打印

作者

来源

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING,Vol.167,P.165-176

语言

英文

关键字

Outdoor recreation; Economic equality; Substitution; Displacement; Low-income; Visitor management; PLACE ATTACHMENT; SITE PREFERENCE; CHOICE MODEL; SPECIALIZATION; WILDERNESS; DEMAND; IMPACT; MOTIVATION; PARKS; AREA

作者单位

[Smith, Jordan W.] Utah State Univ, Inst Outdoor Recreat & Tourism, 5215 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322 USA. [Smith, Jordan W.] Utah State Univ, Dept Environm & Soc, 5215 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322 USA. Smith, JW (reprint author), Utah State Univ, Inst Outdoor Recreat & Tourism, 5215 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322 USA.; Smith, JW (reprint author), Utah State Univ, Dept Environm & Soc, 5215 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322 USA. E-Mail: jordan.smith@usu.edu

摘要

The arguments for, or against, the use of user fees at outdoor recreation settings are often based upon philosophical, moral, and ethical grounds. Empirically-grounded research on the debate has been sparse. In this study, we report on a unique natural experiment comparing the incomes of individuals visiting very similar outdoor recreation settings which differ only in their requirement of a marginal user fee. Our comparison of the incomes of outdoor recreationists using the settings requiring a fee versus those that do not suggest user fees do play an important role in how low-income individuals choose outdoor recreation settings. Low-income outdoor re creationists tended to choose non-fee settings when they are available and if they support similar activities and opportunities as settings which require a fee. Low-income outdoor recreationists' aversion of settings which require a fee is not a product of their inability to pay the fee, but rather a product of their unwillingness to pay the fee. Low-income outdoor recreationists reported traveling over three times as far to reach non-fee settings relative to comparable settings which require a fee. If user fees are being considered as a visitor management tool, land-use and outdoor recreation planners should not only expect a shift in the socioeconomic composition of visitors to the areas where the fee will be enforced, they should also anticipate displacement and increased use at nearby non-fee settings. Recreation managers should avoid requiring fees at all outdoor recreation settings within an area to ensure displacement does not become exclusion.