IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/umamwp/14530.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Attitudes Towards Alternative Management Policies For Public Recreation Lands

Author

Listed:
  • Samnaliev, Mihail
  • Stevens, Thomas H.
  • More, Thomas

Abstract

Public recreation land management agencies have been searching for ways to increase revenue. User fees as implemented by the Fee Demonstration Program have received the most attention. Corporate sponsorships and private donations have also been implemented and other options, such as partial privatization, closure of some areas, and different forms of public-private partnerships have been debated. The present paper reports results from a 2002 mail survey of randomly selected Idaho and New Hampshire households, designed to elicit public attitudes about a wide variety of management policies for public (federal/state) recreation lands. The most socially acceptable forms for raising revenue were donation boxes (61.1%), corporate sponsorships for visitor centers (61.8%) and education facilities (61.1%), and adopt-a-site contracts (81.0%). Both increased taxes and user fees faced greater opposition (about 49% of respondents) than support (39%). In addition, user fees have resulted in (reported) changes in behavior among a quarter of the respondents, and may have stronger negative impact on low-income households and on the users of public recreation lands. This study is relevant to the current debate in Congress about the future of the Fee Demonstration Program. Our findings can also be used by policy makers interested in raising revenue through socially acceptable management policies. Our results suggest that donations, adopt-a-site and corporate sponsorships (for selected areas) should be used to raise additional revenues, and if additional funding is needed, policy makers may be justified to advocate for increased taxation rather than fees.

Suggested Citation

  • Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2004. "Attitudes Towards Alternative Management Policies For Public Recreation Lands," Working Paper Series 14530, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:umamwp:14530
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.14530
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/14530/files/wp040001.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.14530?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. Wang, Hua, 1997. "Treatment of "Don't-Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 219-232, February.
    2. Alberini, Anna & Boyle, Kevin & Welsh, Michael, 2003. "Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 40-62, January.
    3. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert Cameron Mitchell & Stanley Presser, 1998. "Referendum Design And Contingent Valuation: The Noaa Panel'S No-Vote Recommendation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(3), pages 484-487, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Champ, Patricia A. & Alberini, Anna & Correas, Ignacio, 2005. "Using contingent valuation to value a noxious weeds control program: the effects of including an unsure response category," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 47-60, October.
    2. Mary F. Evans & Nicholas E. Flores & Kevin J. Boyle, 2003. "Multiple-Bounded Uncertainty Choice Data as Probabilistic Intentions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 549-560.
    3. Hwang, Joonghyun & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Interis, Matthew G., 2014. "Consequentiality and Opt-out Responses in Stated Preference Surveys," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 0, pages 1-18.
    4. Wang,Hua & Laplante, Benoit & Xun Wu & Meisner, Craig, 2004. "Estimating willingness-to-pay with random valuation models : an application to Lake Sevan, Armenia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3367, The World Bank.
    5. Kelvin Balcombe & Iain Fraser, 2009. "Dichotomous-choice contingent valuation with 'dont know' responses and misreporting," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(7), pages 1137-1152.
    6. Hwang, Joonghyun & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Interis, Matthew G. & Harri, Ardian, 2013. "What to Do with “Prefer Not to Vote” Responses from Contingent Valuation Surveys?," 2013 Annual Meeting, February 2-5, 2013, Orlando, Florida 143034, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    7. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    8. Petrolia, Daniel R. & Kim, Tae-Goun, 2011. "Contingent valuation with heterogeneous reasons for uncertainty," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 515-526, September.
    9. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas & Shogren, Jason F., 2015. "Certainty and overconfidence in future preferences for food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 101-113.
    10. Catherine Chambers & John Whitehead, 2003. "A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 249-267, October.
    11. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2006. "A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 507-519, May.
    12. Vossler, Christian A. & Poe, Gregory L., 2005. "Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty: a comment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 197-200, January.
    13. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Steven B. Caudill & Peter A. Groothuis, 2005. "Modeling Hidden Alternatives in Random Utility Models: An Application to "Don’t Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    15. Dale Whittington & Stefano Pagiola, 2012. "Using Contingent Valuation in the Design of Payments for Environmental Services Mechanisms: A Review and Assessment," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 27(2), pages 261-287, August.
    16. Thomas Lundhede & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Nick Hanley & Niels Strange & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2015. "Incorporating Outcome Uncertainty and Prior Outcome Beliefs in Stated Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(2), pages 296-316.
    17. Kelvin Balcombe & Aurelia Samuel & Iain Fraser, 2009. "Estimating WTP With Uncertainty Choice Contingent Valuation," Studies in Economics 0921, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    18. Kehlbacher, A. & Bennett, R. & Balcombe, K., 2012. "Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 627-633.
    19. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2003. "A Comparison Of Cheap Talk And Alternative Certainty Calibration Techniques In Contingent Valuation," Working Paper Series 14517, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    20. Torres, Cati & Faccioli, Michela & Riera Font, Antoni, 2017. "Waiting or acting now? The effect on willingness-to-pay of delivering inherent uncertainty information in choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 231-240.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land Economics/Use;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:umamwp:14530. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/drumaus.html .

    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.