User fees, equity and the benefits of public outdoor recreation services
AbstractThe paper addresses the question of who benefits from public recreation areas. Employing a set of survey data from users and nonusers of state-owned recreation and conservation areas in Finland, we derive two measures for distributional analysis. The first, the income elasticity of willingness to pay for recreation services, indicates that public provision of recreation benefits lower-income groups more than higher-income groups. The second, a welfare measure including efficiency loss, reveals ambiguous impacts depending on the level of the fee implemented. Low fee levels decrease recreation visits among lower-income users, whereas high fees reduce the welfare level of higher-income users in particular.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 24603.
Date of creation: 25 Jun 2007
Date of revision:
Consumer surplus; Income; Income elasticity; Willingness to pay;
Other versions of this item:
- Huhtala, Anni & Pouta, Eija, 2008. "User fees, equity and the benefits of public outdoor recreation services," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 117-132, April.
- H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods
- D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
- Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bergstrom, Theodore C & Goodman, Robert P, 1973. "Private Demands for Public Goods," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(3), pages 280-96, June.
- Flores, Nicholas E. & Carson, Richard T., 1997.
"The Relationship between the Income Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay,"
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 287-295, July.
- Flores, Nicholas E. & Carson, Richard T., 1995. "The Relationship Between the Income Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay," 1995 Conference (39th), February 14-16, 1995, Perth, Australia 148795, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
- Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-47, June.
- Mattias Boman & Göran Bostedt & Bengt Kriström, 1999. "Obtaining Welfare Bounds in Discrete-Response Valuation Studies: A Non-Parametric Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(2), pages 284-294.
- Besley, T. & Coate, S., 1989.
"Public Provision Of Private Goods And The Redistribution Of Income,"
36, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Discussion Paper.
- Besley, Timothy & Coate, Stephen, 1991. "Public Provision of Private Goods and the Redistribution of Income," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 979-84, September.
- Bengt Kristrom & Pere Riera, 1996. "Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 45-55, January.
- Huhtala, Anni, 2004. "What price recreation in Finland? – A contingent valuation study of non-market benefits of public outdoor recreation areas," MPRA Paper 24602, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Cosslett, Stephen R, 1983. "Distribution-Free Maximum Likelihood Estimator of the Binary Choice Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(3), pages 765-82, May.
- Espey, Molly, 2005. "Implementation of Recreation Fees by the U.S. Forest Service: 1996-2002," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19389, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
- Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, K. E., 2003. "Willingness to accept, willingness to pay and the income effect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 537-545, August.
- Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
- S. Illeris & G. Akehurst, 2001. "Introduction," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 1-4, January.
- Udo Ebert, 2003. "Environmental Goods and the Distribution of Income," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(4), pages 435-459, August.
- Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
- Johansson,Per-Olov, 1987. "The Economic Theory and Measurement of Environmental Benefits," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521348102, October.
- Borcherding, Thomas E & Deacon, Robert T, 1972. "The Demand for the Services of Non-Federal Governments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(5), pages 891-901, December.
- Louinord Voltaire & Abdelhak Nassiri & Denis Bailly & Jean Boncoeur, 2011. "Effet d’une taxe et d’un droit d’entrée sur les consentements à payer des touristes pour de nouvelles réserves naturelles dans le golfe du Morbihan," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 92(2), pages 183-209.
- Anni Huhtala & Eija Pouta, 2009. "Benefit Incidence of Public Recreation Areas—Have the Winners Taken Almost All?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(1), pages 63-79, May.
- Huhtala, Anni, 2010. "Income effects and the inconvenience of private provision of public goods for bads: The case of recycling in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1675-1681, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.