of visiting at least once a month as compared to being more
than 45 minutes travel time away.
Model results
In relation to the background variables examined, three variables, namely education,
the presence of children and whether the individual has a farming background, were
all found to be statistically significant determinants of an individual’s probability of
visiting a forest park (see Table 2). Employment status which compared the effect of
being in full time employment as opposed to not being in full time employment was
not found to be a significant determinant affecting the probability of visiting a forest
park. Similarly age, which compared the effect of being over 44 relative to being
under 44, was not statistically significant. Individuals who have a third-level
education are over twice (2.2 times) as likely to visit forest parks at least once a
month as individuals who do not have a third-level education. It could be
hypothesised that individuals with a third-level education are more likely to be
aware of the potential health benefits of recreational activities in forest parks.
Individuals with children are 1.72 times more likely to visit forest parks as compared
to individuals with no children. The potential recreational or amenity benefits of
forest parks could be more important for households with children. Individuals with
a farming background were also relatively more likely to visit forest parks.
Individuals in the survey were also asked to indicate how highly they rated forest
Table 2. Logit model of visits to forest parks.
Travel time to forest park (115 minutes)**
Travel time to forest park (1545 minutes)**
Age (individuals over 44)
Education (third level or equivalent)**
Children (have at least one child)*
Employment (working full time)
Farming background*
Forest preference (rate forest landscapes very highly)**
*Statistically significant at 5% level.
**Statistically significant at 1% level.
Odds ratio
Std. Err.
20.68
6.39
1.09
2.28
1.72
0.75
1.61
2.50
7.83
2.26
0.26
0.59
0.42
0.19
0.15
0.68
298 P. Howley et al.
Table 3. How highly do you rate the following landscape elements?
Very
highly
Hedges and tree lines
Stone walls
Water bodies (rivers, streams,
etc)
Forests
Traditional farm buildings
Cultural elements (e.g. ring
forts and dolmen stones)
Urban settlements
Open grass covered fields
Hills/mountains
Presence of livestock (e.g.
cattle, sheep, etc)
Bogland
Wild vegetation
Rural housing
Highly Indifferent Dislike
Extremely
dislike
Do not
know
23.3
20.2
39.3
52.8
53.7
51.4
20.9
21.9
7.7
1.9
2.8
0.9
0
0.5
0
1.2
0.9
0.7
25.3
17
23.5
52.8
43.7
46.7
17.2
33.7
23.3
3.3
3.5
3
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.9
1.4
3
3
17.2
38.1
22.6
5.6
56.7
53
50.9
29.8
21.9
7.9
22.1
46
1.9
0.5
3
13
0.9
0.2
0.5
2.6
1.4
0.2
0.9
2.3
19.1
11.6
14.9
47
43.3
38.8
27
37.7
34.2
4.9
4.7
7.9
1.4
.7
1.9
.7
2.1
landscapes (see Table 3). In the binary logistic model, we compared individuals who
rate forest landscapes very highly with those who rate them less than very highly. As
expected, individuals who rate forest landscapes very highly were much more likely
(2.5 times) to visit forest parks for recreational purposes.
Of all the variables examined, proximity to forest parks was found to have the
strongest effect on the probability of visiting forest parks. Individuals who are within
a 15-minute drive from a forest park were just over 20 times more likely to visit one
for recreational purposes than individuals who are more than 45-minutes driving
distance away. Even individuals who are a 1545-minute drive away were still over 6
(6.38) times more likely to visit a forest park at least once a month than individuals
who are over 45 minutes away.
Forest landscape preferences
Given the changes to the landscape character of Ireland which are likely to take place
under the current government afforestation policy, it is important to ascertain
individuals’ visual assessment of the forest landscape. Respondents in the survey
were given a list of 13 landscape elements and asked to indicate on a five-point scale
(from 1 very highly to 5 extremely dislike) how highly they rate each of these. The
results are presented in Table 3. Of the landscape elements examined here, forests
were rated as the third highest by respondents, with 78% of individuals rating forests
either highly or very highly. The landscape element that received the highest rating
was for water bodies which were rated as highly or very highly by almost 91% of
respondents. This result is consistent with many landscape preference studies in
which water-related features are often the landscape element held as most desirable
by respondents (see Howley 2011). This was closely followed by hills/mountains, a
category which was rated either highly or very highly by 88% of respondents. By
Irish Geography 299
Table 4. Farmers have converted too much of their land to forestry.
Frequency
Per cent
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree strongly
Agree
Do not know
24
159
71
21
155
5.6
37
16.5
4.9
36
Total
430
100
contrast, urban settlements and bogland were the landscape elements least liked by
respondents.
To establish respondents’ views on the amount of land currently in forestry use,
respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the following
statement: ‘farmers have converted too much of their land to forestry’ (see Table 4).
Individuals largely disagreed with this statement. Only 21% of respondents reported
that they agreed or agreed strongly with this statement. On the other hand 42% either
disagreed or strongly disagreed, with a further 36% reporting that they did not know.
Therefore, despite the previously mentioned increase in afforestation levels to about
Table 5. Benefits of having forests.
Do
Neither
not
important nor
Very
Very
important Important unimportant Unimportant unimportant know
As a good place
to walk/hike
or engage in
other
recreational
activities
As a source of
timber
Helps to ensure
a broad
variety of
plants and
animals
Helps
counteract
climate
change by
taking carbon
dioxide out of
the
atmosphere
33.7
47.7
12.3
2.1
0.5
3.7
30.9
39.8
15.3
7.2
1.9
4.9
33.5
51.2
7.9
1.2
0.2
6
33.3
48.8
6.7
0.9
0.2
10
300 P. Howley et al.
10%, to a large extent respondents do not feel that too much of the land area is in
forestry use.
Finally respondents were given a table listing four benefits of forests and were
asked to indicate how important they perceived each of those benefits to be (see
Table 5). It is interesting to note that while timber production was held as being
either important or very important by a large proportion (70.7%) of individuals, this
was still less than the other reported benefits. The biodiversity benefits of having
forests (i.e. helps to ensure a broad variety of plants and animals) were held as the
most important by respondents with 84.7% rating this as either a very important or
important benefit. This was closely followed by the perceived role of forests in
counteracting climate change by taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere which
was held as either important or very important by 82.1% of respondents. Finally,
81.4% of respondents held the benefits in terms of being a good place to engage in
recreational activities as being either very important or important.
Conclusion
In addition to timber production, the provision of forest parks greatly improves the
local landscape, provides a wide variety of recreational activities for all ages, plays a
role in carbon sequestration and helps to create an attractive green landscape, which
encourages inward investment and tourism (Hynes and Cahill 2007). Due to rapid
social changes, outdoor recreation has gained increased societal importance in recent
decades. More specifically, factors such as greater affluence, urbanisation and
changing values have all operated to increase the demand for outdoor recreation.
The recreational aspect of the forestry sector is now recognised as an important
contributor for societal well-being and, with the decline in the importance of the
agricultural economy, nature tourism is often looked upon as a means for rural
development.
The analysis presented earlier suggests, given the frequency of visits by the
general public, that forest parks are a highly valued recreational resource. For
instance, 16% of individuals visit at least once a week, with just over half of
respondents in this nationally representative survey visiting at least 34 times a year.
Proximity to forest parks was the strongest determinant of individuals’ probability of
visiting forest parks. This suggests that forest parks located in densely populated
areas are, all things being equal, likely to generate much greater economic benefits
than those in less-populated areas. The results also demonstrate significant
differences between likely users and non-users of forest parks. Individuals with a
third-level education, individuals with children and those with a farming background
were found to be much more likely to visit forest parks for recreational purposes. In
addition, individuals who rated forest landscapes very highly were, as expected, much
more likely to visit forest parks for recreational purposes.
A variety of afforestation policies since the 1920s have resulted in an increase in
forest cover in Ireland, a trend which is set to continue as policymakers have signalled
the necessity of further increasing the amount of land cover in forestry use to support
a growing timber industry. The government’s aim to have 17% of the Irish land area
in forestry use by 2030 will perhaps result in the most significant alteration in the
character of the Irish landscape for many centuries (O’Leary et al. 2000). As such, it
is important to ascertain the general publics’ attitudes towards forest landscapes. On
Irish Geography 301
a positive note for the forestry sector, the general public had a positive attitude
towards forest landscapes, with 78% of individuals rating forests as either very highly
or highly. It remains to be seen, however, whether the general public will maintain
such a positive view if forests become a much more common landscape feature.
Furthermore, for the most part, the survey results presented here suggest that the
general public did not feel that too much of our land was currently in forestry use. It
is also interesting to note that while the main economic benefit of forests, namely
timber production, was held as being either important or very important by a large
proportion of individuals, this was still less than the other reported benefits namely
biodiversity, carbon sequestration and recreational activities such as walking or
hiking. Forestry investment has been identified as a means of promoting economic
development in rural areas. The results presented here also suggest that the general
public perceive there to be a range of public good benefits from the promotion of the
forestry sector. This includes recreational benefits from visiting forest parks, visual
amenity benefits from forest landscapes as well as facilitating biodiversity and
helping to counteract climate change by sequestering carbon from the earth’s
atmosphere.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful comments and constructive criticisms from the
editor and two anonymous referees which greatly improved this paper. The authors also wish
to thank Ordnance Survey Ireland for providing the digital base map for Figure 1 as well as
Niall Farrelly, Forestry Development Unit Teagasc for creating Figure 1.
References
Barrett, A. and Trace, F., 1999. The impact of agricultural and forestry subsidies on land prices
and land uses in Ireland. Policy Research Series No. 35. Dublin: The Economic and Social
Research Institute.
Bauman, A.E., et al., 2002. Toward a better understanding of the influences on physical
activity: the role of determinants, correlates, causal variables, mediators, moderators, and
confounders. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 514.
Beach, R.H., et al., 2005. Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management, a
review and synthesis. Forest Policy and Economics, 7, 261281.
Bell, S., et al., 2009. European forest recreation and tourism. London: Taylor and Francis.
Clinch, P., 1999. The economics of Irish forestry. Dublin: COFORD.
Dramstad, W.E., et al., 2006. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and mapbased indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 465474.
Fáilte Ireland, 2005. Special interest tourism plans (2005) [online]. Dublin: Fáilte Ireland.
Available from: http://www.failteireland.ie.
Fitzpatrick Associates, 2005. Economic value of trails and forest recreation in the Republic of
Ireland. Final Report. Dublin: Coillte and the National Trails Strategy Working Group of
the Irish Sports Council.
Forest Service, 2007. Forestry statistics. Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.
Gebel, K., Bauman, A.E., and Petticrew, M., 2007. The physical environment and physical
activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32 (5), 361369.
Greene, W.H., 1997. Econometric analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.
Howley, P., 2011. Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’ preferences towards
rural landscapes. Ecological Economics, 72, 161169.
Howley, P., et al., 2012. Exploring preferences towards the provision of farmland walking
trails: A supply and demand perspective. Land Use Policy, 29, 111118.
302 P. Howley et al.
Hynes, S. and Cahill, B., 2007. Valuing the benefits to the local community of supplying
recreational facilities in community owned forests: an application of the contingent
behaviour method. Small Scale Forestry, 6, 219231.
Kearney, B., 2001. A review of relevant studies concerning farm forestry trends and farmers’
attitudes to forestry. Dublin: COFORD and the National Council for Forest Research and
Development.
Lane, B., 1999. Trails and tourism: the missing link [online]. Available from: http://www.
americantrails.org/resources/economics/TourismUKecon.html [Accessed 1 July 2011].
Long, J.S., 1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousands
Oaks, CA: Sage.
McCarthy, S., Matthews, A., and Riordan, B., 2003. Economic determinants of private
afforestation in the Republic of Ireland. Land Use Policy, 20, 5159.
Moore, R. and Barthlow, K., 1998. Uses of long distance trails. Raleigh, North Carolina:
Report of Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management. North Carolina
State University, Raleigh.
Nı́ Dhubháin, A., et al., 1994. The socio-economic impacts of afforestation on rural
development. Final Report to CAMAR, European Community. Dublin: University College,
Dublin.
Nı́ Dhubháin, A., Maguire, K., and Farrelly, N., 2010. The harvesting behaviour of Irish
private forest owners. Forest Policy and Economics, 12, 513517.
O’Leary, T.N., McCormack, A.G., and Clinch, J.P., 2000. Afforestation in Ireland: regional
differences in attitude. Land Use Policy, 17, 3948.
Sallis, J.F., Bauman, A., and Pratt, M., 1998. Environmental and policy interventions to
promote physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 15, 379397.
Sallis, J.F. and Owen, N., 2002. Ecological models of health behavior. In: K. Glanz, F.M. Lewis
and B.K. Rimer, eds. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. 3rd
ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 462484.
Vaughan, D.R., Farr, H., and Slee, R.W., 2000. Economic benefits of visitor spending. Leisure
Studies, 19 (2), 95118.