Abstract
Recreational destinations have been found to be effective in improving socio-economic development, environmental conditions, and recreation possibilities in urban and semi-urban zones. This study examined the socio-economic and environmental effects of various recreational locations in the city of Jhansi, Central India. The following recreational sites are analysed in this research – Atal Ekta Park, Lakshmi Bai Park, Panchtantra Park, and Jhansi Fort. Systematic random sampling was conducted on 200 participants for determining the visitor preferences, socio-economic contributions, environmental issues, and WTP for managing and conserving these places in 2025. Binary logistic regression analysis was applied for determining the influence of various parameters on visitors’ willingness to pay. Meanwhile, the Henry Garrett Ranking methodology was used to rank various visitors’ preferences. It is found out that most respondents showed their willingness to pay some minimal amount for conservation. Most visitors preferred paying less than ₹20 as an entrance fee for such activities. Income level has a positive impact on willingness to pay, whereas the status of occupation and expenditure at the sites have negative effects. The regression model shows high explanatory ability (Nagelkerke R2 = 0.792) and decent model fit (Hosmer–Lemeshow test, p > 0.05). In addition, pollution (noise and air pollution), overcrowding, littering, and poor cleanliness were found to be major environmental issues in recreation areas. It was evident that cleanliness, seating, and proper waste disposal are among the major needs of visitors. These results emphasize the significance of proper environmental management, provision of proper visitor facilities, and use of diverse financial models for the proper management of recreational areas.
Introduction
Recreational areas have a very important function in determining the socio-economic and environmental aspects of urbanizing areas. Jhansi, a city with historical significance that is now being developed and experiencing a population change, has recognized the need for well-designed recreational areas to a greater extent. The sites in question parks, gardens, water bodies, lakesides, heritage complexes, and community open areas offer not only places for relaxation and cultural activities but also the very basis of urban life. Their impact goes beyond just fun; they play a part in mental well-being, social bonding, and enhanced living standards for various groups of people. The need for sustainability and the acceptance of urban development that includes all has been putting pressure on the authorities to assess the impact of these spaces on people’s livelihoods, community relations, and overall well-being. The importance of environmental amenities and recreational sites as integral components of urban development has been widely recognized in recent research. Juzelėnienė (2022) highlights that these amenities significantly enhance urban quality of life by providing spaces for leisure and social interaction. Badiu et al. (2016) emphasize that such areas contribute to holistic urban planning by promoting social cohesion and environmental sustainability.
Despite the increased importance of sustainable tourism and ecotourism, research conducted so far has concentrated primarily on either tourism policies, perceptions, and outcomes in terms of environmental conservation, but not much on empirical evidence for enterprise level relationship of sustainability expenditures and their effect on ecotourism. Specifically, there are insufficient empirical evidences about the effect of investment made by tourism organizations in sustainability and their operational performance as well as ability to attract visitors in eco-tourism destinations. The above observation is especially valid in relation to Bukhara region, which constitutes an important eco-tourism destination where enterprises are operating in an environment rich in cultural and ecological values. Therefore, the main objective of the current paper is to examine the effect of sustainability expenditure on eco-tourism performance at the enterprise level.
On the other hand, recreational sites are major environmental factors as they are responsible for creating microclimates, increasing variety of species, preventing pollution, and making cities more ecologically resilient. Jhansi is a place where the climate is extreme and the green cover is very limited, so the recreational areas are providing important ecological services. Research indicates that access to green spaces is associated with reduced stress levels and better mental health. Wolch et al. (2014) and Van Kamp et al. (2003) argue that urban parks and natural environments serve as vital stress buffers, supporting psychological resilience for city residents. Correspondingly, Sylla et al. (2019) and Niemela et al. (2010) identify that open spaces provide key ecosystem services such as air filtration, temperature regulation, and biodiversity conservation, which are essential in densely populated cities.
Methodology
A systematic random sampling technique was used by in 2025 to conduct primary research on individuals from four prominent recreational sites in the Jhansi district. These four sites included Atal Ekta Park, Lakshmi Bai Park, Panchtantra Park, and Jhansi Fort. All adults (18+ years old) who visited these recreational sites served as the sampling frame. Sampling was conducted on a weekday to capture the variation of the visitors and their profile (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
Systematic random sampling involved selecting samples based on intervals. After selecting the first person randomly in each park, every 3rd and 5th person entering and leaving the premises was selected. If any individual refused to participate, then the very next person eligible was selected instead of skipping them. Only one person was allowed to answer per visiting group/family. The number of responses received from the four recreational site was 200 in total. The respondents have been selected in accordance with the visitor flow and popularity of the recreation site in equal proportions (insert numbers accordingly; for example, Jhansi Fort = 50, Lakshmi Bai Park = 50, Panchtantra Park = 50, Atal Ekta Park = 50). In order to improve clarity and relevancy to the subject matter of the questionnaire, a pre-test was carried out among a few respondents. On the basis of their feedback, the questionnaire was modified as per the intervention. The process of modifying and testing the questionnaire continued until the perception part of the questionnaire achieved sufficient validity and reliability. Later, the survey was carried out among the selected respondents through a structured questionnaire. For analyzing the willingness to pay, binary logistic regression was used. Binary logistic regression: It is an extension of simple linear regression, where the dependent variable is dichotomous or binary in nature. It is the statistical technique used to predict the relationship between predictors or the independent variables and a predicted variable or the dependent variable.
Where p is the willingness to pay for the park and 1−p is the non-willingness to pay. X1—monthly Income of the sample visitor’s household; X2—occupation of sample visitors (1—non earner, 0—earner), which is the categorical variable; X3—cost spent inside the park; X4—travel time to reach the park (1 = less than 1 h, 2 = one to 2 h, 3 = 2 to 3 h, 4 = 3–4 h, 5 = more than 5 h); X5—number of adults in the family; X6—number of children in the family; X7—frequency of visits to the park (1 = 1 time per season, 4 = 4 times per month, 5 = 2 times per month, 8 = 8 times per month, 12 = 12 times per month); X8—travel cost per person; variables—X4 and X7 are ordinal variables; variable X2 is the nominal variable; other variables are scale variables.
Model specification and variable selection
The model for regression was designed using eight independent variables (X1–X8) which were considered theoretically and empirically important as they had already been proven to be important for willingness to pay for leisure and environmental amenities. Nonetheless, during the stepwise logistic regression model selection process, only significant variables would be used for the estimation of the final model. Therefore, independent variables that were not significant enough to explain willingness to pay among visitors (p-value > 0.05) would be omitted from the regression analysis process. Consequently, only monthly income, visitor’s occupation status, and expenses within the park remained significant in the estimation of willingness to pay. Adequacy of the model was assessed using the Omnibus test, Cox & Snell R2, Nagelkerke R2, Hosmer & Lemeshow test, and classification accuracy.
Henry Garrett ranking technique
In-order to discover the most important suggestion influencing the respondent, Garrett’s ranking technique was applied. This method was utilized to rank the various suggestions listed by visitors like maintenance of the park, facilities that are expected by the visitors in the park and providing safe drinking water. According to this method, visitors were asked to specify the rank for all suggestions and the results of such ranking have been converted into score value with the help of the following formula:
According to Henry Garret (1969) ranking method, the percentage score is computed as:
Where, Rij = rank given for ith item by jth individual; Nj = number of items ranked by j th individual.
Then for each factor, the scores of each individual are added and then total value of the scores and mean values of scores are calculated. The factors having highest mean value is considered to be the most important factor.
Results
Binary logistic regression analysis was carried out to analyze the factors affecting the propensity of visitors to pay for the maintenance and preservation of recreational areas. According to the Omnibus Test of Model Coefficients, the model is statistically significant at each step of the model, implying that predictor variables used in the regression analysis enhanced the power of explanation of the model. The value of the total chi-square for the final model was 59.086 (p < 0.01) (Table 1).
Table 1
| Model step | Chi-square | df | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1 | Step | 36.917 | 1 | 0.000 |
| Block | 36.917 | 1 | 0.000 | |
| Model | 36.917 | 1 | 0.000 | |
| Step 2 | Step | 16.139 | 1 | 0.000 |
| Block | 53.056 | 2 | 0.000 | |
| Model | 53.056 | 2 | 0.000 | |
| Step 3 | Step | 6.030 | 1 | 0.014 |
| Block | 59.086 | 3 | 0.000 | |
| Model | 59.086 | 3 | 0.000 | |
Omnibus tests of model coefficients.
The Omnibus Test is conducted to ascertain if there is a significant difference between the model with predictors and the model without predictors (the baseline or null model) regarding performance. A significant result (p < 0.05) signifies that the predictors included at each step facilitate the model to better explain the dependent variable.
The Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients present that the entire process of including predictors places a significant degree in the model. Step 1 presents 36.917 as the chi-square value (p = 0.000), which means that the first predictor is a significant part in the clarification of the dependent variable’s variation. Step 2 makes the model even better, by having a step chi-square of 16.139 (p = 0.000) and a cumulative model chi-square of 53.056 (p = 0.000), thus indicating that the second predictor too has provided substantial explanatory strength. In Step 3, the inclusion of the third predictor entails a chi-square value of 6.030 (p = 0.014), which still indicates a statistically significant improvement, although it is smaller than the ones in previous steps. The final model, having a cumulative chi-square of 59.086 (p = 0.000), demonstrates that the three predictors combined contribute significantly to the model’s predicting power over the null model.
For binary logistic regression analysis, the measure of model explanatory power involves the use of pseudo R2 statistics in lieu of the coefficient of determination (R2). Pseudo R2 measures include the Cox and Snell R2, as well as Nagelkerke R2, which are indicators used in assessing how much variation can be attributed to the independent variables included in the model. While pseudo R2 values do not share the meaning ascribed to R2 statistics in binary logistic regression, their increasing value suggests improved fit. In this case, the Cox and Snell R2 and Nagelkerke R2 values (Table 2) were found to range between 0.615 and 0.792, suggesting adequate explanatory power.
Table 2
| Step | 2 Log likelihood | Cox & Snell R Square | Nagelkerke R Square |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 45.565a | 0.405 | 0.590 |
| 2 | 29.426b | 0.526 | 0.766 |
| 3 | 23.397c | 0.615 | 0.792 |
Binary logistic regression model.
The superscript standards for the below a. Variables in Step 1: Income. b. Variables in Step 2: Income, Travel Cost. c. Variables in Step 3: Income, Travel Cost, Education.
The Hosmer–Lemeshow test is a method used to evaluate the fit of a logistic regression model. Basically, it is a chi-square goodness-of-fit test on grouped data, usually where the observations are divided into ten groups of almost equal size. In the version of the test presented here, however, the groupings used are the same as those applied elsewhere in the analysis, rather than fixed subgroups of ten in their cluster.
Since this is a chi-square goodness of fit test, we need to calculate the HL statistic.
Where g = the number of groups. The test used is chi-square with g – 2 degrees of freedom. A significant test indicates that the model is not a good fit and a non-significant test indicates a good fit. A goodness of fit test tells you how well your data fits the model. Specifically, the HL test calculates if the observed event rates match the expected event rates in population subgroups. The Hosmer–Lemeshow test can determine if the differences between observed and expected proportions are significant, indicating model lack of fit. The Hosmer and Lemeshow test value (Table 3) indicates that in the step 3 the chi square significant value is more than 0.05 which shows the goodness of fit. Although there were eight independent variables considered initially in the regression equation, stepwise logistic regression analysis reduced this number to three significant variables in the model equation, which included monthly income, occupation, and cost incurred in the park. Other factors that include travel time, family size, frequency of visitation, cost of travel, and number of children were not considered in the final equation as they did not contribute significantly (p > 0.05).
Table 3
| Step | Chi-square | df | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.000 | 0 | — |
| 2 | 0.189 | 4 | 0.996 |
| 3 | 3.060 | 7 | 0.879 |
Hosmer and Lemeshow test.
From the Table 4 The Binary logistic regression was performed for WTP on a sample size of 200 people, where 140 people were willing to pay and 60 were not willing to pay and it can be noted that monthly income, occupational status, and cost spent within the park were statistically significant variables contributing to willingness to pay for recreational site conservation. Monthly income positively and significantly influenced willingness to pay, showing that individuals who have relatively higher income levels are more likely to pay towards conservation measures. Occupational status was found to be significant as well; nevertheless, it was seen that the odds ratio is close to zero [Exp(B) = 0.000], implying the presence of quasi-complete separation in the data due to employment status. Cost of variable expenses incurred within the park was negatively correlated with WTP (B = −0.017, p = 0.020; Exp(B) = 0.983). An odds ratio of 0.983 means that each extra rupee expenditure made within the park will result in the odds of WTP falling by an approximate value of 1.7%. This shows that people who have already made high expenditures while visiting such recreation places are less likely to make extra payments for entrance or conservation charges. Such results are supported by literature on previous studies that show that increased cost expenditure decreases the WTP for recreational facilities. This result is similar to the results of Enyew (2003) creating an equation that predicts the willingness to pay for the environmental good with reasonable explanatory variables, having coefficients with the expected signs provides the reason to suggest that the study has measured the desired construct (Carson et al., 2001). The positive relationship between the level of education and the willingness of the visitors to pay for conservation in this study is in line with many studies where education plays a significant role in determining the willingness to pay (Baral et al., 2008; Wang and Jia, 2012; Hejazi et al., 2014). The explanatory capacity of the logistic regression model can be considered satisfactory. The Cox & Snell R2 statistic values were within the range 0.405–0.615, while Nagelkerke R2 ranged from 0.590 to 0.792, which means that the chosen independent variables account for 61% to 79% of variance in the respondents’ Willingness to pay (Table 2). The goodness of fit of the logistic model based on the Hosmer–Lemeshow statistic was non-significant in the final model (χ2 = 3.060, p = 0.879), thus being satisfactory (Table 3) (Figure 2).
Table 4
| Independent variable | B | S.E. | Wald | df | Sig. | Exp (B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | −3.834 | 2.060 | 3.462 | 1 | 0.063 | 0.022 |
| MI | 0.000 | 0.000 | 7.838 | 1 | 0.005 | 1.000 |
| Occupation of sample visitors | −8.434 | 2.467 | 11.688 | 1 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Costs spent inside the park | −0.017 | 0.007 | 5.407 | 1 | 0.020 | 0.983 |
Binary logistic regression analysis.
Figure 2
Recreational approach
Occupational status of the visitors
India, for example, had almost 90% of its workforce (423 million workers out of 470 million workers) engaged in unorganized labor. Typical unorganized labour in rural areas is largely composed of mobile casual workers, while in urban areas, it consists of contract and subcontract migrant workers, maids and small-scale mechanics. There is a six-fold difference in productivity among workers in private organized and unorganized sectors in the country. Two thirds of people employed in the Indian organized sector are public employees and one third are private employees. Visitors were enquired about their employment status. All the visitors under the willingness to pay category were employed whereas under the non-willingness category nearly 68 per cent were non-employed (Table 4). Thus the study shows that only employed category were willing to pay. Kotoky and Buragohain (2025) revealed that significant factors influencing travel decisions to Majuli include total travel cost, education, age, and visitor satisfaction. The estimated consumer surplus for visiting the Satras was calculated at INR 6,895.83 per visitor, amounting to a total consumer surplus of INR 7.2 crores over 5 years. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of developing a sustainable management strategy for these cultural heritages to protect them from floods and erosion (Tables 5, 6, 7, 8).
Table 5
| S. no | Test | Results of the test |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Omnibus test | All p-values of Step, Block, and Model chi-square are less than 0.01, indicating statistical significance of the model |
| 2 | Cox and Snell R2 and Nagelkerke R2 | 0.615 and 0.792, indicating that 61–79 per cent variation in the dependent variable is explained |
| 3 | Hosmer and Lemeshow | 0.879 (>0.05), indicating goodness of fit |
| 4 | Correct classification rate | 93 per cent (indicates that out of 200 respondents, 186 respondents were correctly predicted) |
Summary of results.
Table 6
| Frequency of visit | WTP | NWTP |
|---|---|---|
| 12 | 18 (13) | 7 (11) |
| 8 | 11 (8) | 3 (5) |
| 4 | 46 (33) | 16 (26) |
| 2 | 38 (27) | 10 (16) |
| 1 | 27 (19) | 24 (42) |
| Total | 140 (100) | 60 (100) |
Visitor’s frequency of visits in a month (times in numbers).
Table 7
| Particulars | WTP | NWTP |
|---|---|---|
| Employed | 140 (100) | 19 (32) |
| Non employed | 0 (nil) | 41 (68) |
| Total | 140 | 60 |
Occupation status of the visitors.
Table 8
| Category | Jhansi Fort | Lakshmi Bai Park | Panchatantra Park | Atal Ekta Park |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency of visits | Highest rare visits (34%); notable monthly and weekly visits; attracts occasional visitors | Highest daily visits (43.1%); functions as daily leisure space | Highest weekly visits (42%); no daily visitors; preferred for periodic recreation | Balanced pattern; daily (26%) and rare (26%); weekly highest at 32% |
| Most visited site | 52% consider it their top site; also shares visitors with Atal Ekta Park and Panchtantra Park | 54.9% consider it their top site; emerges as a city-wide favourite | 52% identify it as their most visited site; strong neighbourhood appeal | 56% rank it as their top destination; strongest preference city-wide |
| Primary reasons for visit | Recreation/leisure (46%); education/research highest here (12%) | Health/exercise (35.3%); nature appreciation (25.5%) | Socializing with friends and family (50%); major community interaction spot | Recreation/leisure (44%); secondary motivations balanced |
| Overall insights | Historical importance leads to occasional but purposeful visits | Daily-use urban green space supporting fitness and relaxation | Key hub for social gatherings and community bonding | Popular recreational space with balanced usage and highest preference |
Recreational site usage in Jhansi.
Recreational site usage in Jhansi
Comparative analysis of the sites has exposed to a greater difference in the way people visit and perceive the sites. For instance, though Jhansi Fort, which is a heritage-based site, attracts infrequent but very determined visitors, Lakshmi Bai Park urban green space encourages and provides support for everyday physical activities as well as relaxation. Thompson et al. (2012) observed that residents living in nearby with green space exhibited lower perceived stress. The study concluded that access to nearby green spaces can significantly improve psychological well-being, particularly in socioeconomically deprived urban communities. In addition, Panchatantra Park being the prime socializing center, whereas Atal Ekta Park attracting and evenly distributing the visitors has become most popular one. The results of the analysis have implications for the understanding of the role of various recreational environments in the realms of public health, cultural involvement, and community building in Jhansi. Santos and Galicia (2025) in his study finds that the Consumer Surplus value per trip is PHP 1466.60, leading to an aggregate annual Recreational Value of the park estimated at approximately PHP 18.4 million for the year 2019. This highlights the significant economic contribution of the park as a recreational site.
Activities preferences
The activity preferences across four major recreational sites in Jhansi reveal distinct patterns of engagement based on the nature of each location. Relaxing or resting emerges as the most favoured activity at Jhansi Fort (50%) and Atal Ekta Park (46%), indicating that these spaces are primarily used for passive recreation and tranquillity. In contrast, Lakshmi Bai Park sees the highest share of walking or jogging (37.3%), aligning with its earlier identification as a hub for exercise and fitness. Panchtantra Park shows a more diverse activity mix, with nearly equal preferences for relaxing (32%) and sports (30%), reflecting its multifunctional appeal. Interestingly, photography is notably more popular in Lakshmi Bai Park (19.6%) than in other sites, possibly due to its aesthetic or botanical features. Overall, the data highlights how design and amenities of urban green spaces influence visitor behaviour, with parks serving varied roles from leisure and exercise to social interaction and creative expression. The socio-cultural significance of recreational spaces is also noted, as they promote cultural exchange and community engagement. Juzelėnienė (2022) elaborates that environmental amenities foster social cohesion, while Badiu et al. (2016) point to their role in cultural preservation.
Visiting time preferences
The analysis of visiting time preferences across four key public sites in Jhansi highlights a dominant inclination toward evening visits, suggesting a collective behavioural pattern favouring leisure after daytime obligations. Evening hours are the most preferred time across all locations, peaking at Panchtantra Park (64%) and Atal Ekta Park (54%), possibly due to cooler temperatures, family-friendly environments, and suitability for relaxation or socializing. Morning visits are relatively more prominent at Lakshmi Bai Park (31.4%), reflecting its utility for health-centric activities like walking or jogging. Afternoon visits maintain moderate appeal at Jhansi Fort (36%) and Atal Ekta Park (32%), perhaps due to tourists or casual daytime visitors. Night visits are minimal in all locations, indicating limited infrastructure or safety concerns after dark. These insights can inform urban planners and park managers about peak usage hours, guiding decisions around security, lighting, and programming for maximum community engagement.
Average duration of visits
The data on average visit durations reveals notable differences in engagement across public spaces. Jhansi Fort stands out with a substantial portion of visitors (30%) spending more than 2 h, likely reflecting its historical significance and the time required to explore it fully. In contrast, parks like Panchtantra and Atal Ekta show shorter visit durations, with the majority (52 and 42%, respectively) staying 1–2 h, indicating their use as recreational or fitness spots rather than immersive destinations. Panchtantra Park has the highest share of medium-duration visitors, while Lakshmi Bai Park displays a relatively balanced distribution but with fewer long-duration visitors (13.7%). Visits under 30 min remain minimal across all sites, highlighting that most users seek a meaningful engagement with these locations. These patterns are crucial for resource allocation, such as amenities, seating, lighting, and programming based on user stay duration.
Acquaintances at recreational sites
The data on social interactions at recreational sites indicates that parks serve as more effective venues for forming new friendships and acquaintances than historical sites. Atal Ekta Park leads in social connectivity, with 70% of visitors reporting they made new connections, followed by Lakshmi Bai Park (64.7%) and Panchtantra Park (64%). In contrast, Jhansi Fort shows an even split, with only 50% of visitors making new acquaintances, suggesting that while it draws interest, it may foster less interaction due to its historical rather than communal focus. This pattern underscores the importance of recreational parks not only as spaces for leisure but also as hubs of social engagement, potentially contributing to stronger community ties and improved mental well-being. The findings could guide urban planners and policymakers to invest more in park-based infrastructure and inclusive activities that promote interpersonal interaction. Kuo et al. (1998) finds the presence of green recreational areas encourages spontaneous social contacts between users living nearby. People living in the neighbourhood will be more inclined to see and talk to the people they know in the common green places. Through these socializing activities, the social capital of the neighbourhood gets stronger. Peters et al. (2010) revealed that urban parks act as neutral spaces promoting interaction among diverse user groups. Repeated Park visits foster weak social ties and acquaintanceship. These interactions contribute to overall social cohesion in urban settings.
Public perception of recreational site maintenance
The public perception of maintenance across recreational sites varies significantly, with Atal Ekta Park emerging as the most well-maintained, as affirmed by 72% of respondents. This is followed by Lakshmi Bai Park (62.7%), while Panchtantra Park and Jhansi Fort lag behind with 42.9 and 44%, respectively. Notably, Jhansi Fort received the highest percentage of negative feedback (34%) regarding maintenance, suggesting potential neglect of heritage infrastructure. A substantial proportion of visitors at Panchtantra Park (30.6%) and Lakshmi Bai Park (29.4%) also indicated that maintenance is inconsistent, marking a need for regular upkeep. The results underscore the importance of consistent maintenance to enhance visitor satisfaction and preserve the utility and attractiveness of these public spaces, particularly for community engagement and tourism.
Key amenities in recreational sites: respondents’ perspectives
The analysis of amenities deemed important by visitors at recreational sites reveals distinct preferences and areas for improvement. Clean toilets emerge as a top priority across all sites, with the highest importance given at Lakshmi Bai Park (74.5%) and Atal Ekta Park (66%). Seating areas and waste disposal bins are also highly valued, particularly at Panchtantra Park (72 and 66%, respectively). Food and drink stalls are significantly important in Jhansi Fort (60%) and Atal Ekta Park (50%), indicating a need for enhanced dining facilities. Parking facilities, although less prioritized, still hold moderate importance at all sites, with the highest preference seen at Panchtantra Park (52%). Notably, information boards are rated relatively low in importance, especially at Lakshmi Bai Park (5.9%) and Atal Ekta Park (50%), highlighting a potential area for better educational engagement. While most amenities generally meet visitor expectations, the notable variations suggest that targeted improvements could enhance visitor satisfaction, particularly in enhancing cleanliness and seating comfort. Crompton (2001) found the main factors behind visitor satisfaction are the quality and availability of the amenities. A well-maintained facility can lead to a repeat customer. The value of the recreational places is increased by the amenities. Chiesura (2004) studied about the respondents considering amenities that improve comfort and environmental quality as highly valuable. Urban parks are sources of recreation, beauty and socializing. Presence of facilities turns the users’ decision to stay longer in the recreational area into an easy one. Lindsey et al. (2008) According to the users’ opinion, safety-related amenities are necessities that come along with the site. Inadequate lighting, bad paths, and low visibility deter people from visiting a site. A site with many facilities will have the interaction of different user groups. Kabisch and Haase (2014) identified the availability of amenities has a direct impact on the equitable distribution of recreational spaces. People belonging to different socio-economic classes perceive the value of amenities differently. Unequal distribution of facilities limits the access of all user groups to playgrounds and parks (Figures 3, 4).
Figure 3
Figure 4
People’s satisfaction with the overall services provided at the recreational sites
An analysis of the causes of different levels of satisfaction would help in coming up with more effective ways to improve services at such recreational facilities. The fact that there is a difference in the levels of visitors’ satisfaction and environmental issues in the recreational facilities implies that there exists heterogeneity among the recreational facilities. This heterogeneity could result from variations in factors such as maintenance, infrastructure, environmental conditions, and visitor management. The analysis of people’s satisfaction with services provided at recreational sites reveals notable variations across four key locations: Jhansi Fort, Lakshmi Bai Park, Panchtantra Park, and Atal Ekta Park. The majority of visitors to Lakshmi Bai Park (60.8%) and Panchtantra Park (52%) reported being satisfied, indicating that these sites meet visitor expectations to a significant extent. However, Jhansi Fort shows a balanced distribution between satisfaction (48%) and neutrality (36%), suggesting room for service enhancement. On the other hand, Atal Ekta Park stands out with a relatively higher percentage of visitors (38%) expressing strong satisfaction, although 46% still remain only satisfied, hinting at potential areas of improvement. The presence of a small yet noticeable proportion of dissatisfaction in Panchtantra Park (8%) and Atal Ekta Park (14%) also indicates the need to address specific issues to enhance the overall visitor experience. Analysing the reasons behind varying satisfaction levels would aid in formulating targeted service improvements at these recreational sites. Significant variations in the level of visitor satisfaction and environmental awareness among recreation sites imply heterogeneity in the performance and visitors’ experience at various sites. This implies that factors such as infrastructure, maintenance, visitor management, and environmental issues affect visitors’ perceptions of these sites. Sardar and Islam, 2024 found that recreational activities can negatively affect ecological systems through species invasion, habitat modification, and population density changes.
Improvements suggested
The analysis of suggested improvements for recreational sites highlights cleanliness as the most critical area of concern, particularly at Atal Ekta Park (86%) and Lakshmi Bai Park (82.4%), indicating significant dissatisfaction with hygiene standards. Jhansi Fort also shows a substantial need for cleanliness improvements (60%), while Panchtantra Park exhibits relatively lower concern (72%). The second most cited improvement is the need for more seating/rest areas, particularly at Lakshmi Bai Park (56.9%) and Jhansi Fort (56%), suggesting that visitors seek better comfort and relaxation spots. Improved food options are moderately important, especially at Panchtantra Park (38%) and Jhansi Fort (48%), while accessibility improvements for the elderly and disabled are notably recommended at Jhansi Fort (48%) and Lakshmi Bai Park (37.3%). The data indicates that prioritizing cleanliness and enhancing seating availability across these sites would significantly elevate visitor satisfaction, while specific attention to food services and accessibility could further enhance the user experience (Figure 5).
Figure 5
Visitors’ perception on importance of recreational sites is for biodiversity conservation in the region
The analysis of visitors’ opinions on the importance of recreational sites for biodiversity conservation highlights a strong environmental consciousness among visitors. The majority of respondents across all sites, including Jhansi Fort (50%), Lakshmi Bai Park (50%), Panchtantra Park (58%), and Atal Ekta Park (56%), perceive these sites as “very important” for biodiversity conservation. This positive perception underscores the ecological value attributed to these recreational areas, emphasizing their role in sustaining local flora and fauna. However, a significant proportion of visitors still rate the importance as merely “important” (42% at Jhansi Fort, 45.8% at Lakshmi Bai Park, 34% at Panchtantra Park, and 40% at Atal Ekta Park), indicating a potential gap in awareness regarding the critical role these sites play in environmental preservation. The presence of a small fraction rating these sites as “neutral” or even “not important” suggests the need for more educational initiatives to foster a deeper understanding of the ecological functions of recreational areas. Strengthening biodiversity conservation efforts and increasing community engagement could further enhance the perceived ecological importance of these urban green spaces. Gao et al. (2025) identified Visitors identify biodiversity in recreational sites mainly through sensory cues such as birdsong, vegetation diversity, natural colours, and seasonal variation. These perceptions enhance visitors’ psychological well-being and strengthen appreciation for conservation-oriented landscapes. Zhang et al. (2025) found that visitors’ perception of naturalness and species diversity (especially bird diversity) at recreational sites significantly predicts mental well-being. Areas perceived as more biodiverse are also associated with lower human disturbance and higher ecological value. Kowalska and Kaczmarek (2019) concluded that visitors often prioritize leisure and recreation functions of urban nature reserves, a significant proportion also recognize their importance for biodiversity conservation and environmental education, indicating dual valuation of recreational sites. Weng et al. (2022) identified conservation policies and environmental behaviour attract visitor support more when the visitors consider the recreational areas as ecologically affluent and perfectly managed, thus underlining the importance of perception in the conservation achievement.
Presence of recreational sites enhances the overall environmental quality
The perception of recreational sites as enhancers of environmental quality in the region shows a positive trend, with a majority of visitors acknowledging their ecological benefits. Niemela et al. (2010) and Sylla et al. (2019) advocate for strategic urban interventions that integrate environmental and recreational amenities to balance growth with ecological and social benefits. Comparative analysis of the perceptions of visitors with respect to the contribution of recreational places in improving environmental quality shows distinct variations among different places. In terms of the greatest number of visitors perceiving positively about their contribution to environmental quality, Lakshmi Bai Park stands out, as 70.8% of visitors perceive it positively in that aspect, implying that it is comparatively well maintained in ecological and environmental matters. Panchtantra Park (64%) and Jhansi Fort (58%) were also positively perceived by the visitors, although not as strongly as Lakshmi Bai Park. Atal Ekta Park, where 54% of visitors perceived positively, comes last on the list. This could be because of the differences in the green cover, maintenance levels, pressure of tourists, and infrastructure within the recreational spots. Interestingly, both Jhansi Fort and Atal Ekta Park indicated a relatively higher number of those who agreed (40%) compared to strongly agreed with respect to the environmental advantages, indicating that the tourists appreciate the value of environment but at the same time see some shortcomings pertaining to pollution or even maintenance issues. Furthermore, there was also the presence of disagreement in Panchtantra Park (6%), which highlights the environmental management and care of the environment. This suggests that although the recreational spots provide immense environmental advantages, their effectiveness differs from place to place based on environmental management Lakshmi Bai Park leads in this perception, with 70.8% of visitors strongly agreeing that the park positively impacts environmental quality. Similarly, Panchtantra Park (64%) and Jhansi Fort (58%) also receive strong agreement from visitors, indicating widespread recognition of their environmental contributions. Atal Ekta Park also sees a favourable perception, with 54% strongly agreeing. However, a notable proportion of visitors still only “agree” rather than “strongly agree,” especially at Jhansi Fort (40%) and Atal Ekta Park (40%), which suggests that while the positive environmental role is acknowledged, some visitors may perceive limitations or challenges. Additionally, a small percentage remain neutral or even disagree, especially in Panchtantra Park (6% disagree), hinting at concerns related to maintenance or ecological management. Strengthening green initiatives, sustainable landscaping, and community awareness programs can help maximize the perceived environmental benefits of these recreational spaces, fostering greater community support and environmental stewardship. Wolch et al. (2014) and Van Kamp et al. (2003) stress the need for sustainable planning to ensure equitable access to green spaces. Saurabh Yadav et al., 2012 specifically noted Jhansi’s urban areas experience higher pollution levels compared to rural regions, suggesting recreational development could exacerbate environmental stress. Khalili Ardali et al. (2024) in their study finds that a significant majority (83.04%) of visitors are willing to pay for recreational use, with various factors, including environmental perspective, socio-economic factors, visit frequency, age, gender, education, and income influencing this willingness. A strong positive correlation between the new environmental paradigm and willingness to pay is noted, indicating that ecological values significantly impact economic decisions. The findings suggest that integrating environmental perspectives can enhance the management and valuation of recreational sites.
Environmental issues perceived by the visitors at recreational sites
The analysis of environmental issues noticed by visitors at recreational sites highlights significant concerns, primarily related to pollution and overcrowding. Pollution, particularly noise and air pollution, is the most frequently reported issue, with the highest occurrence at Atal Ekta Park (78%), followed by Lakshmi Bai Park (85.4%), Panchtantra Park (86%), and Jhansi Fort (69.4%). This reflects a critical need for implementing pollution control measures and ensuring cleaner, healthier environments within these recreational spaces. Overcrowding and overuse also emerge as notable issues, especially at Panchtantra Park (42%) and Lakshmi Bai Park (41.7%), indicating that increased visitor numbers may be leading to environmental degradation and discomfort. Littering, although not the most severe issue, still presents a concern, particularly at Panchtantra Park (40%) and Jhansi Fort (32.7%), signifying the need for better waste management practices. Vargas et al. (2024) identified the visitors view waste buildup and the deterioration of the environment as the most severe problems. The majority of the participants have shown their readiness to take part in activities aimed at correcting the situation or conserving the environment. The level of environmental awareness among tourists can contribute to the adoption of eco-friendly practices in leisure areas.
Deforestation or damage to plants is reported relatively less but remains relevant, particularly at Jhansi Fort (34.7%) and Panchtantra Park (26%). Water pollution, while less commonly noted, is still a concern, especially at Jhansi Fort (32.7%). These findings indicate that while recreational sites offer environmental benefits, improper maintenance, pollution, and high visitor pressure pose risks to biodiversity and environmental quality. Addressing these issues through stricter pollution regulations, crowd management, and community awareness campaigns could significantly improve the ecological sustainability of these areas. Bulut and Yulu (2022) identified the major negative impacts of the park’s recreational use reported by most users in Mount Ararat National Park were environmental ones such as litter widespread in the park, soil erosion, and damages to the vegetations and trails, and poor trail conditions which are the latter two, indicating that visitors are conscious of various types of environmental destruction caused by the tourist activities. The dominance of issues associated with pollution and overcrowding suggests a possible conflict between the growth of recreational activities and ecological sustainability. Areas with high numbers of visitors, especially Lakshmi Bai Park and Panchtantra Park, were found to have greater levels of environmental stress, indicating that excessive use could be detrimental to the environment and biodiversity Aziz and Azizan (2020) carried out a study in Taman Negara National Park in Malaysia concluded that tourists who had higher level of environmental concern were inclined to consider less suitable to the presence of motorized activities, specific services, and sports installations which mirrors that perceived environmental issues influence visitors’ opinions regarding use of the site and prioritization of environmental protection (Figure 6).
Figure 6
Efforts to reduce waste or promote sustainability at recreational sites
The analysis of visitors’ perceptions regarding efforts to reduce waste and promote sustainability at recreational sites in Jhansi reveals a mixed outlook. Lakshmi Bai Park stands out positively, with 79.2% of visitors acknowledging visible efforts towards waste reduction and sustainability. This suggests that initiatives taken in this park are effective and noticeable. Similarly, Atal Ekta Park also shows a majority of positive responses (61.2%), indicating moderate success in implementing sustainable practices. Good waste management is dependent on the cooperation of the visitors, the institutions, and the authorities. Sustainability projects are cutting down the environmental impact of recreational activities to a great extent. Wang et al. (2022) found that the location and the ease of access to the waste bins greatly impact people’s choice of disposing waste in the right manner. The influence of social norms and the extent of environmental awareness are factors that lead the tourists to use the waste bins properly. Littering in parks used for recreation can be greatly reduced through simple infrastructure improvements.
However, the situation is notably less encouraging at Jhansi Fort, where 62% of visitors reported no visible efforts, and particularly at Panchtantra Park, where a substantial 78% expressed that they have not noticed any waste reduction or sustainability initiatives. This highlights a significant gap between community expectations and actual on-ground practices.
The data suggests that while some parks are making progress, particularly Lakshmi Bai Park, there is a pressing need for improved waste management strategies and more visible sustainability practices at other sites. Awareness campaigns, regular maintenance, and community involvement can help bridge the gap and ensure that sustainability efforts are better recognized and more effective across all recreational areas in Jhansi.
People’s spendings at recreational sites
The analysis of spending patterns at recreational sites highlights the socio-economic impact of these areas on local economies. Entry fees or tickets constitute the most significant expenditure for visitors, with almost universal spending reported at Atal Ekta Park (100%) and Panchtantra Park (100%), followed closely by Jhansi Fort (95.9%) and Lakshmi Bai Park (56%). This indicates that ticketed entry plays a substantial role in revenue generation for these sites.
Food and beverage purchases also form a major part of visitor spending, especially at Atal Ekta Park (78%) and Panchtantra Park (70%), suggesting the importance of food vendors and refreshment facilities in attracting and sustaining visitor engagement. Transport expenses, such as rickshaws and buses, are also notable, particularly at Atal Ekta Park (58%) and Jhansi Fort (44.9%), indicating that accessibility costs can be a significant part of the visit. Hu et al. (2024) finds that the correlation between visitor satisfaction and expenditure on services and amenities at national parks is positive. Happy visitors usually pay more for entrance fees, food, and lodging knowing this connection helps managers to enhance their services and to get more economic benefits.
Purchasing souvenirs or other goods is relatively less common, with only 12% at Panchtantra Park and 26% at Lakshmi Bai Park, suggesting that enhancing local handicrafts and memorabilia could improve economic benefits for nearby communities. These spending patterns reflect the economic influence of recreational sites, indicating that enhancing ticketed experiences, improving food and beverage options, and creating local souvenir opportunities could further boost the economic vitality of surrounding areas. Promoting local transport connectivity could also facilitate greater visitor numbers and more substantial economic returns.
Visitor’s willingness to pay an entrance fee for supporting the maintenance and conservation of the recreational sites
The analysis of visitors’ willingness to pay an entrance fee for maintaining and conserving recreational sites reveals important socio-economic insights. At Lakshmi Bai Park, a substantial majority (68.6%) are willing to pay a modest fee of less than ₹20, indicating a high level of community support for affordable maintenance contributions. Similarly, Atal Ekta Park also shows a majority (56%) preferring to pay under ₹20, reflecting similar socio-economic considerations.
In contrast, Jhansi Fort displays a more diverse willingness to pay, with a significant 38% of visitors willing to contribute ₹20–30, and 14% even agreeing to pay more than ₹50, indicating that visitors perceive the site as having greater historical and cultural value. Panchtantra Park shows a mixed pattern, where 46% prefer paying less than ₹20, while a notable 32% are willing to pay ₹20–30, suggesting moderate willingness to invest in site upkeep. Reynisdottir et al. (2008) identified a slight differences in the willingness to pay according to income, attitude towards environmental protection, number of previous visits, history of paying entrance fees, country of residence, age and education. Implications of the empirical study for policy makers and site managers are provided.
Higher willingness to pay (more than ₹50) is consistently low across all sites, with only a small proportion of visitors at Jhansi Fort (14%) and Panchtantra Park (6%) showing such inclination, indicating a general preference for economical access to public spaces. Wang et al. (2025) study indicates that while perceived destination restorative qualities (PDRQs) did not have a direct significant effect on WTP, RDRQs positively influenced two variables: eudaimonic well-being (EWB) and ecotourism destination image (EDI). Additionally, the study concludes that EWB and EDI fully mediate the relationship between RDRQs and WTP for environmental protection, affirming the applicability of the Reasonable Person Model (RPM) to explain this mechanism.
These patterns suggest that while visitors value recreational sites and acknowledge the need for maintenance, affordability remains a key factor. Implementing a tiered fee structure that aligns with socio-economic diversity could ensure sustainable revenue without alienating economically disadvantaged groups. Additionally, offering transparent information on how fees contribute to site conservation may increase public acceptance of moderate fee increases.
Average money spent by people during a visit to recreational sites (including travel, accommodation, food, and entrance fees)
The average spending patterns at recreational sites highlights the socio-economic considerations of visitors. A majority of visitors at Lakshmi Bai Park (74.5%) and Panchtantra Park (74%) spend less than ₹500 per visit, indicating that these sites primarily attract visitors from economically modest backgrounds or those looking for budget-friendly recreational options. Atal Ekta Park also shows a significant proportion (66%) of visitors spending under ₹500, reinforcing the perception that low-cost leisure is highly valued.
Jhansi Fort, while still showing a majority of visitors spending less than ₹500 (58%), also demonstrates more diversity in spending patterns. About 18% of visitors spend between ₹500–1,000, and 10% spend ₹1,000–2000, indicating that this site may attract a more varied socio-economic group compared to other parks. This could be attributed to the fort’s historical and cultural significance, which may justify slightly higher expenditures.
Spending above ₹2000 remains rare across all sites, with the highest being Jhansi Fort (10%), which may reflect occasional tourists or visitors who invest more in travel and accommodation. Minimal spending beyond ₹5,000 across the sites suggests that these recreational areas are primarily used by local residents or day visitors rather than long-stay tourists.
These patterns indicate that affordable recreational options are crucial for community engagement, particularly in economically diverse areas like Jhansi. Improving basic amenities while keeping costs low would ensure accessibility for the majority. Additionally, sites like Jhansi Fort can consider offering value-added services to cater to higher-spending visitors without alienating regular local users. Sardar and Islam (2024). conducted a systematic review and bibliometric analysis of 21 impact-based research papers published between 2004 and 2022, examining how recreational activities affect ecological environments through both biotic impacts (invasive species, behavioural changes, habitat modification) and abiotic impacts (soil compaction, degradation, littering, water pollution).
How recreational sites impact local businesses
The analysis of how recreational sites impact local businesses reveals a predominantly positive perception among visitors. The majority of respondents at all four sites believe that these recreational spaces significantly contribute to bringing in more customers to local businesses, such as restaurants and shops. Atal Ekta Park stands out with a striking 95.9% of visitors affirming this positive impact, followed closely by Lakshmi Bai Park (80.4%) and Jhansi Fort (78%). Panchtantra Park, although slightly lower, still shows a substantial positive response (65.3%). However, the perception is less clear at Panchtantra Park, where 28.6% of respondents are unsure about the impact, indicating a potential gap in understanding or visibility of economic benefits. A small fraction at Jhansi Fort (12%) and Lakshmi Bai Park (15.7%) also expressed uncertainty, suggesting that while the overall perception is favourable, there is still room for better communication regarding the economic benefits recreational sites bring to the community. The negligible perception of negative impact further reinforces that these sites generally support local business growth. To strengthen this relationship, integrating local vendors more visibly within these recreational spaces and promoting community-based tourism could enhance both visitor experience and local economic sustainability.
It is evident that recreational places have economic spillover effects because of the higher level of need for transport services, food provision, and shopping facilities. The presence of a strong positive attitude in both Atal Ekta Park and Lakshmi Bai Park shows that regular recreational places play a greater role in economic development than irregular heritage sites. This proves that recreational facilities do not only serve social purposes but are also important in promoting economic growth at a micro-level.
People’s review on current economic infrastructure and facilities provided by the recreational sites
The review of the current economic infrastructure and facilities at recreational sites reveals a general perception of adequacy, with significant room for improvement. Atal Ekta Park stands out as the most positively rated, with 50% of visitors considering the facilities excellent and 40% rating them as good. This suggests that recent upgrades or better maintenance practices may have positively impacted visitor satisfaction. In contrast, Lakshmi Bai Park shows a less favourable perception, with 62.7% rating the facilities as merely good, indicating that while basic amenities are adequate, they may not meet higher visitor expectations. Jhansi Fort also has a mixed response, with 54% rating the infrastructure as good and 24% as excellent, reflecting appreciation for historical significance but potential shortcomings in modern amenities. Panchtantra Park exhibits the lowest positive rating, with only 32% rating the facilities as excellent, and a significant 44% perceiving them as just good. This disparity suggests that while these parks provide essential infrastructure, there is a noticeable gap in delivering high-quality, well-maintained facilities that would elevate visitor satisfaction. To bridge this gap, targeted improvements in sanitation, seating, and visitor engagement amenities are necessary to transform good perceptions into excellent experiences (Figure 7).
Figure 7
Environmental concerns associated with recreational sites.
Recreational sites can generate employment opportunities
The analysis of employment opportunities generated by recreational sites highlights their potential to significantly benefit the local economy. Most respondents at Lakshmi Bai Park (76.5%) and Atal Ekta Park (72%) believe that these sites can create jobs across various sectors, including hospitality, tourism, and recreation management. Similarly, Jhansi Fort also shows a strong positive perception, with 48% of visitors indicating that multiple sectors can benefit from recreational site development. However, Panchtantra Park shows relatively lower awareness, with 68% recognizing the multi-sectoral potential. The data indicates that local communities perceive these recreational spaces as not just leisure spots but as economic hubs capable of sustaining jobs in tourism (e.g., guides and local transport), hospitality (e.g., food stalls and accommodations), and recreation management (e.g., maintenance and event coordination). However, the relatively lower recognition of sector-specific opportunities suggests that local stakeholders may not fully understand how to leverage these sites for employment. Strengthening partnerships between local businesses and site management, offering skill development in hospitality and tourism, and actively promoting community engagement can help maximize the socio-economic benefits of these recreational sites. Michael Kerr believes that to keep the work environment lively and exciting throughout, the most acclaimed methods are the entertainment activities, such as customs and traditions. This not only animates and makes the organization happier but also creates the sense of unity among the entire workforce (Kerr, 2011) In the present time, most of the companies do not realize the importance of having their employees participate in playoffs, which is a fundamental factor in creating and maintaining a powerful and prosperous enterprise. It is even acknowledged that Playoff’s enhances teamwork and tactical skills (Darell, 2011) (Figure 8).
Figure 8
Sources of recreational sites can generate revenue
The analysis of revenue generation methods at recreational sites reveals that most visitors perceive a combination of sources as the optimal approach. The majority of respondents at Atal Ekta Park (76%) and Lakshmi Bai Park (70.6%) believe that revenue can best be generated through a mix of entrance fees, concessions, and sponsorships. This multi-pronged strategy is also recognized at Jhansi Fort (46%) and Panchtantra Park (68%), indicating a consensus that diversification of income streams is crucial.
Among individual revenue sources, entrance fees are considered significant at Jhansi Fort (34%) and Lakshmi Bai Park (25.5%), reflecting the importance of charging for site access. Concessions, such as food stalls and merchandise, are perceived as moderately important, particularly at Jhansi Fort (30%), suggesting that visitors are willing to spend on-site. Sponsorships, while generally less emphasized, still hold potential at sites like Jhansi Fort (30%) and Lakshmi Bai Park (15.7%), indicating that partnerships with local businesses or institutions could be beneficial.
Interestingly, Panchtantra Park and Atal Ekta Park show comparatively low recognition of individual revenue sources, highlighting a stronger inclination towards integrated revenue models. This suggests that visitors at these sites may prefer comprehensive strategies that enhance the visitor experience while supporting the park’s financial sustainability.
To optimize revenue, it would be beneficial for site managers to implement a combination of entrance fees, concessions, and sponsorships while ensuring that the added value justifies the cost to visitors. Promoting local partnerships and improving concession quality can also help increase revenue while maintaining positive visitor perceptions.
The comprehensive analysis of recreational sites in Jhansi, including Jhansi Fort, Lakshmi Bai Park, Panchtantra Park, and Atal Ekta Park, reveals valuable insights into visitor perceptions, socio-economic impacts, environmental challenges, and revenue generation opportunities.
Conclusion
Recreational sites in Jhansi a district among central region of India, including Atal Ekta Park, Lakshmi Bai Park, Panchtantra Park, and Jhansi Fort, exhibit relatively high visitor satisfaction, though the quality of infrastructure varies, with Atal Ekta Park and Lakshmi Bai Park receiving more favourable ratings compared to Panchtantra Park and Jhansi Fort, which face challenges related to amenities and cleanliness. The binary logistic regression model found that the monthly income of visitors, their occupation status, and on-site spending have a significant effect on WTP of visitors for the maintenance and conservation efforts of these areas. The more income and employment status of visitors was positive towards financing of conservation, while higher on-site spending had an adverse effect. Environmental concerns, particularly noise and air pollution, are prevalent, especially at Lakshmi Bai Park and Atal Ekta Park, while issues like littering and overcrowding highlight the need for improved waste management and crowd control. Socio-economically, these sites positively impact local businesses by attracting more customers to nearby shops, eateries, and transport services; however, the willingness to pay for maintenance remains low, with most visitors favouring entrance fees under ₹20. Employment potential is perceived as significant, particularly in tourism, hospitality, and recreation management, emphasizing the importance of multi-sectoral approaches to job creation. For revenue generation, visitors largely support an integrated model combining entrance fees, concessions, and sponsorships, with Atal Ekta Park and Lakshmi Bai Park showing the highest approval for diversified revenue strategies, which is essential for financial sustainability.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
As the study involved primary data collection with a public-oriented approach, field surveys and perception-based data collected from recreational anglers, visitors, and other stakeholders regarding the socio-economic and environmental impacts of recreational sites and hence, it does not require an ethical approval. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
PT: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. HP: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. VB: Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AV: Software, Validation, Writing – review & editing. MS: Supervision, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. SS: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. SB: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. AT: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AzizA. A.AzizanS. N. (2020). Environmental concerns and attitudes of tourists towards national park uses and services. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour.31:100296. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2020.100296
2
BadiuD. L.IojaC. I.PatroescuM.BreusteJ.ArtmannM.NițaM. R.et al. (2016). Is urban green space per capita a valuable target to achieve cities’ sustainability goals? Romania as a case study. Ecological Indicators,70, 53–66.
3
BaralN.SternM. J.BhattaraiR. (2008). Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: implications for sustainable park finance and local development. Ecol. Econ.66, 218–227. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.02.004,
4
BulutM. B. B.YuluA. (2022). Evaluation of visitor perceptions of environmental and social impacts at Mount Ararat National Park. Türkiye Peyzaj Araşt. Derg.5, 43–52.
5
CarsonR. T.FloresN. E.MeadeN. F. (2001). Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ. Resour. Econ.19, 173–210. doi: 10.1023/A:1011128332243
6
ChiesuraA. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan.68, 129–138. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
7
CromptonJ. L. (2001). The impact of parks on property values: empirical evidence from the past two decades in the United States. J. Leis. Res.33, 1–31. doi: 10.1080/13606710500348060
8
DarellR. (2011) The importance of play during working hours. Available online at: http://www.bitrebels.com/social/the-importance-of-play-during-working-hours-infographic/
9
EnyewS. (2003). Valuation of the Benefits of Outdoor Recreation using the Travel Cost Method: The Case of Wabi-Shebele Langano Recreation Site (Master’s thesis). Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University.
10
HejaziR.ShamsudinM. N.RahimK. A. (2014). Measuring the economic values of natural resources along a freeway: a contingent valuation method. J. Environ. Plan. Manag.57, 629–641. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2012.758628
11
HuZ.KumarJ.KannanS.QinQ. (2024). The nexus between visitor satisfaction and expenditure behaviour in national parks: the case of Dragon Palace National Park, Guizhou, China. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour.47:100803. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2024.100803
12
JuzelėnienėG. (2022). Environmental amenities and urban quality: a review. Urban Stud.59.
13
KabischN.HaaseD. (2014). Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Urban Stud.122, 129–139. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.016
14
KerrM. (2011) Humor in the workplace helped along through traditions and rituals. Available online at: http://www.mikekerr.com
15
Khalili ArdaliZ.GhorbaniA.PourahmadA.Malek mohammadiB. (2024). Assessment of recreational value in a protected forest area considering the new environmental paradigm (case study: Helen Forest, southwestern Iran). Sustainability16:2771. doi: 10.3390/su16072771
16
KotokyA.BuragohainP. P. (2025). Investigating information bias in contingent valuation: a survey of willingness to pay to preserve the cultural heritage of Majuli Island. Econ. Cult.22, 46–57. doi: 10.2478/jec-2025-0004
17
KowalskaA.KaczmarekJ. (2019). Visitors’ perceptions of urban nature reserves: implications for biodiversity conservation. Sustainability11:3768. doi: 10.3390/su11143768
18
KuoF. E.SullivanW. C.ColeyR. L.BrunsonL. (1998). Fertile ground for community: inner-city neighbourhood common spaces. Am. J. Community Psychol.26, 823–851. doi: 10.1023/A:10222940289033
19
LindseyG.WilsonJ.Anne YangJ. I. H. U. I.AlexaC. (2008). Urban greenways, trail characteristics and trail use: implications for design. J. Urban Des.13, 53–79. doi: 10.1080/13574800701804033
20
NiemelaJ.SaarelaS. R.SodermanT.KopperoinenL.Yli-PelkonenV.VareS.et al. (2010). Ecological sustainability of urban green spaces. Urban Ecol. Rev.14, 3225–3243.
21
PetersK.ElandsB.BuijsA. (2010). Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion?Urban For. Urban Green.9, 93–100. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2009.11.003
22
ReynisdottirM.SongH.AgrusaJ. (2008). Willingness to pay entrance fees to natural attractions: an Icelandic case study. Tour. Manag.29, 1076–1083. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.02.016
23
SantosR.GaliciaL. (2025). The valuation of recreational value of mount Arayat National Park using travel cost method. Stud. Appl. Econ.43. doi: 10.25115/qevvwc67
24
SardarS.IslamM. M. (2024). The impact of recreational activities on ecology: an evidence-based systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Sustainability17:74. doi: 10.3390/su17010074
25
SyllaM.LassabatereL.BerthierE. (2019). Ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces. Biodivers. Res.25.
26
ThompsonC. W.RoeJ.AspinallP.MitchellR.ClowA.MillerD. (2012). More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc. Urban Plan.105, 221–229. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.015
27
Van KampI.LeidelmeijerK.MarsmanG.de HollanderA. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being: towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts: a literature study. Landsc. Urban Plan.65, 5–18. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00232-3
28
VargasN. G.BodahB. W.CaballeroB.OchoaE.SalasK. M.NeckelA.et al. (2024). Environmental perception of solid waste management in the Hurtado Balneary, Colombia. Water Air Soil Pollut.235:121. doi: 10.1007/s11270-023-06877-6
29
WangP.HanL.AiF. (2022). What drives visitors’ use of bins in urban parks? An application of the stimulus-organism-response model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health19:14170. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192114170
30
WangP. W.JiaJ. B. (2012). Tourists’ willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation and environment protection: implications for entrance fee and sustainable management. Ocean Coast. Manag.62, 24–33. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.03.001
31
WangP.ZhouB.YaJ.HanL.ZhuY. (2025). The impact of perceived restorative destination environments on tourists’ willingness-to-pay for environmental protection. Sci. Rep.15:19989. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-03403-y,
32
WengL.ZhuY.XuX.YangJ.ZhengS.LiuH. (2022). Influence of recreation experience and environmental attitude on environmentally responsible behaviour of visitors. Forests14:24. doi: 10.3390/f14010024
33
WolchJ. R.ByrneJ.NewellJ. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc. Urban Plan.125, 234–244. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017
34
YadavS.KumarV.SinghM. (2012). Assessment of ambient air quality status in urban residential areas of Jhansi city and rural residential areas of adjoining villages. Indian J. Environ. Prot.32, 280–285.
35
ZhangY.WangX.LiJ.ChenZ. (2025). Relationships between perception, landscape characteristics, and mental well-being in recreational places. Sci. Rep.15:88414. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-88414-5
Summary
Keywords
customer preferences, environmental impact, recreational sites, socio-economic impact, willingness to pay
Citation
Tiwari P, Patle H, Baskar VDC, Vadthyavath A, Srivastav M, Shukla S, Behera S and Tiwari A (2026) Assessing the socio-economic and environmental impacts of recreational sites in Jhansi, Central India: perceptions of visitors and local stakeholders. Front. For. Glob. Change 9:1865007. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2026.1865007
Received
25 April 2026
Revised
01 June 2026
Accepted
29 June 2026
Published
21 July 2026
Volume
9 - 2026
Edited by
Pankaj Panwar, Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation (ICAR), India
Reviewed by
Meilinda Suriani Harefa, State University of Medan, Indonesia
Prashant Kumar Yadav, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, India
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Tiwari, Patle, Baskar, Vadthyavath, Srivastav, Shukla, Behera and Tiwari.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: V. David Chella Baskar, davidbaskar@gmail.com
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.