资源环境科技发展态势分析平台

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.