Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-jtdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T11:52:11.165Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wilderness and Primitive Area Recreation Participation and Consumption: An Examination of Demographic and Spatial Factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

J.M. Bowker ,
D. Murphy ,
H.K. Cordell ,
D.B.K. English ,
J.C. Bergstrom ,
C.M. Starbuck ,
C.J. Betz  and
G.T. Green
J.M. Bowker
Affiliation:
USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Athens, GA
D. Murphy
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Athens, GA
H.K. Cordell
Affiliation:
USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Athens, GA
D.B.K. English
Affiliation:
National Visitor Use Monitoring Project, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC
J.C. Bergstrom
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Athens, GA
C.M. Starbuck
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Athens, GA
C.J. Betz
Affiliation:
USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Athens, GA
G.T. Green
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, Athens, GA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the influence of demographic and spatial variables on individual participation and consumption of wildland area recreation. Data from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment are combined with geographical information system-based distance measures to develop nonlinear regression models used to predict both participation and the number of days of participation in wilderness and primitive area recreation. The estimated models corroborate previous findings indicating that race (black), ethnicity (Hispanic), immigrant status, age, and urban dwelling are negatively correlated with wildland visitation, while income, gender (male), and education positively affect wild-land recreation participation and use. The presence of a distance or proximity factor mitigates some of the influence of race and ethnicity. The results of the cross-sectional models are combined with U.S. Census projections of total population, changes in population characteristics, and estimates of current National Forest Wilderness visitation estimates to give some insight into pressure that might be expected on the nation's designated wilderness during the next half century. Results generally indicate that per-capita participation and visitation rates will decline over time as society changes. Total wilderness participation and visitation will, however, increase, but at a rate less than population growth.

Keywords

logisticnegative binomialparticipationrecreationvisitswildernessQ21Q26Q24

Information

Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , August 2006 , pp. 317 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Betz, C.J., Bergstrom, J.C., and Bowker, J.M.. “A Contingent Trip Model for Estimating Rail-Trail Demand.” Journal of Planning and Environmental Management 46(2003):79–96.Google Scholar
Bowker, J.M. Outdoor Recreation Participation and Use by Alaskans: Projections 2000–2020. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-527, Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 2001.Google Scholar
Bowker, J.M., Cordell, H.K., and Johnson, C.Y.. “User Fees for Recreation Services on Public Lands: A National Assessment.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 17(1999): 1–14.Google Scholar
Bowker, J.M., Harvard, J.E. III, Bergstrom, J.C., Cordell, H.K., English, D.B.K., and Loomis, J.B.. “The Net Economic Value of Wilderness.” The Multiple Values of Wilderness. Cordell, Bergstrom, Bowker, eds., pp. 161–80. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, 2005a.Google Scholar
Bowker, J.M., Starbuck, C.M., English, D.B.K., Bergstrom, J.C., and Harvard, J.. “Estimating the Value of Recreation Access to U.S. National Forest Wilderness.” Poster Presentation. 8th World Wilderness Congress. Anchorage, AK, October 1-6, 2005b.Google Scholar
Cole, D.N. “Wilderness Recreation Use Trends, 1965 through 1994.” Research Paper INT-RP-488. Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service, Inter-mountain Research Station, 1996.Google Scholar
Cordell, H.K., Bergstrom, J.C., and Bowker, J.M. (eds.). The Multiple Values of Wilderness. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, 2005.Google Scholar
Cordell, H.K., Betz, C.J., Bowker, J.M., English, D.B.K., Mou, S.H., Bergstrom, J.C., Teasley, R.J., Tarrant, M.A., and Loomis, J.. Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing, 1999.Google Scholar
Cordell, H.K., Green, G.T., and Betz, C.J.. “Recreation and the environment as cultural dimensions in contemporary American society.” Leisure Sciences 24(1)(2002): 13–41.Google Scholar
Cordell, H.K., and Overdevest, C.. Footprints on the Land: An Assessment of Demographic Trends and the Future of Natural Lands in the United States. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing, 2001.Google Scholar
Cordell, H.K., and Teasley, R.J.. 1998. “Recreation Trips to Wilderness.” International Journal of Wilderness 4(1998):23–27.Google Scholar
English, D.B.K., Kocis, S.M., Zarnoch, S.J., and Arnold, J.R.. Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation. General Technical Report SRS-57. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2002.Google Scholar
ESRI Data and Maps. “An ESRI White Paper-August 2004.” Redlands, CA: ESRI, 2004. http://www.esri.com/.Google Scholar
Freimund, W.A., and Cole, D.N.. “Visitor Use Density and Wilderness Experience.” Proceedings of the Rocky Mountain Research Station. Freimund, W. A. and Cole, D.N. (comps.), p. 67. Missoula, MT, June 1-3, 2000. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2001.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. Econometric Analysis, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. LIMDEP, Version 7.0. Plainview, NY: Econometric Software, Inc., 1995.Google Scholar
Hendee, J.C., Stankey, G.H., and Lucas, R.C., eds. Wilderness management, 2nd edition. Golden, CO: North American Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Johnson, C.Y., Bowker, J.M., Bergstrom, J.C., and Cordell, H.K.. “Wilderness Values in America: Do Immigrant Status and Ethnicity Make a Difference?” Society and Natural Resources 17(2004):611–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C.Y., Bowker, J.M., and Cordell, H.K.. “Outdoor Recreation Constraints: An Examination of Race, Gender, and Rural Dwelling across Regions.” Southern Rural Sociology 17(2001): 111–33.Google Scholar
Loomis, J.B. “Do Additional Designations of Wilderness Result in Increases in Recreation Use?” Society and Natural Resources 12(1999):481–91.Google Scholar
Loomis, J.B., and Richardson, R.. Economic values of protecting roadless areas in the United States. Internet site: http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/Economic-Values_of_Protecting_Roadless-Areas_in_the_U_S_Loomis.pdf (Accessed February 1, 2005).Google Scholar
Miller, J.R., and Hay, J.M.. “Determinants of Hunter Participation: Duck Hunting in the Mississippi Fly way.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63(1981):677–84.Google Scholar
Murdock, S.H., Backman, K.E., Colberg, E., Hoque, M.N., and Hamm, R.R.. “A Modeling Demographic Change and Characteristics in the Analysis of Future Demand for Leisure Service.” Leisure Science 12(1990):79–102.Google Scholar
Roggenbuck, J.W., and Watson, A.E.. “Wilderness Recreation Use: The Current Situation.” Outdoor Recreation Benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the National Outdoor Recreation Forum. Watson, A.E. (comp.), pp. 346–56. General Technical Report, GTR-SE-52. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, 1989.Google Scholar
Taylor, D.E. “Meeting the Challenge of Wild Land Recreation Management: Demographic Shifts and Social Inequality.” Journal of Leisure Research 32(1)(2000):171–79.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin. Internet site: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/ (Accessed November 3, 2004).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. National Forest Visitor Use Monitoring Program-National Project Results—January 2000 through September 2003. Internet site: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/national_report_finaLdraft.pdf, 2005 (Accessed December 5, 2005).Google Scholar
U.S. Geological Service. The Wilderness Areas of the United States Boundary Map. Reston, VA: USGS, 2004.Google Scholar
Watson, A.E. “Wilderness Use in the Year 2000: Societal Changes That Influence Human Relationships with Wilderness.” Proceedings of the Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Vol. 4. Cole, D.N., McCool, S.F, Borrie, W.T., O'Loughlin, J. (comps.), pp. 53–60. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2000.Google Scholar
Watson, A., and Cole, D.N.. Wilderness Users and Use: Recent Additions to Understanding. Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends, pp. 377–80. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing, 1999.Google Scholar
Watson, A.E., Cordell, H.K., and Hartmann, L.A.. “Characteristics of Wilderness Users in Outdoor Recreation Assessments.” Recreation and Park Management: Papers from the First National Symposium of Social Science in Resource Management. Lee, M. and Brown, P.J. (eds.), pp. 1–10. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, College of Forestry, 1989.Google Scholar
Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. The Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source. Washington, DC: Woods and Poole Economics, Inc., 2003.Google Scholar
Yen, S.T., and Adamowicz, W.L.. “Statistical Properties of Welfare Measures from Count Data Models of Recreation Demand.” Review of Agricultural Economics 15(2)(1993):203–15.Google Scholar
Zawacki, W., Marsinko, A.R., and Bowker, J.M.. “A Travel Cost Analysis of Economic Use Value of Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation in the United States.” Forest Science 46(2000):496–505.Google Scholar