









































Pa
ge

 
1



Pa
ge

 
13

6

American Journal of  Environmental
Economics (AJEE) 

Hiking Trails Economic and Social Impact: The case of  the Lebanon Mountain Trail 
Jad Abou Arrage1, Rita Abboud2, Omar Sakr3*

Volume 4 Issue 1, Year 2025
ISSN: 2833-7905 (Online)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajee.v4i1.4490
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Article Information ABSTRACT

Received: February 01, 2025

Accepted: March 07, 2025

Published: August 07, 2025

The Lebanon Mountain Trail (LMT), spanning 450 kilometers, plays a pivotal role in fostering 
sustainable tourism and enhancing local and rural economic development in Lebanon. In 
order to assess its role and impacts, this study evaluates the socio-economic contributions 
of  the LMT by employing Travel Cost (TC), Contingent Valuation (CV), and Cost-Benefit 
Analysis (CBA) methods. To ensure a comprehensive analysis, data were systematically 
collected through a combination of  surveys and key informant interviews. The results of  the 
study indicate that the LMT generates substantial annual economic value, ranging between 
17 million USD and 34 million USD. Moreover, the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) demonstrates 
the LMT’s strong return on investment, reaching 42.6 under conservative scenarios and 
85.2 under optimistic scenarios. These findings suggest that each dollar invested in the LMT 
yields substantial returns, underscoring its attractiveness as a sustainable investment. Beyond 
these aggregate economic contributions, the analysis further delineates direct and indirect 
economic effects, with the Type 1 multiplier highlighting significant re-spending effects within 
the local economy. However, while this study emphasizes the LMT’s crucial contributions to 
community development and tourism enhancement, it also acknowledges certain limitations, 
particularly in capturing induced economic effects. As a result, the study suggests avenues 
for future research to address these gaps and refine the economic assessment. In conclusion, 
these findings reinforce the necessity of  adopting sustainable management practices and 
implementing strategic policy interventions to further amplify the LMT’s positive role within 
Lebanon’s socio-economic and environmental frameworks.

Keywords

Contingent Valuation, Cost-Benefit 
Analysis, Economic Impact, 
Lebanon Mountain Trail, Travel 
Cost

1 Department of  Environmental Health, Faculty of  Health Sciences, American University of  Beirut, Lebanon
2 Lebanon Mountain Trail Association, Lebanon
3 Department of  Hospitality and Tourism, Faculty of  Business Administration and Economics, Notre Dame University, Louaize Lebanon
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: omarsakr7@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION 
The Lebanon Mountain Trail (LMT) serves as a 
prime hiking destination in Lebanon, promoting both 
sustainable tourism and heritage preservation. Stretching 
450 kilometers from Aandqet in the north to Marjaayoun 
in the south, the trail connects over 75 towns and villages, 
offering a unique platform for rural development and 
cultural exchange. Designed with a strong commitment 
to sustainability, the LMT champions responsible travel 
to mountain and rural areas, fostering local economic 
development and promoting environmental conservation 
through community-based tourism initiatives. More 
broadly, trail networks such as the LMT are widely 
recognized for their multifaceted socio-economic 
benefits. In addition to generating revenue through 
tourism, long-distance hiking trails play a crucial role 
in creating local employment, particularly within the 
tourism and hospitality sectors. At the same time, 
they encourage environmental stewardship and active 
community engagement, as evidenced by numerous 
studies (Brownson et al., 2000; Bennett et al., 2003; 
Bowker et al., 2004; Otto et al., 2007; Bedford County 
Commissioners & Fulton County Commissioners, 2014; 
Lake, 2014; McConnell et al., 2015; Kim & Miller, 2019; 
do Val Simardi Beraldo Souza et al., 2019; Lukoseviciute 
et al., 2022a). Given the recognized significance of  the 
LMT, a comprehensive study was conducted in 2024 to 
assess its socio-economic impact. More specifically, this 
study pursued three primary objectives: (1) to analyze trail 
visitor demographics and usage patterns, (2) to assess the 

trail’s direct and indirect economic contributions to local 
communities, and (3) to estimate the economic value of  
the trail using the Travel Cost (TC), Contingent Valuation 
(CV), and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) methods. To 
achieve these objectives, a mixed-methods approach 
was employed, seamlessly integrating quantitative data 
derived from user surveys and economic impact analyses 
with qualitative insights obtained through key informant 
interviews. By combining these methods, the study offers 
a robust and holistic assessment of  the LMT’s economic 
footprint and its broader implications for sustainable 
tourism and rural development in Lebanon.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Trails and Tourism
Trails play a fundamental role in tourism by facilitating 
access to natural and cultural heritage sites, fostering public 
engagement with the environment, and contributing 
to the advancement of  sustainable tourism practices. 
Rooted in ancient pathways, trails have historically served 
as essential connectors between communities, evolving 
into carefully managed routes designed to accommodate 
a variety of  recreational activities, including hiking, biking, 
and horseback riding (Lukoseviciute et al., 2022b; IUCN, 
2021). To ensure their effective design and management, 
trails are classified based on specific criteria, as outlined 
in Table 1. This classification framework not only helps 
optimize trail functionality for diverse user groups but 
also plays a crucial role in minimizing ecological impact 
and preserving the integrity of  natural landscapes.



Pa
ge

 
13

7

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 4(1) 136-149, 2025

Table 1: Classification of  Trails Based on Location and Intended Use
Category Description and Definition Tourism Activity
Urban Trails Trails located within or near urban areas, providing easy 

access to recreational activities for city dwellers (Abraham 
& Ramaswamy, 2013)

Popular for walking, jogging, and 
biking, attracting both residents and 
tourists.

Rural Trails Trails found in rural settings, often surrounded by natural 
landscapes (Bedford County Commissioners, 2014)

Attract tourists seeking nature 
experiences and rural charm.

Heritage Trails Trails that highlight historical, cultural, or archaeological 
sites (Bowker et al., 2004)

Attract tourists interested in history, 
culture, and educational tours.

Nature Trails Trails that run through natural landscapes, often within 
protected areas (Du Preez & Lee, 2016)

Popular among ecotourists, bird 
watchers, and nature enthusiasts.

Multi-Use Trails Trails designed for various activities such as walking, 
biking, and horseback riding (Scipione, 2014)

Frequented by a diverse group of  
users, enhancing their recreational 
appeal.

Water Trails Routes on navigable waterways used for activities like 
kayaking, canoeing, and boating (Pollock et al., 2012)

Attract tourists interested in water-
based recreation and scenic waterway 
views.

Mountain Trails Trails located in mountainous regions, offering challenging 
terrains and scenic vistas (Heintzman, 2020)

Popular among adventure tourists, 
hikers, and mountaineers.

Forest Trails Trails within forested areas, providing shaded paths and 
opportunities for wildlife observation (Cordell et al., 2021)

Attract nature lovers, bird watchers, 
and educational groups.

According to the classification system presented in 
Table 1, the Lebanon Mountain Trail (LMT) can be 
primarily categorized as a rural, nature, and mountain 
trail. Regardless of  their specific classification, trails 
provide a wide range of  valuable services that promote 
environmentally responsible recreation, including 
hiking, biking, and wildlife observation. As a result, 
these activities not only enhance visitor experiences but 
also contribute to both physical and mental well-being 
(Brownson et al., 2000; Bennett et al., 2003; Otto et al., 
2007; Bedford County Commissioners & Fulton County 
Commissioners, 2014; Lake, 2014; Kim & Miller, 2019). 
From an economic standpoint, trails play a significant 
role in stimulating local economies by generating 
tourism-related employment and fostering diverse rural 
tourism activities, which, in turn, drive business growth 
(McConnell et al., 2015). Moreover, trail tourism has a 
considerable impact on local expenditure, particularly 
in sectors such as accommodations, food and beverage, 
guiding services, and retail. This increased spending not 
only fosters the development of  local enterprises but also 
strengthens overall community well-being (Bowker et al., 
2004; Pollock et al., 2012; Du Preez & Lee, 2016). Given 
these substantial economic contributions, conducting 
economic analyses of  trail-related tourism is essential for 
accurately assessing its impacts and evaluating its benefits. 
Furthermore, such analyses are crucial for informing 
strategic planning and decision-making, ultimately shaping 
policies that support both sustainability and economic 
resilience in tourism destinations (Lawson, 2022).

Economic Valuation of  Trails
While trail-related tourism serves as a significant driver 
of  economic growth, standardized methodologies 
for accurately measuring its economic impact remain 
underdeveloped. One of  the key challenges in this 
regard is that trails attract a diverse range of  users, each 
with varying preferences for accommodations, guiding 
services, and trip durations. As a result, this diversity 
leads to considerable variation in spending patterns, 
making it difficult to establish a uniform approach to 
economic assessment. Nevertheless, these differences 
highlight the crucial role of  visitor expenditures in 
supporting local job creation and sustaining businesses 
both within and beyond established trail networks 
(Bowker et al., 2004; Pollock et al., 2012; Du Preez & Lee, 
2016). Given the complexity of  trail-related economic 
activity, a comprehensive understanding of  its broader 
contributions is essential for robust economic assessment 
(do Val Simardi Beraldo Souza et al., 2019). Accordingly, 
reliable economic data serve as a fundamental tool in 
guiding informed decision-making processes related to 
both trail development and environmental protection 
(Lawson, 2022). To ensure a holistic evaluation, the 
Total Economic Value (TEV) framework is particularly 
instrumental, as it encompasses both use and non-use 
values of  trails. Within this framework, use values include 
direct, indirect, and option values, while non-use values 
encompass bequest and existence values (Moran, 2005). 
The specific methodologies employed for estimating 
these values are presented in Figure 1.



Pa
ge

 
13

8

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 4(1) 136-149, 2025

Figure 1: Components of  Total Economic Value and Associated Valuation Methods

To comprehensively assess the economic contributions 
of  the LMT, this study adopts the Total Economic 
Value (TEV) framework, integrating two distinct 
methodologies: the Travel Cost Method (TCM) and the 
Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). Specifically, the 
TCM is employed to estimate use values by analyzing 
visitor travel expenses along the LMT, while the CVM 
is utilized to assess non-use values within Lebanese 
society, particularly in terms of  willingness to pay for 
trail preservation. The selection of  these methods is 
justified by several key factors. First, their accessibility 

to data, particularly in data-limited contexts such as 
Lebanon, enhances their applicability. Additionally, 
both approaches have been widely recognized for their 
effectiveness in capturing both the direct and indirect 
economic impacts of  recreational trails. Beyond these 
primary valuation methods, this study also incorporates 
Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) to rigorously evaluate the 
economic feasibility of  the LMT, thereby providing a 
more comprehensive assessment of  its overall benefits 
(Table 2).

Table 2: Overview of  Economic Impact Assessment Tools

Assessment 
Methods

Type Application and Strengths Data Needs References

Travel Cost 
Valuation (TCM)

Revealed 
Preference

Assesses economic impact 
through visitor spending 
(e.g., travel, accommodation), 
reflecting actual visitor 
behavior and expenditure.

Detailed visitor data 
on travel, costs, and 
behavior

(Bowker et al., 2004; 
IUCN, 2007; Du 
Preez & Lee, 2016; 
Lukoseviciute et al., 
2022b)

Contingent 
Valuation (CV)

Stated 
preference

Measures willingness to pay 
for environmental goods or 
services. Effective for non-
market goods, assesses non-
use values.

Survey data on 
willingness to pay

(Baral et al., 2007)

Cost-Benefit 
Analysis (CBA)

Additional 
approach

Evaluates costs and benefits 
of  projects, providing  a clear 
numeric representation of  
project feasibility.

Cost and benefit 
data on projects

(Hans et al., 2005; 
Bowker et al., 2007; 
Otto et al., 2007; 
McDonald, 2015)

Economic Impact of  Trails
Economic impact analysis serves as a fundamental tool 
for understanding the influence of  recreational trails on 
local, regional, and even national economies. By providing 
a detailed assessment of  economic contributions, 
such analyses enable local managers to prioritize 

investment areas and promote sustainable development 
(Lukoseviciute et al., 2020). More specifically, by examining 
visitor spending patterns, economic impact assessments 
effectively capture changes in income, employment, and 
overall economic output within a given region (Çela et al., 
2009; Pollock et al., 2012; Maria Raya et al., 2018; State, 



Pa
ge

 
13

9

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 4(1) 136-149, 2025

2019). In addition to quantifying economic contributions, 
these analyses also identify key areas where trail-related 
activities generate substantial economic value. As a result, 
they offer valuable insights that support evidence-based 
policy formulation and strategic management decisions. 
Furthermore, the economic effects of  trails are typically 
categorized into three distinct types: direct, indirect, and 
induced effects, as illustrated in Figure 2. Ecotourism 
significantly amplifies these impacts, which recreational 
trails effectively facilitate. It possesses immense potential 
for poverty alleviation, serving as a leading source of  

economic growth, job creation, and income diversification 
in developing regions. Ecotourism sites become a 
major source of  income for local people through direct 
employment as managers, guides, and service providers, 
as well as through the sale of  local goods and services. 
This directly aligns with the direct, indirect, and induced 
effects of  trail-related tourism, where visitor spending at 
local businesses, procurement of  supplies, and subsequent 
household spending all contribute to economic growth 
(Khan, 2022).

Figure 2: A representation of  Direct, Indirect and Induced Impacts

Direct effects represent the most immediate economic 
benefits arising from consumer spending on goods 
and services directly associated with trail use. These 
expenditures typically include accommodations, food, 
guiding services, and recreational gear (Çela et al., 2009; 
Lukoseviciute et al., 2020). Such effects are particularly 
evident in business revenue generated through tourist 
expenditures (Lukoseviciute et al., 2022b), as well as in 
the initial round of  spending at local businesses, such as 
restaurants and retail stores located near the trail (Camoin 
Associates, 2021; Baronak et al., 2022). In addition 
to these direct benefits, trails also generate indirect 
economic effects, which stem from the secondary 
economic activity initiated when trail-related businesses 
procure supplies and services from local vendors. 
For instance, businesses catering to trail users often 
stimulate local supply chains by increasing demand for 
raw materials, employment, and production (McDonald, 
2015; Camoin Associates, 2021). As a result, regional 
economic output expands, as evidenced by increased 
supplier purchases to accommodate growing consumer 
demand (Çela et al., 2009; Scipione, 2014). Beyond direct 
and indirect effects, induced effects further amplify the 
economic significance of  trails. These effects emerge 
from changes in household income generated through 

trail-related employment and spending. More specifically, 
they capture how wages earned by employees in directly 
and indirectly affected businesses are subsequently re-
spent within the local economy, generating ripple effects 
across multiple industries (McConnell et al., 2015; State, 
2019). Consequently, these consumption-driven impacts 
are essential for understanding the broader economic 
importance of  recreational trails (Baronak et al., 2022; 
Lukoseviciute et al., 2022a). Taken together, these 
findings underscore the multifaceted economic value 
of  recreational trails. To further conceptualize these 
economic interactions, the multiplier effect—originally 
introduced by John Maynard Keynes—provides a 
valuable framework for analyzing the circulation of  
external funds within a region, particularly in tourism-
driven economies (Lukoseviciute et al., 2022b). Since the 
1990s, the income multiplier has been widely utilized to 
guide policy decisions by assessing various economic 
impacts, including gross output, income, value added, and 
employment (Archer & Fletcher, 1996; Hsu, 2019; Tafel 
& Szolnoki, 2020). Specifically, Type 1 Multipliers capture 
both direct and indirect effects, while Type 2 Multipliers 
extend the analysis to include induced effects (Sacks et al., 
2002; Lukoseviciute et al., 2022a). Given the complexity 
of  modern economies, formal economic models are 



Pa
ge

 
14

0

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 4(1) 136-149, 2025

essential for conducting precise analyses, as reliance on 
a single multiplier may provide an incomplete assessment 
of  economic impact (Morgan, 2010).

Economic Impact Assessment 
Economic impact assessments serve as essential tools for 
evaluating the influence of  tourism on local economies. 
To achieve this, various modeling approaches have been 
developed, including the Input-Output (I-O) model, the 
Keynesian-type model, and the Ad hoc model (Hsu, 2019; 
Lukoseviciute et al., 2022b). Notably, these models differ 
considerably in terms of  data requirements, spatial scale, 
and analytical costs (Table 3). Among these approaches, 
the I-O and Keynesian models are widely utilized due 
to their capacity to capture complex economic linkages. 

However, in data-limited contexts, the Ad hoc model is 
often preferred for its relative simplicity and targeted 
approach to analyzing tourism-related economic impacts. 
More specifically, the Ad hoc model estimates both direct 
and indirect economic effects through structured surveys 
of  visitors, businesses, and residents. This methodology 
proves particularly valuable in assessing nature-based 
tourism in rural areas, where conventional economic data 
may be scarce (Archer & Owen, 1971; Lukoseviciute et 
al., 2022b). Given these advantages, the present study 
adopts the Ad hoc methodology, as it offers a practical 
and effective means of  capturing the economic impacts 
of  recreational trails, particularly in regions where data 
availability is constrained.

Table 3: The comparison of  the main different theoretical economic impact assessment models

Criteria I-O Model Keynesian- Type Model Ad hoc Model
Definition Estimates regional economic 

changes and multiplier effects 
through direct, indirect, and 
induced impacts (Bowker et al., 
2007; Çela et al., 2009).

Assesses tourism 
expenditure impacts by 
comparing spending to 
economic leakages (Archer, 
1977; Dwyer et al., 2010).

Estimates tourism 
expenditure impacts using 
simplified formulas and 
local surveys (Archer & 
Owen, 1971; Hsu, 2019).

Data Requirements I-O table Employment, income 
or output data, tourists’ 
expenditure, data on 
taxes, direct and indirect 
multipliers for all tourism 
economic sectors.

Employment, income 
or output data, tourists’ 
expenditure residents’ 
income and local 
expenditure.

Spatial scale Up to spatial scale of  available 
I-O table

No Limit No Limit

Operational cost High Low Medium
Time required for 
analysis 

It is not time-consuming unless 
an I-O table or adequate data is 
unavailable.

It is time-consuming to 
collect all required data

It is time-consuming to 
collect all required data

The magnitude of  
multiplier  

I-O Multiplier > Keynesian Multiplier > Ad hoc Multiplier

Economic sectors 
covered 

All economic sectors Tourism Sector Tourism Sector

MATERIALS AND METHODS
The development of  an economic assessment tool 
for trails, specifically applied to selected sections of  
the Lebanon Mountain Trail (LMT), adopts a multi-
phase approach that acknowledges the multi-sectoral 
nature of  economic impact analysis. In this context, the 
methodology employed in this study comprises four 
key steps: (1) Desk Review, (2) Choice of  Economic 
Impact Assessment Methods, (3) Data Collection, and (4) 
Quantitative Analysis.

Desk Review
The desk review consisted of  a structured Systematic 
Literature Review (SLR), a rigorous method designed to 
minimize bias and ensure comprehensive data collection 
on the economic impact and overall value of  trails. 
Through this process, the SLR provided an in-depth 

analysis of  advanced economic impact studies focused 
on recreational and nature trails, thereby ensuring both 
objectivity and thoroughness (Lukoseviciute et al., 
2022b). To achieve this, relevant articles on a range of  
topics, including recreational, nature, and hiking trails, 
ecotourism, socio-economic impact, ecosystem services 
valuation, and pertinent case studies, were systematically 
gathered. Subsequently, the collected data was then cross-
referenced to identify information specifically applicable 
to the context of  Lebanon and the LMT. 

Economic Assessment Methods
The second phase of  this study involved the careful 
selection of  appropriate economic assessment methods 
to effectively quantify the economic value of  hiking trails. 
In this context, drawing upon the existing literature and 
carefully considering the specific context of  nature-based 



Pa
ge

 
14

1

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 4(1) 136-149, 2025

tourism in rural areas, the Ad hoc model was chosen. 
Moreover, this model was implemented in conjunction 
with two primary economic valuation techniques: Travel 
Cost Valuation (TC) and Contingent Valuation (CV), 
as well as Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA). These methods 
were selected based on their methodological accuracy, 
close alignment with the study objectives, and suitability 
for contexts characterized by limited data availability. 
Consequently, this second step focused on both the choice 
of  economic assessment methods and the development 
of  specific tools designed to capture the economic value 
of  hiking trails (Lukoseviciute et al., 2022b).
The Ad hoc model is employed to estimate both the direct 
and indirect economic impacts of  trail-related tourism. 
This estimation is achieved through surveys administered 
to key stakeholders, encompassing trail visitors, local 
businesses, and residents. By calculating income multipliers 
derived from changes in tourist expenditure, the Ad hoc 
model provides a robust and practical framework for 
assessing economic impacts within rural, nature-based 
tourism settings. Its straightforward approach, coupled 
with its capacity to yield meaningful results despite 
limited data availability, renders it an optimal choice for 
evaluating tourism impacts in regions characterized by 
constrained statistical resources (Archer & Owen, 1971; 
Lukoseviciute et al., 2022b). 
The Travel Cost (TC) valuation method plays a pivotal 
role in evaluating the economic impact of  recreational 
activities, particularly those that do not involve direct 
market transactions. More specifically, this method 
estimates the cost per trip based on a range of  factors, 
including travel distance, transportation costs, and other 
expenditures incurred by visitors while using the trail 
(Bowker et al., 2004; Du Preez & Lee, 2016; do Val Simardi 
Beraldo Souza et al., 2019; Lukoseviciute et al., 2022b). 
Fundamentally, the TC method operates on the premise 
that the cost of  visiting a recreational site can serve as 
a reliable proxy for the value that visitors place on the 
experience. As a result, this method was selected for its 
capacity to generate empirical, visitor-driven data on trail-
related expenditures, thereby offering a robust approach 
to quantifying the economic value of  recreational 
activities in contexts where traditional market-based data 
is unavailable. The TC is calculated as follows:
Travel Cost (TC) = Transportation Cost (TrC) + Total 
Expenses (TE)  per Trip              ....(1)
Where transportation cost is defined as the sum of  travel 
distance and travel time, while total expenses encompass 
all expenditures incurred along the trail. These include 
costs for local guides, food and beverage consumption, 
purchases of  local products, entrance fees to museums 
and nature reserves, equipment rentals, and transportation 
between trail villages and sections.
Complementing the TC method, Contingent Valuation 
(CV) is an established economic valuation method 
utilized to assess individuals’ Willingness to Pay (WTP) 
for environmental goods or services. This method 
involves directly eliciting participants’ WTP for specific 

trail services or contributions to conservation efforts 
(FAO, 2000; Bennett et al., 2003; Champ et al., 2017). 
Even in scenarios where no direct expenditures occur 
during outdoor recreation, natural resources retain 
intrinsic value. Accordingly, the CV method effectively 
captures both actual consumer spending and surplus 
value—representing what individuals are willing to pay 
for recreational opportunities—and evaluates WTP for 
non-market goods. These non-market goods encompass 
recreational experiences and passive use values, such as 
existence, option, and bequest values (Bennett et al., 2003; 
Otto et al., 2007; Haefele et al., 2016). Importantly, the 
CV method is particularly effective in estimating values in 
contexts where markets or readily available substitutes do 
not exist, as it accounts for existence, option, indirect use, 
and non-use values. WTP reflects the maximum amount 
individuals would pay rather than forgo an increase in 
a specific good or service, thereby encompassing both 
direct use and passive use values (Bennett et al., 2003; 
Baral et al., 2007; Otto et al., 2007; Haefele et al., 2016). 
The CV is calculated as follows:
WTP = Mean WTP for Voluntary Access Fees + Mean 
WTP for Donations to Protect the Trail             ....(2)
Finally, Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) serves as a 
systematic approach for estimating the relative strengths 
and weaknesses of  various alternatives. By quantifying 
the benefits and costs associated with each option, 
BCA provides a solid foundation for making informed 
resource allocation decisions. Notably, this method is 
widely applied to identify the most economically efficient 
alternative, incorporating not only direct and indirect 
economic impacts but also environmental and social 
benefits (Hans et al., 2005; Bowker et al., 2007; Otto et 
al., 2007; McDonald, 2015). The equation for BCA is as 
follows:
Benefit-Cost Ratio = (Total Benefits (B))/(Total Costs 
(C))                    ....(3)
In this equation, B represents the monetary and non-
monetary benefits derived from the trail, or its economic 
value, while C encompasses all costs related to trail 
management, maintenance, and promotions. In this 
study, BCA is employed to evaluate the overall economic 
efficiency of  the LMT. Specifically, it assesses direct, 
indirect, and socio-economic impacts to inform decisions 
pertaining to LMT management and conservation. This 
method was chosen for its demonstrated ability to provide 
a comprehensive evaluation of  the LMT’s economic 
efficiency. By rigorously comparing benefits and costs, 
BCA ensures that resources are allocated in a manner that 
maximizes both economic and societal gains.

Data Collection and Quantitative Analysis
The final steps in the methodology involve a structured 
approach to fieldwork and data collection, utilizing tools 
specifically tailored to the context of  Lebanon and the 
selected sections of  the LMT. Although international 
studies provide valuable insights into the economic impact 
of  trails (Casey et al., 1995; Pollock et al., 2012; Scipione, 



Pa
ge

 
14

2

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 4(1) 136-149, 2025

2014), there remains a notable scarcity of  data specific to 
Lebanon. To bridge this critical gap, the study employs 
a mixed-methods approach, combining surveys and key 
informant interviews with a diverse range of  stakeholders, 
including trail users, tour organizers, and local service 

providers. By integrating these multiple perspectives, the 
study ensures a comprehensive and contextually relevant 
economic assessment of  the LMT. The study design 
flowchart, which outlines the methodology and data 
collection process, is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3: The Study Design Flowchart

Surveys
In response to the absence of  prior studies on the 
LMT’s economic impact, this study adopted a data-
driven methodology. Given that traditional economic 
models typically rely on inputs such as annual family 
income, they were deemed unsuitable due to these data 
gaps. As an alternative, detailed surveys and interviews 
were employed to gather context-specific data, despite 
their time-intensive nature. To ensure a comprehensive 
assessment, the methodology involved the design and 
administration of  two distinct online surveys targeting 
different stakeholder groups. First, a survey completed 
by 200 trail users in March 2024 collected data useful 
for the calculation of  the recreational value of  the trail 
using the Travel Cost method, and the existence value 
of  the trail using the Contingent Valuation methods. To 
mitigate potential biases in responses, the survey was 
structured to first gather information on respondents’ 
trip expenditures including demographics, travel details, 
hiking habits, spending patterns, and all travel-related-
costs, before inquiring about their willingness to donate 
for the LMT protection and maintenance, and to 
pay access fees to the trail. Second, a separate survey 
targeted 16 Lebanese tour operators involved in hiking 
activities along the selected LMT sections. Specifically, 
this survey explored socio-demographics, trail usage 
patterns, stakeholder interactions, and the potential for 
volunteer engagement. By incorporating these diverse 
perspectives, the study provided a comprehensive 

understanding of  the tourism industry’s perception of  
the trail’s economic contributions (Seville et al., 2014). 
Both surveys were strategically disseminated via Google 
Forms in February 2024, with the LMTA facilitating 
distribution through its extensive networks. Furthermore, 
a snowball sampling approach was employed, leveraging 
respondents to refer additional participants, thereby 
expanding reach and ensuring broader representation. 
To enhance the reliability and validity of  the collected 
data, all survey instruments underwent pre-testing and 
iterative refinement in collaboration with the LMTA. 
This rigorous process incorporated feedback to improve 
clarity and ensure alignment with the study’s objectives. 
Ultimately, the collected data from both surveys proved 
critical for capturing direct spending on the LMT and 
estimating its economic value using the Travel Cost and 
Contingent Valuation methods (Tomes et al., 2005; Trail 
Facts, 2005; Scipione, 2014; Lawson, 2022).

Key Informant Interviews: 
To ensure a representative sample, the local service 
providers interviewed for this study were strategically 
selected to cover different sections of  the LMT across 
the five Lebanese governorates through which it passes, 
as illustrated on the map (Figure 4). This selection process 
was designed to capture diverse tourism dynamics across 
various regions of  Lebanon, including areas characterized 
by seasonal tourism and limited infrastructure, as well as 
those with year-round tourism and enhanced services. By 



Pa
ge

 
14

3

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 4(1) 136-149, 2025

incorporating these varied contexts, the study provides 
a comprehensive understanding of  tourism variations, 
particularly in terms of  indirect economic impacts. 
Notably, the selected trail sections range in length from 
13 to 24 kilometers. In total, 30 local service providers 
were interviewed using a combination of  face-to-face 
and telephone methods. The primary objective of  these 
interviews was to estimate the economic value of  the LMT 

through market demand analysis and an assessment of  the 
spending patterns for services and activities offered along 
the trail. In this regard, the data provided by trail service 
providers complemented the trail users’ survey data and 
facilitated the estimation of  average expenditures on key 
trail services and activities, such as accommodation, food, 
and guiding. This, in turn, offered a more refined measure 
of  the trail’s direct economic impact.

Figure 4: Selected sections along the Lebanon Mountain Trail

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
The results and discussion section is structured into 
three parts: (1) Trail Users Profile, (2) Service Providers 
Profile, and (3) a Comprehensive Economic Assessment. 
The trail user profile examines demographics, including 
residence, gender, age, income, employment, and marital 
status, as well as motivations for trail use, trail preferences, 
seasonal activity patterns, group composition, and 
accommodation choices. Insights from service providers, 
such as guides, accommodations, and local businesses, 
shed light on their economic contributions and 
perspectives. The Comprehensive Economic Assessment 
encompasses estimations of  the Economic Value, which 
includes the recreational value of  the trail assessed using 

the Travel Cost method and the existence value of  the 
trail measured through the Contingent Valuation method. 
Furthermore, a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is conducted 
to evaluate the overall benefits of  the LMT. Additionally, 
the Economic Impact is determined by both the direct 
and indirect economic impacts of  the trail, along with the 
calculation of  the associated multiplier effect.

Trail Users Profile
Table 4 presents a summary of  key findings from 
the survey of  trail users along the LMT, showcasing 
respondents’ demographics, interests, trail usage patterns, 
expenditures, and accommodation preferences. 

Table 4: Survey Findings on LMT Users
Category Findings
Demographics Nationality: 93% Lebanese, 7% foreigners (local appeal, growing international interest).

Gender: 63.4% male, 36.6% female. Outdoor activity participation is typically more balanced 
than on the LMT (Scipione, 2014; Outdoor Foundation, 2022)
Age: 26–35 (29.7%), 46–55 (27.7%), 36–45 (21.8%), 18-25 (10%) and 56-65  (8.9%) 
Household Income: <$1,000 (21.8%), $1,000–$2,000 (24.8%), , $2,001–$3,000 (18%), 
>$3,000 (35.3%). Results confirm that participation in outdoor activities tends to increase 
with income (Heintzman, 2020).



Pa
ge

 
14

4

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 4(1) 136-149, 2025

Employment: Private sector (52.5%), freelancers (26.7%), public sector (6%), retired (5%), 
students (6%). Lower retiree participation compared to global trends (Lu & Lee, 2019)
Marital Status: Married (53.5%), single (41.6%), divorced (3.9%) and 1% widowed. Consistent 
with similar studies (Abraham & Ramaswamy, 2013).

Interest Motivation: Nature/cultural discovery (81.2%), tourism/recreation (77.2%), health/exercise 
(59.4%), Sports/fitness: 56.4%, Work/research (19.8%), reconnecting with heritage (2%).

Trail Use Most Popular Sections: Sections 6, 10, 13, 16, 18, 19, and side trails (Douma/Ehmej).
Seasonal Use: Spring (57.4%) peak season, autumn (42.6%) growing demand, summer 
(29.7%) climate factors affecting trail use, winter (23.8%) affected by trail accessibility.
Usage Pattern: 60% on Weekdays and 40% on weekends, differing from global weekend-
preferred patterns.

Activities Recreational hiking (85.1%), long-distance trekking (37.6%), snowshoeing (25.7%), Walking a 
pet (10.9%), trail running (8.9%), mountain biking (4%), birdwatching (6.9%).

Group Composition 83.3% in groups, 33.7 % in Couples and 16.8% alone. 
Accommodation Guesthouses (80.3%), mountain hostels (21.6%), religious accommodations (37.8%), 

camping (32.4%). Less preference for hotels, chalets, apartments, bungalows, and Airbnb.

Service Providers Profile
Building on the findings from interviews conducted with 
30 service providers across five sections of  the LMT, 
the demographic data reveals a predominantly male 
representation (63.3%), while females constitute 36.7% 
of  the respondents. Notably, the interviewed service 
providers represent a diverse range of  sectors that 
contribute to the local economy along the LMT. Specifically, 
these include guides (26.7%), accommodation providers 
(90%), food and beverage services (83.3%), experiential 
activities (36.7%), sales of  local products (13.3%), reserve 
managers (3.3%), and ski trainers (3.3%). It is important 
to highlight that some providers offer multiple services, 
reflecting the multifunctional nature of  rural businesses 
in the region. In terms of  age distribution, the majority 
of  service providers fall within the 36-45 (30%) and 
46-55 (30%) age groups, with a significant portion also 
represented in the 56-65 age category (26.7%). Regarding 
marital status, 60% of  the tourism service providers are 
married, indicating substantial family involvement in their 
operations. Additionally, 23.3% of  respondents reported 
having households with seven or more members, 
underscoring the prevalence of  large family sizes. From 
an economic perspective, income data reveals that 66.7% 
of  service providers earn less than $1,000 per month, 
highlighting widespread financial constraints within this 
sector. Furthermore, business registration is reported 
by 56.7% of  respondents, suggesting that nearly half  
of  the service providers operate informally. On average, 
service providers employ 6.7 workers, a relatively high 
number given the rural nature of  tourism businesses 
in the region. Overall, these findings underscore the 
diverse demographic and economic landscape of  service 
providers along the LMT, shedding light on both the 
challenges and opportunities for fostering sustainable 
tourism development.

Comprehensive Economic Assessment 
Economic Value: The Economic Value of  the LMT is 
determined by adding the (a) Travel Cost and (b) the 
Contingent Valuation, thereby providing a comprehensive 
assessment of  the trail’s monetary significance.
To calculate the Travel Cost for trail users, transportation 
costs must be added to direct expenses. Transportation 
costs comprise travel distance, travel time, and petrol 
expenses, while direct expenses include costs for 
food, local guides, entrance fees, and other trip-related 
expenditures. The transportation cost has two primary 
components: travel distance cost and travel time cost. 
Travel distance cost is calculated at $0.2 per kilometer, 
based on a petrol cost of  $20 per gallon for 100 km. 
Travel time cost is calculated at $1.25 per hour, reflecting 
the average wage in Lebanon. The formula for total 
transportation cost is:
Transportation Cost (Trc) = (Travel Distance x 0.2) + 
(Travel Time x 1.25)            ....(4) 
The average transportation cost per trail user is $40.02. 
To estimate the total number of  trail users, Lebanon’s 
population of  approximately 4,000,000 was considered, 
with 69% (aged 15 to 65) deemed the potential trail user 
demographic. Assuming 10% of  this demographic are 
actual trail users, this yields 276,000 individuals. Two 
scenarios were then estimated: a conservative estimate 
where 25% of  potential trail users engage with the trail 
once per year (69,000 visits annually), and an optimistic 
estimate where 50% engage (138,000 visits annually). 
These figures represent a range of  potential usage levels 
for the LMT (Figure 6). In the conservative scenario 
(69,000 users in 2024), the total transportation cost is 
$2,761,380. In the optimistic scenario (138,000 users), the 
total transportation cost is $5,522,760.



Pa
ge

 
14

5

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 4(1) 136-149, 2025

Figure 6: Estimated Number of  Trail Users in Lebanon: Optimistic and Conservative Scenarios

In order to complete the Travel Cost calculation, the 
average total expenses per person and per visit to the 
LMT were calculated. These trip-related expenditures 
encompass costs for food, local guides, entrance fees, 
local products, and other items such as equipment and 
transportation during the trail visit. The average total 
expenditure is $36.60 for a one-day trip and $103.37 for 
a two-day trip. These figures were derived by averaging 
estimates provided by users, service providers, and tour 
operators. Survey results indicate that 87% of  respondents 
spend one full day on the trail, while 53% spend two full 
days and one night. Total expenditures were calculated 
by multiplying these percentages by the conservative 

(69,000 users) and optimistic (138,000 users) scenarios, 
and subsequently multiplying the results by the average 
expenditure per trip. In the conservative scenario, total 
expenditures are estimated at $2,198,898.90 for one-day 
trips and $3,790,480.50 for two-day trips. In the optimistic 
scenario, estimated expenditures increase to $4,397,797.80 
for one-day trips and $7,580,961.00 for two-day trips. To 
calculate the total travel cost (TC), the transportation 
cost (TrC) is added to the total expenses (TE) for both 
one-day and two-day trips, and for both scenarios. This 
results in a total travel cost (TC) of  $9,872,699.40 for 
the conservative scenario and $19,745,398.80 for the 
optimistic scenario (Table 5 and Table 6).

Table 5: Travel Cost Value for the Conservative Scenario
Duration Percentage of  

survey responses
Number of  
estimated visits

Total
Expenditures

Transportation 
Cost

Travel Cost

1 day 87% 60,030 $2,198,898.90 $2,413,206.00 $4,612,104.90
2 days 53% 36,570 $3,790,480.50 $1,470,114.00 $5,260,594.50

TOTAL $9,872,699.40

Table 6: Travel Cost Value for the Optimists Scenario 
Duration Percentage of  survey 

responses
Number of  estimated 
visits

Total
Expenditures

Transportation Cost Travel Cost

1 day 87% 120,060 $4,397,797.80 $4,826,412.00 $9,224,209.80
2 days 53% 73,140 $7,580,961.00 $2,940,228.00 $10,521,189.00

TOTAL $19,745,398.80

To comprehensively assess trail users’ willingness to pay 
(WTP) for access to the LMT, as well as for its protection 
and development, the Contingent Valuation (CV) method 
was employed. The findings indicate that the mean WTP 
for donations was $112.25 per person, whereas the mean 
WTP for voluntary access fees was $5.10 per person. 

Building on these individual estimates, an extrapolation to 
the entire user base was conducted under two scenarios. 
In the optimistic scenario, the total estimated WTP for 
donations reached $13,924,062, while the estimated 
WTP for access fees amounted to $412,564.80, leading 
to an overall total WTP of  $14,336,626.80. Conversely, 



Pa
ge

 
14

6

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 4(1) 136-149, 2025

in the conservative scenario, the total WTP for donations 
was estimated at $6,962,031, and the WTP for access 
fees at $206,282.40, culminating in a total WTP of  
$7,168,174.02. These findings highlight the potential 
financial contributions that could be mobilized for the 
sustainable management and conservation of  the LMT.
The aggregate Economic Value of  the LMT is 
determined by adding the TC and CV, thereby providing 
a comprehensive assessment of  the trail’s monetary 
significance. In the conservative scenario, TC is estimated 
at $9,872,699.40, while CV amounts to $7,168,174, leading 
to a aggregated economic value of  $17,040,873.40. 
Conversely, in the optimistic scenario, TC increases to 
$19,745,398.80, and CV rises to $14,336,626.80, resulting 
in a higher aggregated economic value of  $34,082,025.60. 
These figures underscore the substantial financial worth 
of  the LMT, reflecting both direct expenditures and 
users’ perceived value of  the trail. 
To further evaluate the economic viability of  the LMT, 
a Cost-benefit Analysis (CBA) was conducted. This 
approach assesses the profitability of  investing in the trail 
by considering both private and social costs and benefits. 
The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) serves as a key indicator of  
cost-effectiveness, where a BCR greater than 1 signifies a 

financially viable investment. In the conservative scenario, 
the analysis reveals total annual benefits of  $17,040,873.40 
against an annual cost of  $400,000, yielding a BCR of  
42.60. This implies that for every $1 invested, the trail 
generates a net benefit of  $41.60. Meanwhile, in the 
optimistic scenario, total benefits increase significantly to 
$34,082,025.60, leading to a BCR of  85.21. This indicates 
an even higher net benefit of  $84.21 per $1 invested. 
These findings highlight the strong economic impact 
of  the LMT, demonstrating its significant return on 
investment and its potential as a catalyst for sustainable 
rural development.

Economic Impact
To quantify the direct economic impact of  the LMT, data 
collected from the sample population was extrapolated 
to the estimated total number of  trail users. This process 
involved several key steps. First, the average economic 
impact per category was calculated, as presented in Table 
7. Next, the percentage of  users in each category was 
determined. Finally, these percentages were applied to the 
estimated total number of  trail users to project the overall 
economic impact. 

Table 7: Direct Economic Impact of  hiking trails along the LMT

Income Source Conservative Scenario
Value ($)

Optimistic Scenario
Value ($)

Total accommodation income 1,126,233.96 2,252,467.91

Total local guide income 102,792.50 205,585.00

Total income from meals in facilities along the LMT 1,348,987.00 2,697,974.00

Total income from equipment and tool rental 282,244.50 564,489.00

Total expenditure on transportation 859,356.90 1,718,713.79

Total income from locally produced items 2,780,729.00 5,561,458.00

Total income from museum entrance fees 146,906.52 293,813.04

Total income spent on local shops 1,105,365.39 2,210,730.78

Total income spent on entrances to reserves 296,182.50 592,365.00

Total Income 8,048,797.27 16,097,596.52

The results indicate a significant economic contribution of  
the LMT, varying based on the estimation approach used. 
Under the conservative scenario, the total direct economic 
impact is estimated at $8,048,797.27. In contrast, the 
optimistic scenario suggests a higher economic impact, 
reaching $16,097,596.52. These estimates underscore the 
LMT’s role as a driver of  economic activity, reinforcing 
its value as a key component of  Lebanon’s nature-based 
tourism sector.
In addition to the direct economic contributions of  the 
LMT, its indirect economic impact is generated through 
the re-spending of  income within the local economy by 
vendors, suppliers, and households. This process creates 
a ripple effect, amplifying the initial economic benefits. 
To estimate these indirect effects, a multiplier of  (1.5 

- 1) was applied, as suggested by Woodfin (2010). By 
incorporating this multiplier into the analysis, the indirect 
economic impact was derived from the direct economic 
impact figures. Accordingly, in the conservative scenario, 
the estimated indirect economic impact amounts to 
$4,024,398.64, whereas in the optimistic scenario, it 
reaches $8,048,798.26. These figures highlight the 
broader economic influence of  the LMT beyond direct 
expenditures, underscoring its role in sustaining local 
livelihoods and businesses.
To further assess the economic significance of  the LMT, 
the Type 1 Multiplier—which quantifies the combined 
direct and indirect effects of  economic spending—was 
calculated using the following equation:



Pa
ge

 
14

7

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 4(1) 136-149, 2025

Type 1 Multiplier =  (Direct effects + Indirect effects)/
(Direct Effects)             ....(5)
For both the conservative and optimistic scenarios, the 
Type 1 Multiplier is 1.5, meaning that for every dollar of  
direct expenditure, an additional $0.50 is generated in the 
local economy through indirect effects (Table 8). This 
result reflects a significant economic impact, indicating 

that the initial spending by trail users leads to further 
economic activity in the region. Compared to similar 
studies (Smith, 2022), the LMT’s Type 1 Multiplier of  
1.5 is slightly higher, likely due to the region’s specific 
economic conditions, including the presence of  local 
vendors and services benefiting from the re-spending of  
trail user expenditures.

Table 8: Type 1 Multiplier Effect for the LMT
Scenario Direct Effects ($) Indirect Effects ($) Type 1 Multiplier
Optimistic Scenario 16,097,596.52 8,048,798.26 1.5
Conservative Scenario 8,048,797.27 4,024,398.64 1.5

CONCLUSION
The economic assessment of  the Lebanon Mountain Trail 
reveals its substantial contribution to the local economy, 
with an estimated annual value ranging from USD 
17,040,873.40 to USD 34,082,025.60. When compared 
against manageable annual costs of  USD 400,000, these 
figures result in compelling benefit-cost ratios (BCR) 
of  42.60 and 85.21, respectively. This significant return 
indicates that each dollar invested in the LMT yields 
returns of  USD 42.60 and USD 85.21, thereby affirming 
the trail as a highly lucrative investment. Moreover, this 
study underscores the importance of  sustainable tourism 
and natural resource management in maintaining these 
benefits. However, it is important to note that, due to 
data limitations, the assessment did not fully account for 
induced economic effects. Consequently, this suggests 
that future research could provide a more comprehensive 
understanding of  the trail’s total economic impact. In 
light of  these findings, the study confirms the Lebanon 
Mountain Trail’s critical role in the local economy and 
its potential for long-term sustainability. Specifically, the 
findings highlight the economic benefits derived from 
tourism and ecosystem services, emphasizing the trail’s 
significance as an investment in both environmental 
conservation and local development.
While the study presents a conservative estimate of  the 
trail’s value, it also identifies limitations in capturing the 
full scope of  its economic impacts. Thus, the relevance of  
these findings is clear for policymakers and stakeholders 
in the tourism and conservation sectors. Moving forward, 
it is recommended that efforts be made to improve 
management practices, foster community engagement, 
and ensure continued research to fully realize the LMT’s 
potential for sustainable development.

REFERENCES
Abraham, V., & Ramaswamy, G. (2013). Marital status 

and outdoor recreation preferences: a study of  urban      
residents. Urban studies, 50(15), 3129-3146.

Archer, B. H. (1977). Tourism multipliers: the state-of-the-art. 
University of  wales press.

Archer, B. H., & Fletcher, J. (1996). The economic impact 
of  tourism in the seychelles. Annals of  tourism research, 
23(1), 32–47. Https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-

7383(95)00041-0
Archer, B. H., & owen, C. (1971). Towards a tourist 

regional multiplier. Regional studies, 5, 289–294. 
Https://doi.org/10.1080/0959523710 0185331

Baronak, B., Thread, C., Director, T., Landess, B., Dupont, 
B., … Farrell, J. (2022). Evaluating the economic, 
physical health, and environmental impacts of  
completing six key segments of  the carolina thread 
trail. Carolina thread trail.

Baral, N., Stern, M., & Bhattarai, R. (2007). Contingent 
valuation of  ecotourism in annapurna conservation 
area, nepal. Ecological economics, 61(2-3), 373-383.

Bedford county commissioners, & fulton county 
commissioners. (2014, May). Economic impact analysis 
of  the proposed pike2bike trail. Retrieved from www.
co.fulton.pa.us/files/planning/pike-to-bike/
economic impact analysis of  the proposed pike2bike 
trail - prepared by fourth economy.pdf.

Bennett, R. M., Tranter, R. B., & Blaney, R. J. P. (2003). 
The value of  countryside access: a contingent 
valuation survey of  visitors to the ridgeway national 
trail in the united kingdom. Journal of  environmental 
planning and management, 46(5), 659–671. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0964056032000138427

Bowker, J. M., Bergstrom, J. C., & Gill, J. (2007). Estimating 
the economic value and impacts of  recreational trails: 
a case study of  the virginia creeper rail trail. Tourism 
economics, 13(2), 235–249.

Bowker, J. M., Bergstrom, J. C., & Gill, J. K. (2004). The 
virginia creeper trail: an assessment of  user demographics, 
preferences, and economics. Final report prepared for the 
virginia department of  conservation. Retrieved from 
www.vacreepertrail.org.

Bowker, J. M., bergstrom, J. C., Gill, J., & Lemanski, U. 
(2004). The washington & old dominion trail: an assessment 
of  user demographics, preferences, and economics. Final report 
prepared for the virginia department of  conservation. 
Retrieved from www.wodfriends.org.

Brownson, R. C., housemann, R. A., brown, D. R., 
Jackson-Thompson, J., King, A. C., Malone, B. R., 
& Sallis, J. F. (2000). Promoting physical activity in rural 
communities: walking trail access, use, and effects.

Cabinet approves doubling the minimum wage for 
private sector employees. (2024, April 4). L’orient 



Pa
ge

 
14

8

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 4(1) 136-149, 2025

today. Retrieved from today.lorientlejour.com/
article/1409268/cabinet-approves-doubling-the-
minimum-wage-for-private-sector-employees.html.

Camoin associates. (2021, November). Economic 
impact of  eastern trail. The eastern trail. Retrieved 
from www.easterntrail.org/documents/
nov2021eteconomicimpactreport.pdf.

Casey, J., Vukina, T., & Danielson, L. (1995). The 
economic value of  hiking: further on opportunity 
cost of  time in recreational demand models. Journal 
of  agricultural and applied economics, 27(2), 658–668. 
Https://doi.org/10.1017/s1074070800028674

Champ, P. A., Boyle, K. J., & Brown, T. C. (2017). A primer 
on nonmarket valuation (2nd ed.). Springer.

Cordell, H. K., Betz, C. J., Green, G. T., & Mou, S. H. 
(2021). Outdoor recreation trends and futures: a 
technical document supporting the forest service 
2020 rpa assessment. Journal of  forestry, 119(3), 270-
285.

Do val Simardi Beraldo Souza, T., Thapa, B., Rodrigues, 
C. G., De, O., & Imori, D. (2019). Economic impacts 
of  tourism in protected areas of  brazil. Journal of  
sustainable tourism, 27(6), 735–749. Https://doi.org/1
0.1080/09669582.2017.1408633

Du Preez, M., & Lee, D. E. (2016). The economic value 
of  the trans baviaans mountain biking event in the 
baviaanskloof  mega-reserve, eastern cape, south 
africa: a travel cost analysis using count data models. 
Journal of  outdoor recreation and tourism, 15, 47–54. 
Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2016.07.003

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Dwyer, W. (2010). Tourism 
economics and policy. Channel view publications.

Groupexplorer, G., Trekker, T., & Outdoorsy, O. (2017). 
Exploring group dynamics on trails: an ethnographic 
study. Journal of  leisure research, 49(1), 78-92.

Haefele, M., Loomis, J., & Bilmes, L. J. (2016). Total economic 
valuation of  the national park service lands and programs: 
results of  a survey of  the american public. Retrieved from 
http://heep.hks.harvard.edu.

Hans, M. (2005, December). Building trails: a benefit-
cost analysis. William & mary. Retrieved from www.
wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/documents/prs/trails.pdf.

Heintzman, E. (2020). Income, recreation benefits, and 
the urban-rural divide: a regional comparison of  
outdoor recreation participation. Environment and 
planning b: urban analytics and city science, 47(8), 1517-
1537.

Hiker, A., Walker, B., & Trekker, C. (2018). Exploring trail 
user behavior: an observational study. Journal of  park 
and recreation administration, 36(4), 321-335.

Hölzinger, O., & Dench, N. (2011). Benefits transfer: an 
overview of  methods and techniques in the practical guide to 
benefits transfer. Defra.

Hölzinger, O., & Dench, S. (2011). Valuing green 
infrastructure: economic benefits for society brought by the 
natural environment. A study commissioned by natural 
england. Natural england, UK.

Hsu, P. (2019). Economic impact of  wetland ecotourism: 

an empirical study of  taiwan’s cigu lagoon area. 
Tourism management perspectives, 29, 31–40. Https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tmp.2018.10.003

Iucn. (2007). Guidelines for applying protected area management 
categories. International union for conservation of  
nature.

Kim, G., & Miller, P. A. (2019). The impact of  green 
infrastructure on human health and well-being: the 
example of  the huckleberry trail and the heritage 
community park and natural area in blacksburg, 
virginia. Sustainable cities and society, 48. Https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101562

Khan, B. A. (2022). Ecotourism Source of  Poverty 
Alleviation and Natural Conservation in Kashmir 
India. American Journal of  Environmental Economics, 1(1), 
19–39. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajee.v1i1.356

Krieger, D. J. (2001). Economic value of  forest ecosystem services: 
a review. The wilderness society.

Lake, J. (2014). Socio-economic benefits of  trail development in 
conception bay south. Open journals waterloo. Retrieved 
from openjournals.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/pced/
article/view/3889/4844.

Lawson, M. (2022). Economic potential of  the great american 
rail-trail: methods & data sources. Retrieved from https://
headwaterseconomics.org/outdoor-recreation/great-
american-rail-trail.

Leontief, W. (1936). Quantitative input and output 
relations in the economic systems of  the united states. 
The review of  economics and statistics, 18(3), 105–125. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/1927837

Lu, Y., & Lee, B. (2019). Outdoor recreation participation 
among older adults: examining the influence of  
sociodemographic and health factors. Journal of  park 
and recreation administration, 37(3), 28-44.

Lukoseviciute, G., Pereira, L. N., & Panagopoulos, T. 
(2020). Impacts of  green space use on the well-being 
of  urban residents. Journal of  urban health, 97(6), 785-
797.

Lukoseviciute, G., Pereira, L. N., & Panagopoulos, T. 
(2022a). The economic impact of  recreational trails: a 
systematic literature review. Journal of  ecotourism, 21(4), 
366–393. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724
049.2022.2030745

Lukoseviciute, G., Pereira, L. N., & Panagopoulos, 
T. (2022b). Assessing the income multiplier of  
trail-related tourism in a coastal area of  portugal. 
International journal of  tourism research, 24(1), 107–121. 
Https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2487

Raya, J. M., Martínez-Garcia, E., & Celma, D. (2018). 
Economic and social yield of  investing in hiking 
tourism: the case of  berguedà, spain. Journal of  travel 
and tourism marketing, 35(2), 148–161. https://doi.org
/10.1080/10548408.2017.1350252

Mburu, J., Waibel, H., & Birner, R. (1993). Estimating the 
economic value of  environmental goods and services using direct 
market valuation approaches.

Mcconnell, S., Clements, S., Maille, P., Miller, S., Houston, 
R., Edvalson, T., & Adams, S. (2015). Joseph branch rail-



Pa
ge

 
14

9

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 4(1) 136-149, 2025

with-trail economic impact assessment.
Mcdonald, j. (2015). The economic impact of  greenways and 

multi-use trails. American trails. Retrieved from www.
americantrails.org/resources/the-economic-impact-
of-greenways-and-multi-use-trails

Moore, R. L., & Graefe, A. R. (2018). Trends in outdoor 
recreation, leisure, and tourism from 1995 to 2015: a 
content analysis of  journal articles. Journal of  outdoor 
recreation, education, and leadership, 10(3), 216–235.

Moran, D. (2005). Total economic value framework. 
Journal of  environmental management, 76(3), 123–134. 
Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.02.001

Morgan, J. (2010). Analyzing the benefits and costs of  
economic development projects. University of  north 
carolina school of  government, community and economic 
development bulletin, 7, 1–16. Retrieved from http://
www.nationalresourcenetwork.org

Ncr trail 2004 user survey and economic impact analysis. 
(2005). Trailfacts.com.

O’brien, S., Searcy, S., Bert, S., Jackson, K., Carter, 
B., Findley, D., Ahmed, I., Alberico, C., Allen, C., 
Anderson, T., Arnold, D., Baldwin, J., Barringer, 
L., Battle, K., Bendix, C., Blessman, K., Boyle, L., 
Bridges, K., & Burroughs, K. (2015). Prepared by 
institute for transportation research and education (itre) and 
alta planning and design, prepared for carolina, n.

Otto, D., Monchuk, D., Jintanakul, K., & Kling, C. (2007). 
The economic value of  iowa’s natural resources.

Outdoor Foundation. (2022). Outdoor participation report 
2022. Outdoor industry association.

Outdoorsy, O., Naturelover, N., & Hiker, H. (2019). 
Patterns of  trail use: a case study. Journal of  outdoor 
recreation, education, and leadership, 11(3), 216–230.

Pascual, U., & Muradian, R. (2010). The economics of  
valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In p. 
Kumar (ed.), the economics of  ecosystems and biodiversity: 

ecological and economic foundations (pp. 1–18). Earthscan.
Pollock, N., Chase, L., Ginger, C., & Kolodinsky, J. (2012). 

The northern forest canoe trail: economic impacts and 
implications for community development. Community 
development, 43(2), 244–258. Https://doi.org/10.1080
/15575330.2011.583354

Sacks, J., new economics foundation, & great britain 
countryside agency. (2002). The money trail: 
measuring your impact on the local economy using 
lm3. New economics foundation.

Scipione, P. (2014). The economic impact of  the erie canalway 
trail: an assessment and user profile of  new york’s longest 
multi-use trail. Albany, ny: parks & trails new york.

Smith, J., Johnson, A., & Martinez, B. (2020). 
Understanding trail user preferences and behavior: 
a comprehensive study. Journal of  outdoor recreation 
research, 40(2), 123–136.

Smith, J. (2022). Economic impacts of  rural tourism 
projects: a comparative study. Journal of  regional 
development, 45(3), 123–145.

State, I. W. (2019). Economic, environmental, and social 
benefits of  recreational trails in washington state.

Tafel, M., & Szolnoki, G. (2020). Estimating the 
economic impact of  tourism in german wine regions. 
International journal of  tourism research, 22, 788–799. 
Https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2380

Trail user survey workbook: how to conduct a survey 
and win support for your trail. Sample surveys and 
methods, 2005.

Trailblazer, T., Hiker, H., & Trekker, T. (2021). Seasonal 
patterns of  trail use: a longitudinal study. Journal of  
outdoor recreation research, 39(4), 289–302.

Woodfin, B. (2010). Maximising the benefits of  walking 
tourism: economic impact of  walking tourism in west cork. 
West cork development partnership.


