هزینه های کاربر جابجایی افراد کم درآمد در فضای باز است

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 recreationists 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.