IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/toueco/v21y2015i5p995-1014.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rationing Access to Protected Natural Areas: An Australian Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher M. Fleming

    (Griffith Business School, South Bank Campus, QLD 4101, Australia)

  • Matthew Manning

    (Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Copland Building #24 Kingsley Place, The Australian National University, ACT 2601, Australia)

Abstract

In Australia, as in many other parts of the world, open access is the default policy setting for most protected natural areas, including World Heritage Sites. This is despite considerable evidence that unrestrained levels of visitation can be unsustainable in terms of the impact on the environment and recreational experience. This paper seeks to answer two questions. First, to what extent are visitors willing to forego access to publicly owned protected natural areas in order to ensure less crowding and/or better environmental outcomes? And second, if access were restricted, how would visitors like remaining access rights to be allocated? The results show that visitors are, in general, willing to trade off some degree of access rights for better environmental outcomes and reduced crowding; particularly the former. It is clear that peak pricing is not supported, whereas visitor caps have broad support.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher M. Fleming & Matthew Manning, 2015. "Rationing Access to Protected Natural Areas: An Australian Case Study," Tourism Economics, , vol. 21(5), pages 995-1014, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:toueco:v:21:y:2015:i:5:p:995-1014
    DOI: 10.5367/te.2014.0388
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5367/te.2014.0388
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5367/te.2014.0388?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, November.
    2. Wilson, Clevo Tis & Tisdell, Clem, 2004. "Attitudes to Entry Fees to National Parks: Results and Policy Implications from a Queensland Case Study," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 79-102, March.
    3. Fleming, Christopher M. & Cook, Averil, 2007. "The recreational value of Lake McKenzie: An application of the travel cost method," 2007 Conference (51st), February 13-16, 2007, Queenstown, New Zealand 10382, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    5. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Boyd D. Blackwell & John Asafu-Adjaye, 2020. "Adding Jewels To The Crown: The Marginal Recreational Value Of Noosa National Park And Implications For User Fees," Discussion Papers Series 622, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    2. Kularatne, Thamarasi & Wilson, Clevo & Lee, Boon & Hoang, Viet-Ngu, 2021. "Tourists’ before and after experience valuations: A unique choice experiment with policy implications for the nature-based tourism industry," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 529-543.
    3. Francisco López-del-Pino & José M. Grisolía, 2018. "Pricing Beach Congestion," Tourism Economics, , vol. 24(4), pages 449-472, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jegnie, Alemken & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael P., 2017. "Boat-based and other recreational fishing in Western Australia: Analysis of site choice, access values and bag limit effects," Working Papers 257167, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    4. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    5. Rogers, Abbie A. & Cleland, Jonelle, 2010. "Comparing Scientist and Public Preferences for Conserving Environmental Systems: A Case of the Kimberley’s Tropical Waterways and Wetlands," Research Reports 107579, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    6. Fosgerau, Mogens & Hjort, Katrine & Vincent Lyk-Jensen, Stéphanie, 2007. "An approach to the estimation of the distribution of marginal valuations from discrete choice data," MPRA Paper 3907, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    8. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    9. Holte, Jon Helgheim & Kjaer, Trine & Abelsen, Birgit & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2015. "The impact of pecuniary and non-pecuniary incentives for attracting young doctors to rural general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    10. Hye-Min Kim & In-Gyum Kim & Byunghwan Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "Estimating the Economic Value of Improving the Asian Dust Aerosol Model in the Korean Household Sector: A Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-11, November.
    11. repec:ags:aare05:139316 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Vaiknoras, Kate & Norton, George & Alwang, Jeffrey, 2015. "Farmer preferences for attributes of conservation agriculture in Uganda," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16.
    13. Macea, Luis F. & Cantillo, Victor & Arellana, Julian, 2018. "Influence of attitudes and perceptions on deprivation cost functions," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 125-141.
    14. Christian Pfarr & Andreas Schmid & Morten Raun Mørkbak, 2018. "Modelling Heterogeneous Preferences for Income Redistribution–An Application of Continuous and Discrete Distributions," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 270-294, June.
    15. Wakita, Kazumi & Kurokura, Hisashi & Oishi, Taro & Shen, Zhonghua & Furuya, Ken, 2019. "Exploring the effect of psychometric variables on willingness to pay for marine ecosystem services: A survey in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 130-138.
    16. Duy Chinh Nguyen & Huu Dung Hoang & Huu Tien Hoang & Quang Trung Bui & Lan Phuong Nguyen, 2019. "Modal Preference in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: An Experiment With New Modes of Transport," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(2), pages 21582440198, April.
    17. Rogers, Abbie A. & Burton, Michael P. & Cleland, Jonelle A. & Rolfe, John & Meeuwig, Jessica J. & Pannell, David J., 2017. "Expert judgements and public values: preference heterogeneity for protecting ecology in the Swan River, Western Australia," Working Papers 254025, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    18. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2018. "Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 227-235.
    19. Tesfaye, Abonesh & Hansen, James & Kassie, Girma Tesfahun & Radeny, Maren & Solomon, Dawit, 2019. "Estimating the economic value of climate services for strengthening resilience of smallholder farmers to climate risks in Ethiopia: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 157-168.
    20. Tavárez, Héctor & Álamo, Carmen & Cortés,Mildred, 2020. "Differentiated coffees and their potential markets in Puerto Rico: An economic valuation approach," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    21. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Harrison, Duncan R. & Burns, Rhys J., 2019. "Does the economic benefit of biodiversity enhancement exceed the cost of conservation in planted forests?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:toueco:v:21:y:2015:i:5:p:995-1014. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.