Conceptualizing and measuring demand for recreation on national forests: A review and synthesis

USDA Forest Service - General Technical Report PNW

Volumn , Issue 645, 2005, Pages 1-40

  Garber Yonts, Brian E ^a  

^a PACIFIC NORTHWEST RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

Author keywords

National forests; Presentation; Recreation; Supply and demand

Indexed keywords

DEMAND ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; FOREST MANAGEMENT; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 32344441104     PISSN: 08874840     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Araujo, R.C.P. 2002. Joint hedonic travel cost method: combining revealed and stated preference data to estimate demand for attribute quality of sport fishing in Illinois. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 85(3): 786-792.
2. Associated Press. 2003. High court will hear dispute over wilderness areas. Washington Post. November 3, 2003.
3. Bailey, R.G.; Avers, P.E.; Kind, T.; McNab, W.H. 1994. Ecoregions, and subregions in the United States [map]. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey.
4. Bergstrom, J.C.; Cordell, H.K.; Langner, L. 1994. RPA assessment of outdoor recreation: past, current, and future directions. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-87. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 33 p.
5. Betz, C.J.; English, D.B.K.; Cordell, H.K. 1999. Outdoor recreation resources. In: Cordell, H.K.; McKinney, S.M., eds. Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 39-182. Chapter 3.
6. Bosworth, D. 2003. Personal communication. Chief, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Office of the Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Sydney R. Yates Office Building, 201 14th St, SW, Washington, DC 20250.
7. Bowker, J.M. 2001. Outdoor recreation by Alaskans: projections for 2000 through 2020. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-527. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 22 p.
8. Bowker, J.M.; English, D.B.K.; Cordell, H.K. 1999. Projections of outdoor recreation participation to 2050. In: Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Bowker, C.J., eds. Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 320-350. Chapter 6.
9. Brooks, D.J.; Haynes, R.W. 2001. Recreation and tourism in south-central Alaska: synthesis of recent trends and prospects. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-511. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 19 p.
10. Brown, G.M., Jr.; Mendelsohn, R. 1984. The hedonic travel cost method. Review of Economics and Statistics. 66(3): 427-443.
11. Clark, R.N.; Koch, R.W.; Hogans, K.L.; Christensen, H.H.; Hendee, J.C. 1984. The value of roaded, multiple-use areas as recreation sites in three national forests of the Pacific Northwest. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-319. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 40 p.
12. Clark, R.N.; Stankey, G.H. 1979. The recreation opportunity spectrum: a framework for planning, management, and research. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-98. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 32 p.
13. Colt, S.; Martin, S.; Mieren, J.; Tomeo, M. 2002. Recreation and tourism in south-central Alaska: patterns and prospects. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-551. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 77 p.
14. Committee on Assessment of Demand for Outdoor Recreation Resources. 1975. Assessing demand for outdoor recreation. Prepared for the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, DC: Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy of Science. 123 p.
15. Cordell, H.K. 1990. An analysis of the outdoor recreation and wilderness situation in the United States, 1989-2040: a technical document supporting the 1989 RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-189. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 112 p.
16. Cordell, H.K.; Bergstrom, J.C. 1989. Theory and techniques for assessing the demand and supply of outdoor recreation in the United States. Res. Pap. SE-275. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 33 p.
17. Cordell, H.K.; McDonald, B.L.; Teasley, R.J.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Martin, J.; Bason, J.; Leeworthy, V.R. 1999. Outdoor recreation participation trends. In: Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.; Bowker, J.M. [and others], eds. Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 219-321.
18. Cordell, H.K.; McKinney, S.M. 1999. Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing. 449 p.
19. Cordell, H.K.; Overdevest, C. 2001. Footprints on the land: an assessment of demographic trends and the future of natural resources in the United States. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing. 449 p.
20. Cordell, H.K.; Super, G.R. 2000. Trends in American's outdoor recreation. In: Gartner, W.C.; Lime, D.W., eds. Trends in outdoor recreation, leisure and tourism. New York: CABI International: 133-144.
21. Cordell, H.K.; Teasley, J.; Super, G. 1997. Outdoor recreation in the United States: results from the national survey on recreation and the environment. Athens, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station; University of Georgia. 6 chapters.
22. Driver, B.L. 1996. Benefits-driven management of natural areas. Natural Areas Journal. 16(2): 94.
23. Driver, B.L.; Brown, P.J. 1978. The opportunity spectrum concept and behavioral information in outdoor recreation supply inventories: a rationale. In: Integrated and renewable resource inventories: proceedings of a workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-55. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 24-31.
24. Dwyer, J.F. 1994. Customer diversity and the future demand for outdoor recreation. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-252. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 58 p.
25. Earnhart, D. 2001. Combining revealed and stated preference methods to value environmental amenities at residential locations. Land Economics. 77(1): 12-29.
26. Edmonds, R.G., Jr. 1983. Travel time valuation through hedonic regression. Southern Economic Journal. 50(1): 83-98.
27. Englin, J.; Mendelsohn, R. 1991. A hedonic travel cost analysis for valuation of multiple components of site quality: the recreation value of forest management. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 21(3): 275-290.
28. English, D.B.K.; Cordell, H.K.; Bowker, J.M. 1999. Implications of this assessment. In: Cordell, H.K.; McKinney, S.M., eds. Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 433-440.
29. English, D.B.K.; Horne, A. 1996. Estimating recreation visitation response to forest management alternatives in the Columbia River basin. Journal of Applied Recreation Research. 21(4): 313-334.
30. English, D.B.K.; Kocis, S.M.; Zarnoch, S.J.; Arnold, J.R. 2002. Forest Service national visitor use monitoring process: research method documentation. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-SRS-057. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 14 p.
31. Freeman, A.M. 2003. The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Baltimore, MD: Resources for the Future Press. 491 p.
32. Gartner, W.C.; Lime, D.W., eds. 2000. Trends in outdoor recreation, leisure, and tourism. New York: CABI International. 458 p.
33. Geoghegan, J.; Wainger, L.A.; Bockstael, N.E. 1997. Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecological Economics. 23(3): 251-264.
34. Haab, T.C.; McConnell, K.E. 2002. Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishers. 326 p.
35. Haas, G.E. 2002. Visitor capacity on public lands and waters: making better decisions. Report of the Federal Interagency Task Force on visitor capacity on public lands. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association. 42 p. plus maps.
36. Haynes, R.W.; Horne, A.J., eds. 1997. Economic assessment of the basin. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Chapter 6. Vol. 4. (Quigley, T.M., ed: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).
37. Herriges, J.A.; Kling, C.L., eds. 1999. Valuing recreation and the environment: revealed preference methods in theory and practice. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishers. 290 p.
38. Houston, L.L.; Kline, J.D.; Alig, R.J. 2002. Economics research supporting water resource stewardship in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-550. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72 p.
39. Israelsen, B. 2003. Forest tightens rules for off-roaders. Salt Lake Tribune. October 30.
40. Lawson, S.; Manning, R. 2002. Tradeoffs among social, resource, and management attributes of the Denali Wilderness experience: a contextual approach to normative research. Leisure Sciences. 24(3/4): 297-312.
41. Loomis, J.B.; Walsh, R.G. 1997. Recreation economic decisions: comparing benefits and costs. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. 637 p.
42. McCool, S.F.; Cole, D.N. 2001. Thinking and acting regionally: toward better decisions about appropriate conditions, standards and restrictions on recreation use. George Wright Forum. 18(3): 85-98.
43. National Research Council. 2002. National capacity in forestry research Washington, DC: Committee on National Capacity in Forestry Research. 162 p.
44. Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 2003. Oregon statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan, 2003-2007. Salem, OR. [Irregular pagination].
45. Pendleton, L. 1999. Reconsidering the hedonic vs. RUM debate in the valuation of recreational environmental amenities. Resource and Energy Economics. 21(2): 167-189.
46. Pendleton, L.; Mendelsohn, R. 2000. Estimating recreation preferences using hedonic travel cost and random utility models. Environmental and Resource Economics. 17(1): 89-108.
47. Pugh, R. 2003. Region 5 southern California forests: place-based planning in forest plan revision. [Unpublished document]. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cleveland National Forest, 10845 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92127.
48. Puttkammer, A. 2001. Recreation fees in wilderness and other public lands: an annotated reading list. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-79. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 29 p.
49. Riitters, K.H. 1995. Methodology for mapping human perceptions of the landscape. 9 p. [Unpublished document]. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 3041 Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC 97709.
50. Rosenberger, R.S.; Loomis, J.B. 2001. Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation use values: a technical document supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 revision). Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-72. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 59 p.
51. Rosenthal, D.W. 1987. The necessity for substitute prices in recreation demand analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 69: 828-837.
52. Shields, D.J. 2002. Survey results of the American public's values, objectives, beliefs, and attitudes regarding forests and grasslands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-95. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 111 p.
53. Smith, V.K.; Kaoru, Y. 1987. The hedonic travel cost model: a view from the trenches. Land Economics. 63(2): 179-192.
54. Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Cooperative. 1996. The Southern Appalachian Assessment Social/Cultural/Economic Technical Report. Report 3 of 5. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region.
55. Stankey, G.H. 1984. The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 37 p.
56. Torgerson, D. 1996. Macroeconomic projections. 19 p. [Unpublished mimeo]. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Macroeconomics Team, Commercial Agriculture Division, Wahington, DC.
57. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986. 1986 ROS book. Internal document. Washington, DC: Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Resources Group.
58. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Landscape aesthetics: a handbook for scenery management. Unpublished document. On file with: Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Resources Group, Washington, DC 20250.
59. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000. USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 Revision). Washington, DC. 84 p.
60. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003a. A technical guide for integrating recreation, heritage and wilderness into land and resource management planning (draft). Washington, DC: Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Resources Group. 141 p.
61. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003b. U.S. Forest Service Workforce Plan, 2001-2005. Internal document. Washington, DC: Office of Human Resources. 50 p.
62. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Interior Columbia basin final environmental impact statement. Walla Walla, WA: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. [Irregular pagination].
63. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001. National management strategy for motorized off-highway vehicle use on public lands. Washington, DC.
64. Washington Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. 2002. An assessment of outdoor recreation in Washington State: a statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation planning (SCORP) document 2002-2005. Olympia, WA. 120 p.
65. Williams, D.R.; Stewart, S.I. 1998. Sense of place: an elusive concept that is finding a place in ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry. 66(5): 18-23.
66. Woodward, R.T.; Gillig, D.; Griffin, W.L.; Ozuma, T., Jr. 2001. The welfare impacts of unanticipated trip limitations in travel cost models. Land Economics. 77(3): 327-338.