Leopold Institute Publications

To order any of the following publications, please use our Order Form.


Watson, Alan E. 2001. Sustainable financing of wilderness protection: An experiment with fees in the United States. International Journal of Wilderness 7(3):12-16.

While wilderness protection has traditionally occurred from tax support, there are other options. In the United States, currently there is an experiment to charge fees for recreation access, including wilderness. Questions remain about whether the public supports wilderness recreation fees, how fees might change relationships between people and wilderness, whether a buyer-seller relationship between federal land management agencies and wilderness visitors is desirable, how wilderness fees may differ from recreation fees, and who will be affected most by wilderness use fees.

Leopold Institute Publication Number 442

Martin, Steven R. 2000. Donations as an alternative to wilderness user fees-the case of the Desolation Wilderness In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer. comps. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. 1999 May 23-27; Missoula, MT U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Ogden, UT Proc. RMRS-P-15-Vol-4: 142-147.

Day-use visitors to the Desolation Wilderness were asked about making voluntary donations at the trailhead. Of the 111 visitors who used one of the four trailheads at which voluntary donations were requested, 55% reported making a donation, with an average reported donation amount of $4.20. Subjects were categorized into three groups: donors, would-be donors, and nondonors. Donors had fewer previous visits. And fewer years since their first visit than nondonors. Among donors, higher place attachment was associated with larger donations. Donors and would-be donors perceived significantly more similarity with the Forest Service than did nondonors.

Leopold Institute Publication Number 429

Vogt, ChristineA.; Williams, Daniel R. 1999. Support for wilderness recreation fees: The influence of fee purpose and day versus overnight use. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 17(3): 85-99.

This paper examines public support for new user fees established at the Desolation Wilderness in California as part of the Fee Demonstration Program. Traditional approaches to fee policy evaluations have typically focused on economic or revenue issues and equity impacts of various pricing strategies. Support for fees has been shown to vary by users in terms of attitudes toward fees, nature of usage or behaviors, and demographics. Fee support may also vary by the type of recreation or resource area, especially in the case of dispersed recreation areas such as wilderness or other sites, which have historically been provided by tax dollars. To evaluate the role of new fees on public support for spending revenues, this paper compares ratings of support for the use of fees for 19 different management activities, assuming two different rationales across two user group samples. One rationale asks about support for fees to improve upon the current level of service, while the other asks about support for fees to provide the current level of service. A split sample was used to test for effects associated with the two rationales. The list of management activities was developed jointly by managers and researchers to gather input on spending priorities. Data came from a 1997-98 study which surveyed campers and day users. The results suggest general support for wilderness use fees, with strongest support for restoration of human damaged sites, litter removal, and related information provision. Unlike most customers, the wilderness users surveyed in this study, particularly campers, gave more support for using fees to maintain or provide the current level of service rather than to improve service. Differences between campers and day users for both rationales on particular management activities are presented, as well as a rank order of management activities. Managers can use these results to determine the platform or positioning of spending new revenues. The results show wilderness users prefer a maintenance spending program to restore wilderness conditions over a development and new services spending program. Managers can also begin to match the agencies' project priorities with customers' needs and desires. Overall, this paper provides a case study of customer involvement in fiscal policy.

Leopold Institute Publication Number 373

Richer, Jerrell Ross; Christensen, Neal A. 1999. Appropriate fees for wilderness day use: Pricing decisions for recreation on public land. Journal of Leisure Research. 31(3): 269-280.

An appropriate fee for the use of public lands strikes a balance between the need for fee revenues, the desire to maintain access and other normative concerns: fairness, equity, others' ability to pay and congestion. Including these other concerns in pricing decisions improves the likelihood that fees will be acceptable to users. Information was collected about wilderness visitors' maximum willingness to pay (WTP) for a day-use fee and the price they considered appropriate (AP). Sixty-two percent of Desolation Wilderness day users stated a WTP greater than the AP. The cost of choosing a fee at the median AP ($2), rather than the revenue maximizing price ($5), is a 30% reduction in revenue, while the gain is a smaller drop in participation (17% vs. 52%). Managers are faced with complex decisions about the purpose of fee programs. Alternative purposes will lead to alternative fee levels.

Leopold Institute Publication Number 370

Williams, Daniel R.; Vogt, Christine A.; Vitterso, Joar 1999. Structural equation modeling of users' response to wilderness recreation fees. Journal of Leisure Research. 31(3): 245-268.

This paper examines wilderness users' response to recently established overnight camping fees at the Desolation Wilderness in California. Fee program evaluations have typically focused on economic or revenue issues, distributional or equity impacts of various pricing strategies, and questions of price fairness. In the case of wilderness recreation fees, it is also important to recognize the complex public purpose of wilderness and the long history of not having access fees in wilderness. To evaluate these various factors, this paper examines the impact of past wilderness experience and residential proximity on response to wilderness use fees using data from the 1997 Desolation Wilderness Fees Study. The results suggest general support for wilderness use fees, but fees are judged to be less appropriate for wilderness than for more developed recreation facilities and services. Structural equation modeling shows that experienced wilderness uses, experienced Desolation Wilderness users, and users residing in close proximity to the Desolation Wilderness are less supportive of fees and less likely to see positive benefits from fees. A history of paying fees for access to other recreation sites and perceptions of wilderness problems, though positively related to past wilderness experience, do not contribute to fee support.

Leopold Institute Publication Number 369