evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Gërmia Regional Nature Park — testing willingness-to-pay financing for Pristina's urban forest

Kosovo · Pristina · See the Kosovo profile · See the Pristina profile

Top 99% 13/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Kosovo's capital protected the roughly 1,126-hectare Gërmia forest as a Regional Nature Park in 1987; a 2021 contingent-valuation survey of visitors found 56% willing to pay a fee, giving the public enterprise that runs it evidence to weigh sustainable-financing options.

Details

Promoter
Public Enterprise "Hortikultura" (Pristina Municipality)
Period
1987–2021 (protected since 1987; willingness-to-pay study published 2021)
Keywords
urban forestry, protected areas, recreation, sustainable financing

Description

Gërmia is a forested massif on Pristina's north-eastern edge; in 1987 the city's Municipal Assembly placed roughly 1,126 hectares under protection as a Regional Nature Park, later placed under the public enterprise "Hortikultura," and the site has grown into the capital's principal recreational green space.
A 2021 peer-reviewed contingent-valuation study (Doli et al., Sustainability, MDPI) surveyed 208 park visitors on their willingness to pay for the park's upkeep: 56% said they would pay a fee to fund sustainable management and development, while 44% were opposed, giving park managers a first quantified evidence base for (and against) introducing a paid-access or donation-based financing model.
Kosovo's own environmental literature flags Pristina's overall green-space provision as low relative to WHO guidance, so Gërmia functions less as a scaled, revenue-generating payments-for-ecosystem-services scheme than as a single, well-used protected asset whose long-term funding model is still unresolved — the willingness-to-pay finding is an evidence base rather than an implemented payment mechanism.

Read the full analysis: https://visitkosovo.rks-gov.net/page/germia

Implementation

Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful