Journal of Arboriculture 1 5(10): October 1 989 247 URBANITIES WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR TREES AND FORESTS IN RECREATION AREAS by John F. Dwyer, Herbert W. Schroeder, Jordan J. Louviere, and Donald H. Anderson Abstract. A study of urbanites who use parks and forest preserves indicates that they are willing to pay substantial amounts to have trees and forests in recreation areas. In- dividuals were asked to choose from paired descriptions of hypothetical recreation areas that varied widely in attributes, including user fees. Analysis indicated the additional fees they would willingly pay for particular attributes, for example, an ad- ditional $1.60 per visit to have a site that was "mostly wooded, some open grassy areas under trees," rather than "mowed grass, very few trees anywhere." Variations in preferences and willingness to pay were identified for five distinct market segments. The results reaffirm the importance of trees and forests in recreation areas to urbanites, and identify variations in preferences. Resume. Une etude des citadins qui frequentent les parces et les espaces boises indique qu'ils sont prets a payer des sommes substantielles pour avoir des arbres et des espaces boises dans les sites de recreation. Les individus avaient a choisir entre des paires de sites de recreation hypothetiques dont les attributs variaient largement, incluant les frais d'utilisation. L'analyse a indique les frais additionnels qu'ils seraient prets a debourser pour certains attributs. A titre d'exemple, un montant supplemental de $1.60 par visite serait debourse pour avoir un site "largement boise, avec quelques espaces ouverts herbeux sous les arbres" plutot qu'une "surface gazonnee avec peu d'arbres". Les variations dans les preferences exprimees et la volunte de payer furent rattachees a cinq districts de marche. Les resultats reaffirment I'importance de la presence d'arbres et d'espaces boises dans les sites de recreation pour les citadins et identifient des variations dans les preferences. Public programs to enhance trees and forests in the urban environment are often scrutinized to determine what benefits the public is likely to receive from public expenditures. Many decision- makers would like to see the benefits of public in- vestments measured in dollars so they could be compared with the returns from other investments in the urban infrastructure (i.e., increased tax revenues from urban redevelopment, reduced street maintenance costs after reconstruction of roadbed). Studies of people's preferences for trees, forests, and associated greenspace in ur- ban environments show that people value these resources (1,6) but there is little direct evidence of what people are willing to pay for them. Never- theless, what people are willing to pay for the ex- periences provided by urban trees and forests can be estimated indirectly. A previous article showed that people are willing to pay substantial amounts to visit three Chicago area sites where trees and forests are major at- tractions (2). On average, users were willing to pay $4.54 for a visit to an arboretum, and $8.68 and $12.71 for visits to two conservatories. This approach, based on travel cost, is widely used for estimating the value of recreation sites, but it doesn't readily separate the value attributable to trees and forests from other site attributes, such as lake or stream, bike trail, or lack of vandalism. Methods To estimate how much people were willing to pay for particular attributes of recreation areas such as trees, forests, and lakes, as well as facilities such as picnic areas and bike trails, we contacted park and forest preserve users from northwest Chicago and its northwestern suburbs randomly from telephone directories. Those who agreed to participate were mailed a questionnaire that included written descriptions of 16 pairs of hypothetical park settings that differed in terms of 22 attributes found to be important in earlier work on park choice (4, 5,11). These attributes includ- ed vegetation, terrain, water features, recreation facilities, types of users, maintenance, travel time from home, and entry fees. The choices were designed to permit estimation of the importance of each attribute in choosing a site. Respondents were asked which one park in each pair they would prefer for an outdoor day-trip in the Chicago area. They were then asked whether they would realistically prefer to go to the park chosen or engage in some other outdoor activity instead. Out of 478 park users who were contacted by John F. Dwyer and Herbert W. Schroeder, North Central Forest Station, USDA Forest Service, 5801 N. Pulaski Road, Chicago, IL 60646. Jordan J. Louviere, Department of Marketing and Economic Analysis, University of Alberta, Edmonton. Donald H. Anderson, Department of Statistics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.