MASTER’S THESIS

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for a master’s degree at Western Washington
University, I agree that the Library shall make its copies
freely available for inspection. I further agree that copying
of this thesis in whole or in part is allowable only for
scholarly purposes. It is understood, however, that any
copying or publication of this thesis for commercial
purposes, or for financial gain, shall not be allowed without
my written permission.

Signature ________________________

Date ________________________
THE EFFECT OF ACCESS FEES ON VISITATION TO PUBLIC LANDS IN
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON

A thesis presented to the faculty of

Western Washington University

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

by
Michael Kirshenbaum
February 2006
ABSTRACT

This thesis examines how charging for access is affecting the public mission of

parks and other outdoor recreation areas. Throughout American history most parks,

forests and other protected natural areas have been government owned and open to full

access by people. In the United States, therefore, parks and other outdoor areas have long

been treated as public, or so-called “merit goods.”

Over the past decade, however, the public nature of parks and other public lands

in the United States has been challenged. Governments have adopted free market

practices for the management of public lands. The most prominent of the market-based

practices is replacing park funding from general tax revenue with money raised through

access fees. Requiring the payment of a fee to access public lands is a potential indicator

of a societal shift in the treatment of public lands from merit goods to private goods.

Concerns have also been raised by citizens, land managers, and politicians that requiring

payment of a fee for access may dissuade or exclude some people from entering parks

because of an inability- or difficulty-to-pay.

The issue of paying a fee for basic access to public lands is critical in determining

whether parks are still truly merit goods, as has been their historic role, or if a change is

occurring. The role of income in response to fees goes even further as a measure of

where parks fall on the merit goods / private goods spectrum: If fees dissuade the poor,

but not the wealthy, from using public lands, then this would be a strong indicator that the

democratic ideal behind parks and other public lands is being eroded. The interplay

between income and response to fees is central to the determination: Is access to public

lands something available equally to all citizens, regardless of income, like a library or

iv
police protection, or are public lands becoming another consumer good that some people

can afford and others cannot.

This thesis used survey research methodology to examine the attitudes and

behaviors of residents of Whatcom County, Washington, towards public lands access

fees. A general population survey of 301 residents was conducted in May 2005 inquiring

about a wide-range of responses to public lands access fees. Multivariate statistical

techniques were employed to determine to what extent income plays a role in reaction to

public land access fees. The research was designed to test the following hypotheses: first,

that access fees dissuade people from using public lands; and, second, that lower income

groups are more affected by fees than upper income groups.

The research conducted here has disproved the null hypothesis that there is not a

relationship between fees, visitation patterns, and income. Fees dissuade about one-third

of the survey respondents from using public lands. Lower-income residents consistently

reported being more negatively affected by fees than the higher income groups. The

lower-income group responded, at statistically significant levels (p < .05) that they do not

use parks as often because of fees, that fees are economically hard to pay, that they

change their site selection because of fees, and that they are opposed to paying fees.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project would not have occurred without the assistance of a number of people. A
special thanks to my thesis committee: Dr. Michael Medler, the chair, provided regular
support, very useful insights and many brainstorming opportunities into the broader
issues behind my thesis topic; Dr. Grace Wang provided key support and encouragement
when I needed it most and helped to keep me focused; and Dr. Pamela Jull was generous
in her time to help me through the nuts and bolts of not only survey methodology but also
important statistical techniques.

I cannot thank strongly enough the undergraduate students who helped me to make the
thousands of telephone calls to complete the survey. Without their dedication,
professionalism, sense-of-humor and stamina the telephone survey would have never
happened. They are: Rose Agbalog, Heather Boad, Sandra Brozusky, Stephanie Dressel,
Joseph Gallagher, David Hutchinson, Vincent Jansen, Monica Libbey, Teresa Mathiesen,
Sara Pittenger, Johanna Smith, and Chad Weldy.

Thank you to Richard Frye, WWU computer pro, who provided much assistance with
compiling the data and using the survey software. Additionally, WWU’s Office of
Survey Research was generous in their willingness to loan me equipment to conduct the
survey.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..............................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................ix
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ix
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1
Key Definitions ...........................................................................................................4
II. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................6
Merit Goods ................................................................................................................6
Public Lands as Merit Goods.......................................................................................8
Transforming Public Lands To Private Goods ...........................................................12
Public Land Access Fees ...........................................................................................15
Research Question .....................................................................................................18
Previous Fee-Related Research..................................................................................20
Utility of Research.....................................................................................................23
III. METHODS ............................................................................................................26
Study Area ................................................................................................................26
Methodology .............................................................................................................28
Project Design: Key Information and Variables ........................................................30
Project Design: Survey type.......................................................................................32
Project Design: Sample method .................................................................................33
Project Design: Survey Instrument Construction........................................................35
Project Design: Conducting the survey ......................................................................37
Statistical Analysis ....................................................................................................38
IV. RESULTS ..............................................................................................................42
Summary of Key Findings .........................................................................................42
Response Rate ...........................................................................................................43
Demographics ...........................................................................................................44
Results for General Outdoor Usage Questions ...........................................................46

vii
 Results for Behavioral Fee Questions ........................................................................48
Results for Attitudinal Fee Questions.........................................................................54
Additional Analysis With Extended Independent Variable Model..............................59
Qualitative Results ....................................................................................................61
Summary of Results ..................................................................................................62
V. DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................64
Discussion of Results.................................................................................................64
Fees and the Privatization of Public Lands.................................................................66
Limitations of Research.............................................................................................70
Conclusions...............................................................................................................71
VI. LITERATURE CITED..........................................................................................73
VII. APPENDIX A.......................................................................................................77
Complete survey with responses to each question ......................................................77
VIII. APPENDIX B......................................................................................................84
Regression tables utilizing expanded demographic model for select questions ...........84

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Major public land agencies in the United States 10

Table 2 Public land access fees in Whatcom County 1998 – present 16
Table 3 Calling results 43
Table 4 Household income in Whatcom County 45
Table 5 Age results 45
Table 6 Fees and visitation patterns 50
Table 7 Avoidance of paying a fee in the past year 51
Table 8 Altered site selection 53
Table 9 Walk-in to avoid fees 54
Table 10 Economic difficulty of paying fees 55
Table 11 Opposition to fees 57

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Federal lands in Washington and Oregon 11

Figure 2 Study area – Whatcom County, Washington 27
Figure 3 Response rate 43
Figure 4 Public land usage 47
Figure 5 Outdoor activities in the past year 47
Figure 6 How do fees affect how often you go to those places 49
Figure 7 Avoidance of paying a fee in the past year 51
Figure 8 Altered site selection 52
Figure 9 Economic difficulty of paying fees 55
Figure 10 Opposition to fees 56
Figure 11 Parks treated like libraries or movie theaters? 58
Figure 12 Source of funding 59

ix
I. INTRODUCTION

Throughout American history most parks, forests and other protected natural

areas have been owned by the government and open to full access by people. This public

status of parks did not occur by accident, however, and is contrary to the history of parks

in many other countries. The origins of the American treatment of parks as public goods

can be traced to early American architects of both urban and remote wilderness parks,

such as Fredrick Law Olmsted, who believed that parks play a key role in promoting the

democratic ideals upon which the United States was founded. Olmsted believed that the

benefits of natural settings should be made available to the entire public, regardless of

economic class. This concept, among other factors, resulted in government ownership of

virtually all large, protected natural spaces. The creation of vast public land holdings was

in contrast to European societies, where natural landscapes were usually privately owned

and reserved for the elite.

In the United States, therefore, parks and other outdoor areas have long been

treated as public, or so-called “merit goods.” In capitalist societies like the United States,

resources are typically distributed by market forces. Merit goods, however, are resources

considered to be so important that the government decides to directly provide them or to

subsidize their provision. This is often the case when the laissez-faire market cannot

distribute the resources in an effective, equitable, or ethical manner.

Prominent examples of such merit goods include public schools, fire-fighting

services, and public libraries. The creation and provision of these services is not given to

the private sector, which can then charge whatever price the market would bear. Rather,

it is the public sector that manages these essential services so that they are made available
to the entire citizenry, regardless of ability to pay. These services have historically been

paid for through broad and progressive taxation.

Over the past decade, however, the public nature of parks and other public lands

in the United States has been challenged. Two related forces – government budget

deficits and free-market ideology – have created an environment that has begun to erode

the status of public lands as merit goods. In recent years, governments at various levels

have adopted free market practices for the management of public lands. These market-

based practices include: using revenue from access fees rather than general tax revenue to

pay for public-land operations; seeking corporate sponsorship for projects; privatizing

management services; and even proposing the outright sale of public lands to the private

sector. These market-based practices represent a shift in the management philosophy of

public lands that has the potential to alter the historic democratic nature of parks.

The most prevalent market-based effort implemented thus far throughout the

nation’s public land system has been to charge for access to public lands, usually in the

form of entrance fees or parking fees. Whereas only national parks charged for access

during most of the past 100 years, the past decade has witnessed many other public land

units beginning to charge fees. Requiring the payment of a fee to access public lands is a

potential indicator of a societal shift in the treatment of public lands from merit goods to

private goods. Concerns have been raised by citizens, land-managers, and politicians that

requiring payment of a fee for access may dissuade or exclude some people from entering

parks because of an inability- or difficulty-to-pay.

This thesis will examine the impact of public land access fees on residents of

Whatcom County, Washington, to determine whether such fees are excluding or

2
dissuading county residents from using public lands based on their level of income.

More specifically, the research questions this thesis will focus on are:

• Whether access fees affect the nature and frequency of public land visitation.

• Whether the relationship between fees and visitation is affected by visitor

income level.

• Whether fees are consistent with the merit goods status of public land.

The primary hypothesis this research tested is twofold: First, that access fees dissuade

people from using public lands; and, second, that lower income groups are more affected

by fees than upper income groups. This hypothesis was tested using a general population

survey of Whatcom Country residents that collected data on people’s behaviors and

attitudes towards public land access fees.

In sum, this thesis seeks to examine how charging for access is affecting the

public mission of parks and other outdoor recreation areas. The issue of paying a fee for

basic access is critical in determining whether parks are still truly merit goods, as has

been their historic role, or if a change is occurring. The role of income in response to

fees goes even further as a measure of where parks fall on the merit goods / private goods

spectrum: If fees dissuade the poor, but not the wealthy, from using public lands, then

this would be a strong indicator that the democratic ideal behind parks and other public

lands is being eroded. The interplay between income and response to fees is central to

the determination: Is access to public lands something available equally to all citizens,

regardless of income, like a library or police protection, or are public lands becoming

another consumer good that some people can afford and others cannot?

3
Key Definitions

There are several words and phrases that should be clearly defined from the

outset:

• Public lands and parks: Public lands refer to relatively undeveloped outdoor

natural areas managed by government agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service,

Washington State Parks, and Whatcom County Parks. There are many terms used

to describe such natural areas, including: park, forest, preserve, river, lake and

other outdoor-recreation areas. What these public lands have in common –

whether managed at the local, state or federal levels – is that they constitute

publicly owned and protected landscapes that are open to visitation by people. At

times the word “parks” is used synonymously with “public lands” in order to

provide some variation.

• Access Fees: This refers to the relatively new phenomenon of charging the public

for basic access to public lands, usually in the form of purchasing a parking pass

or paying at an entrance station. The fees in question range from $5 - $11 per day

with more expensive annual or seasonal passes also available. There are a few

caveats to my use of the term “access fees.” First, not all fees are technically for

access; rather they are for parking and you can still enter the public land for free

as long as you don’t park there. Given the reality that an automobile is required

to visit many public lands in Whatcom County, however, a fee on parking is a

de facto access fee. The second caveat is that not all public lands that charge

access fees do so at all of their entry points. Some do, such as national parks and

Washington state parks; but the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest has many

4
 trailheads with free access, although virtually all of their most popular trailheads

require paying a fee.

• Visitation: People access public lands in a number of ways, including via parking

lots, trails, horseback paths, boat launches or just by parking off the side of the

road and walking into the woods. Visitation may vary between multi-night

backpacking trips at North Cascades National Park to a short walk at Larrabee

State Park. Therefore visitation refers to any type of use of public lands for any

amount of time.

5
II. BACKGROUND

This section will situate the research question and hypothesis in the broader

context of the history of public lands and their treatment as merit goods in the United

States. First, I will introduce merit-good theory and provide examples of how it has been

applied in the United States. Second, I will discuss the history of public lands and the

reasons for their designation as merit goods. Third, I will examine the relatively recent

efforts to change the nature of parks and other outdoor areas from merit goods to private

goods through the use of market-based management policies. Fourth, I will examine the

emergence of public land access fees including a review of previous research in this area.

Finally, I will discuss the outstanding research questions and the utility of this research,

including the contribution I hope this thesis will make to the literature.

Merit Goods

The economy of the United States is based on a capitalist system that allows

market forces to determine the distribution of most goods and services. There are many

important exceptions, however, to market-based distributions. A prominent example is

that throughout the history of the United States, parks and other such outdoor landscapes

have been owned by the government, which in turn has made these lands open to the

public (Nash 2001). There are large publicly-accessible outdoor areas owned by the

private sector, such as golf courses or other sports complexes, but there are vastly less

privately held hiking trails, neighborhood parks, or boat launches. As this section will

discuss, the public-nature of outdoor recreation has been intentional.

6
 The government’s provision of public land benefits demonstrates that they are

treated as “merit goods.” Merit-goods theory holds that there are essential resources so

important that the government decides to distort consumer sovereignty and market forces

by directly providing them or subsidizing their provision. This is often the case when the

laissez-faire market cannot distribute socially important resources in an effective,

equitable, or ethical manner. Prominent examples of such merit goods include: public

education, fire fighting services, police services, and public libraries. The creation and

provision of these services is not given to the private sector which could charge any price

even if it would be more than some people could pay. Rather, it is the public sector that

is in charge of these essential services and makes them available to the entire citizenry,

usually paid for through broad and progressive taxation (Musgrave 1959; Cockrell and

Wellman 1985; Schultz, McAvoy et al. 1988).

Decisions concerning what should be considered merit goods and what should be

left to the private sector are often contested. In the current era, the role and size of

government is a major political issue that frequently divides liberal and conservative

ideological camps. With the ascendancy of conservatism in the United States over the

past twenty-five years, there have been widespread and concerted efforts to shift some

traditional government roles to the private sector and for the government to adopt more

business-like practices (More 2002). As this paper will discuss, the public status of parks

and other public outdoor areas has been a contested part of the broader societal debate

over merit goods versus private goods.

7
Public Lands as Merit Goods

The merit-goods status of parks and other outdoor recreation areas in the United

States may seem immutable, but the country could have developed differently. How did

parks and other outdoor recreation areas in the U.S. become merit goods rather than

private goods? The consensus in the literature is that this development began with

Frederick Law Olmsted (1822 – 1903), perhaps the most influential designer and

architect of parks in the history of the United States. Olmsted was responsible not only

for designing urban parks such as New York City’s Central Park and San Francisco’s

Golden Gate Park, but also for developing management plans for wilderness parks, such

as Yosemite National Park.

Olmsted believed that parks should be designed and managed in accordance with

American principles of democracy. He was adamantly against the attitudes of the

European aristocracy, which viewed parks as the manicured playground of the elite.

Olmsted believed it was part of the democratic and non-aristocratic character of the

United States to provide an environment that would allow for a different kind of

relationship between citizens and their parks (Cranz 1982; Cockrell and Wellman 1985;

Duncan 1991; More 1999; Nash 2001).

Olmsted held that democracy would be promoted in parks by designing them to

immerse people in natural settings that encouraged a spontaneous and individual, rather

than a structured, response. He theorized that this type of mental process would allow a

level of contemplation that is critical to democratic governance. Olmsted believed that

the ability of park visitors to freely wander about, making their own decisions about how

to experience the natural setting, allowed for a cognitive freedom missing in other aspects

8
of life. Additionally, Olmsted designed parks to promote the mixing of social classes,

another essential characteristic of American democracy in his opinion (Cockrell and

Wellman 1985; Dustin 1986).

Olmsted’s philosophy was consistent with the social-reform movement of the late

19th and early 20th centuries (Cranz 1982; Duncan 1991). During this time, proponents of

urban parks targeted low-income neighborhoods for the establishment of new parks.

Similar to Olmsted’s vision of parks nurturing democracy, the social-reform movement

considered parks to be an essential social good that would help improve the lives of

lower-class urban residents.

There has been considerable research in recent years that has added to or

confirmed Olmsted’s ideas regarding the benefits of visiting public lands (Hendee,

Stankey et al. 1990; Trainor and Norgaard 1999). These benefits include: providing

opportunities for outdoor recreation such as hiking, picnicking, hunting, and other similar

activities; providing access to some degree of solitude in an increasingly urbanized

world; and providing opportunities for the exploration of psychological, spiritual and

cultural values uniquely found in undisturbed natural landscapes (Harmon and Putney

2003).

As a result of the philosophy espoused by Olmsted and many other prominent

advocates of the social benefits of public lands, government has long been in the business

of controlling most parks and other protected natural areas (Cockrell and Wellman 1985).

With the exception of a few private non-profit entities such as the Nature Conservancy,

an organization that buys and protects vulnerable land, the government has a near

monopoly on managing large natural landscapes (Table 1). This government intervention

9
 Table 1
has therefore clearly removed such lands Major public land agencies in the United States
Department of Interior
from the realm of the private market to treat - National Park Service
- Bureau of Land
them as merit goods (Cockrell and Wellman Management
- U.S. Fish & Wildlife
1985; Dustin 1986; Schultz, McAvoy et al. Federal Government Agency
Department of Agriculture
1988). - U.S. Forest Service
Department of Defense
- Army Corps of Engineers
The centrality of the merit-goods
Washington State Parks
nature of public lands is made obvious in State Government
Department of Natural
(Washington)
Resources
the mission statements and managing
Local Government Whatcom County Parks
statutes of public land agencies. The (Whatcom County) Bellingham City Parks, etc.

mission statement for Washington State Parks (WSP 2005), for example, states:

The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission acquires, operates,

enhances and protects a diverse system of recreational, cultural, historical and
natural sites. The Commission fosters outdoor recreation and education statewide
to provide enjoyment and enrichment for all, and a valued legacy to future
generations. . . When Yellowstone was set aside in 1872 as the world's first
national park, it marked the start of a new attitude toward the American outdoors.
Citizens gradually came to see value in saving tracts of open space for everyone
to enjoy. . .(emphasis added)

Similarly, the United States Congress reaffirmed the merit-goods nature of national parks

in one of the key modern management documents for the National Park Service, the 1978

Redwoods Act (92 Stat. 163 (U.S.Congress 1978)):

Congress further reaffirms, declares, and directs the promotion and regulation of
the various areas of the National Park System . . . shall be consistent with and
founded in the purpose established by the first section of the Act of August 25,
1916, to the common benefit of all the people of the United States. The
authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and
administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value
and integrity of the National Park System. . . . (emphasis added)

Olmsted’s vision of public stewardship and open access to natural landscapes

largely came true: Government at the state and federal levels own approximately 40

10
percent of the land mass of the United States. In Washington State (Figure 1) about 42

percent of the land is owned by the state and federal governments (NWI 1995).

Figure 1 - Federal Lands in WA and OR (USFS 1996)

11
 Additionally, the public has embraced visiting outdoor areas with a fervor that

surely would have made Olmsted happy: As of 2000, Washington State Parks had an

annual attendance of 58 million -- representing a 40 percent increase from a decade

earlier (WSP 2005). Nationally, outdoor activities are also very popular. A 2002

national survey found that nearly 60 percent of the public reported participating in the

activity of “viewing natural scenery” and 57 percent reported “visiting a nature center

trail or zoo (USDA 2000).”

Transforming Public Lands To Private Goods

The merit-goods status of parks and other public lands is currently under broad

assault by prominent lawmakers, agency officials, and conservative think tanks. The

implementation of access fees at a wide range of parks and other outdoor areas is one

example of the market-based management practices being adopted by public land

agencies, but there are many others, as this section will discuss.

The merit goods status of parks and other outdoor areas has met with opposition

since the beginning of the modern park movement around the turn of the 20th century

(Cranz 1982). Olmsted and other early park pioneers believed that the social importance

of parks and outdoor areas necessitated their accessibility to the entire public. Therefore,

private ownership, with its potential commercial intrusions or restrictions on access, was

not considered acceptable. As far back as 1900, park advocates found it necessary to

actively protect the public nature of parks by calling for a prohibition on any form of

advertising or commercial activity in parks (Cranz 1982). It wasn’t until the 1990s that

access fees became widespread and only after federal lawmakers had repeatedly rebuffed

12
efforts throughout the 20th century to charge for access (White 1992; Wellman and Probst

2004).

The effort to introduce market-based management practices gained steam during

the early 1980s. The Reagan administration tried to halt the growth of the nation’s

public-land inventory by eliminating funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund,

the federal government’s primary tool for increasing the nation’s public-land acreage

(Shute 1995). Free-market think tanks simultaneously began calling for selling off some

public lands and encouraging commercial activities in others (Beckwith 1981).

Currently, there is a broad ideological push to adopt policies that would begin to

treat parks and other public lands as private goods. The private-goods argument is

primarily based in a free market ideology that broadly favors privatizing most

government services. This ideology would be applied to public lands via a spectrum of

methods, including: access fees; selling advertising or sponsorship space; privatizing

service provision; and possibly the outright sale of public lands to private entities

(Schultz, McAvoy et al. 1988; Johnson 1991; Hanson 2005; McClure 2005). Advocates

of this market-based approach contend that government should adopt a business model in

managing public lands that requires each unit to generate revenue and become “self

sufficient” – i.e. cut costs and raise revenue as much as possible on-site rather than rely

upon general tax revenue (More 2002).

A prominent example of adopting market-based policies to public lands is Mt.

Saint Helens National Volcanic Monument, which is operated by the U.S. Forest Service

(USFS). “Mount St. Helens open to bids,” a Portland newspaper declared (Milstein

2005) in describing a USFS plan to raise revenue through privately run helicopter tours,

13
cabin construction and mobile snack carts at scenic view points. The plan also sought

bids from private companies to take over operations of the monument’s visitor centers.

Another recent example is the Department of Interior requiring maintenance divisions at

several national parks to audit their jobs for information that would be used to facilitate

outsourcing (NPCA 2004).

Finally, the U.S. House of Representatives recently approved legislation

sponsored by the chair of the Resources Committee, Richard Pombo (R-CA), a vocal

opponent of public lands, that could open more than 350 million acres of public land to

mining and real estate speculation by private interests (McClure 2005). This legislation

did not pass the Senate, however, and did not become law.

In recent years, the National Park Service (NPS) has turned to private sources of

money, usually through non-profit “friends of” groups, to raise new revenue. The

Yosemite Fund, a non-profit organization that supports Yosemite National Park, has

given over $23 million to the park since 1988. The Yosemite Fund has received

donations from corporations such as Bank of American, Chevron and Wells Fargo. A

new NPS policy also encourages parks to approach corporations and other potential

“partners” to donate money for specific projects, which would then be recognized by

plaques, commemorative bricks or other signage indicating the benefactors, including

their corporate logos (Doyle 2005).

In Washington State, free market think tanks have also promoted the idea of

privatizing public lands and implementing user fees and market-based management

practices. The Washington Institute Foundation, for example, has encouraged

contracting out the entire operations of state parks to private businesses (Herrington

14
2000). The Washington Policy Center has extensive policy recommendations for

changing Washington State Parks: “State Parks’ budget problems are real, but solvable,”

a report from the center states. “A comprehensive solution requires the state to embrace

the benefits of market-based user fees and privatization (Hanson 2005).”

There has also been support for market-based practices from public land officials.

Some officials have stated that they support market-based alternative revenue streams

and cost cutting methods in order to better serve the public (Bach 2003). One factor

possibly contributing to this acceptance is that public land officials have, for years, been

confronted by insufficient appropriated tax dollars. Indeed, research shows that since the

1980s budgets for public-land agencies have not kept pace with an increased maintenance

backlog or growing public demand (Wellman and Probst 2004). As of 2003, for

example, Washington State Parks had a maintenance backlog of $34 million (WSP 2005).

Public land officials, therefore, have a strong need to identify methods to increase their

budgets. As will be discussed later, however, it appears that access fees often do not

always supplement public land budgets but rather replace previously appropriated dollars.

Public Land Access Fees

Public land access fees have been the most widely implemented of the market-

based management changes. Until the mid 1990s, most public lands in the United States,

with the exception of national parks, did not charge a fee for access, and the federal

government expressly forbid charging entry fees at federal lands except for national parks

(White 1992; Turner 2002; Williams and Black 2002). This began to change in 1996

when the U.S. Congress passed the Recreation Fee Demonstration Act (P.L.-104-134

1996), known as “Fee Demo,” which allowed most federal land-management agencies –

15
including the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land

Management – to charge access fees and keep most of the revenue on-site rather than

send it back to Washington, D.C. Congress’ goal for the program was:

To demonstrate the feasibility of user-generated cost recovery for the operation

and maintenance of recreation areas or sites and habitat enhancement projects on
federal land (P.L.-104-134 1996).

At the same time, Congress instructed agencies to pursue revenue generation

through concession operations, private investment, volunteers and partnerships (Williams

and Black 2002). The federal government implemented the Fee Demo program

throughout federal lands. In 2001, for example, 80 different Forest Service units charged

access fees generating more than $35 million (GAO 2003). In Washington State, Fee

Demo resulted in access fees being charged at numerous trailheads on federal lands, such

as at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, that had previously been free (Table 2).

Table 2
Public Land Access Fees in Whatcom County 1998 - present

Pre 1998 1998-2002 2002-present

daily / annual daily / annual
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Free $5 / $30 $5 / $30
National Forest
North Cascades Free $5 / $30 $5 / $30*
National Park
WA Dept. Fish & Wildlife Free $ 11 / na $11 / na
Washington State Parks Free Free $5 / $50
City Parks Free Free Free
County Parks Free Free Free
Note on table: For some areas that charge fees (NPS and USFS), fees are not charged at all
access points.

* North Cascades NP changed policy at the end of 2005 and is no longer charging a parking
fee at trailheads. New fees are being considered, however, to replace the revenue from the
parking fees.

16
 In 2004, Congress passed a ten-year extension of the fee program, renaming it the

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA). This law was enacted despite the

opposition of a wide range of interests, from environmentalists to libertarian Republican

lawmakers from Western states (Craig 2005). The new law continues the basic approach

of Fee Demo by allowing access fees to be charged at many federal public lands. A

major change in this new law, however, is that failure to pay an access fee is now a

criminal offense: first offenses are capped at a $100 fine, but a criminal record is created

and subsequent offenses are subject to penalties up to $100,000 and/or 1 year in jail

(P.L.-108-447 2005).

The emergence of access fees has not been limited to federal lands, as many state

park systems also now charge entry fees. In Washington State, the State Parks and

Recreation Commission voted in 2002 to charge for access to most state parks, all of

which had previously been entirely free of charge except for value-added services like

developed campgrounds (Table 2). The access fees at Washington State Parks are $5 per

day, per vehicle or $50 per year, and those rates will rise to $7 per day and $70 per year

in 2008 (WSP 2005).

It is not common for city and county parks to charge access fees, perhaps due to

easy accessibility to these areas by foot, bike, and bus, thus making the use of parking

fees impractical. But advocates of adopting market-based strategies for public lands have

suggested local parks should also charge entry fees. A former director of parks in

Indianapolis, Leon Younger, suggested that an economic value should be placed on

outdoor recreation experiences at city parks: “There is nothing wrong with placing a

value on a recreation experience (TPL 1998).”

17
 In sum, this section has examined the theory of merit goods and how the United

States came to treat outdoor areas as public, rather than private, resources. It was a

decision rooted in a democratic ideal about access to nature, where citizens of all class

backgrounds would stand to benefit from accessing parks and other outdoor areas. The

public nature of parks and outdoor areas has been challenged in recent years, however, by

both free-market ideology and budget difficulties. The advent and wide implementation

of fees, along with other market-based approaches to generating revenue and cutting

costs, represents a fundamental shift in the management of public lands. Access fees are

the most prominent and widespread of the market-based changes altering the

management of public lands. This change in policy has numerous implications and many

potential research questions in need of studying, as the next section will explore.

Research Question

The adoption of public land access fees has generated considerable public,

governmental, media, and academic interest. Protests have been held throughout the

country in opposition to fees; supporters of fees have formed lobbying groups to promote

access fees and other market-based policies (Herrington 2000; Hanson 2005); newspaper

and magazine archives are filled with stories regarding the implementation and impact of

access fees (Connelly 2001; Turner 2002; Turner 2003; Wureful 2003; Mottram 2004;

Kenworthy 2005; Milstein 2005); the government has released numerous reports and

policy documents regarding fees (Dustin and Knopf 1988; GAO 1998; GAO 2003); and,

finally, many researchers have focused on the fee issue (Putkammer 2001; Williams and

Black 2002). Yet, for all of the attention and research already invested in access fees,

there are considerable gaps in our understanding of the impacts of this new policy.

18
 A key aspect of fees that have received some, but limited, attention is the research

topic for this thesis: whether fees affect visitation and whether income-level plays a role

in how people respond to fees. Examining the potential impact of fees on lower income

populations has been recognized as an important topic in need of research by government

agencies and others (GAO 1998; Williams and Black 2002; GAO 2003; Mottram 2004).

A 2002 U.S. Forest Service report, for example, clearly stated the need for research to

answer the following questions about fees:

• Whether the Fee Demonstration Program limits access based on economic ability
to pay and causes an inequitable effect on those who have less income.

• Whether the population most affected by the program is defined by low-income or

by low disposable or discretionary income (Williams and Black 2002)

Despite these calls for research on the impact of fees on lower-income populations,

relatively little research has been conducted on this question, and that which has been

conducted has had methodological limitations. Additionally, I have been unable to find

any research conducted on this question in Washington State or Whatcom County.

Before proceeding, it is important to clearly answer the following question: Why

is it important to study whether fees affect how people use public lands and who uses

them? The answer is based on the historic treatment of public lands as merit goods.

There are numerous goods in society that are unaffordable to many people and wealth

buys varying levels of access to any number of private environments. Historically,

however, public lands have been treated as merit goods and basing access on an ability-

to-pay is a relatively new development. If income groups respond unequally to public

land access fees, as this thesis seeks to discover, that would call into question whether

19
parks are serving their historic public purpose of being available to all people for their

use and enjoyment. As More and Stevens persuasively argue:

If low-income people are, in fact, excluded from public parks and recreation
areas, then serious policy questions are raised about the very purpose of public
recreation. . . . [W]hen agencies begin to act like entrepreneurs seeking self-
funding through fees, and low-income people are excluded, the public purpose –
the very reason for public ownership – is defeated (More and Stevens 2000).

The potential exclusionary effect of access fees on visitation, therefore, is a powerful

indicator of whether public lands are still treated as merit goods. As previously stated,

the democratic nature of public lands – the provision of their benefits to all people – is a

tenet written into the mission statements and managing legislation of many public land

agencies.

Regardless of whether or not there is an association between income and response

to access fees, there remains the ultimate philosophical issue of the basic compatibility

between access fees and public lands. Even if lower-income people say they are willing

to pay fees at the same rate as higher-income people, fees may not be consistent with the

mission and history of public lands. At the very least, it clear that restricting access to

those who can afford to pay represents a profound change in policy that is worthy of

study.

Previous Fee-Related Research

Much of the fee-related research conducted thus far has examined more

managerial aspects of fees, such as price structure, revenue generation, preferred fee-

revenue expenditures, and other implementation issues (Putkammer 2001; Williams and

Black 2002). Additional research has been conducted looking at general attitudes

20
towards fees as a method of revenue generation (Williams, Vogt et al. 1999), and the

effect of fees on wilderness issues (Trainor and Norgaard 1999).

Regarding the impact of fees on visitation, there are several studies that have

looked at this issue but did not consider income effects. These studies found that access

fees clearly change how some, but not all, people use public lands by decreasing the

frequency of visitation or by altering site selection to choose free sites. For example, one

study (Schneider and Budruk 1999)1 interviewed people at two very similar beach

locations, one in a National Forest that charged access fees and one at a free site. This

research found that approximately one-third of the respondents said they had changed

their visitation patterns as a result of fees. Of that one-third, 62 percent reported visiting

the fee-charging National Forest site less often. Similarly, a study at the Desolation

Wilderness in California showed that an access fee as low as $3 significantly affected use

patterns (Williams, Vogt et al. 1999)2. A study in Chicago (Schroeder and Louviere

1999)3 also found that fees had a significant impact on the site choice of users with

almost 40 percent saying they avoided sites that charge fees.

Research examining the effect of fees on the visitation patterns of different

income groups is very limited. There are a few studies, but the question has not been

explored by many researchers. In summary, these studies have generally found that

lower-income respondents are more negatively impacted by fees than upper-income

respondents. As will be discussed in the next section, Utility of Research, despite these

studies there are gaps in the literature that this thesis seeks to address.

1
Schneider 1999 details: Self-administered survey. Number of responses = 346 (response rate unknown).
2
Williams 1999 details: Structural equation model. Mail survey sent to recreation permit holders.
Number of responses = 320 (71% response rate).
3
Schroeder 1999 details: Stated choice model. General population random telephone directory telephone
survey. Number of responses = 302 (58% response rate).

21
 The most important of the fee / income studies is that by More and Stevens

(2000). Using a general-population mail survey, this study found that lower-income

residents of Vermont and New Hampshire were more likely than higher-income residents

to be deterred by fees from using public lands. This study is particularly important

because it is one of the few to use a general population survey and because it asked about

fees charged at a range of public lands rather than just one park.4

Another important study was conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers (Reiling

and McCarville 1994) using on-site surveys at a number of its facilities nationwide to

determine the effect of day-use access fees. This study found that lower-income visitors

would use the Army Corps public lands less regularly if there were access fees.5

Finally, a large general-population survey conducted by the U.S. Forest Service in

its Pacific Northwest Region found that lower-income respondents were negatively

affected by access fees. Lower-income groups in this survey were more likely than the

other income groups to say they could not afford to pay access fees and that fees would

make it so that “only the rich could afford to go to national forests (Burns, Graefe et al.

2002).6”

There are additional studies and theories that examine the usage of public lands

by different socioeconomic groups. Opportunity theory, for example, posits that travel

4
More 2000 details: Disproportionate stratified general population mail survey with oversampling in
lower-income geographic areas. Number of responses = 296 (34% response rate.) Analysis found that $5
access fee would affect about 49% of lower-income vs. 33% of high income.
5
Reiling 1994 details: Random sample of days users sent a mail survey. Number of responses =1405
(56% response rate). 40% of all groups state they would not visit for day use if a fee was charged. More
lower income respondents than upper income respondents reported not wanting to pay a fee at statistically
significant level (p<0.10).
6
Burns 2002 details: General population random-digit telephone survey in Washington and Oregon.
Number of responses = 2,005 (response rate n/a). One-third with income $30,000 or less. 17% either
“agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement “I can’t afford to pay a fee to recreate on National
Forests.” This study is somewhat limited by no statistical analysis and it is unclear whether the results are
statistically significant.

22
costs and the lack of nearby public-land areas can be a major factor affecting visitation

for lower-income people (Lindsay and Ogle 1972; Lieber, Fesenmaier et al. 1989).

Ethnicity theory can be used to explain outdoor recreation preferences based on varying

cultural value systems, norms and leisure socialization patterns (Floyd 1999; Lee, Scott et

al. 2001). These theories demonstrate that democratic access to parks can be challenged

by many factors in addition to access fees. They do not address, however, the unique

impact of fees on already established behaviors.

The question remains, therefore, whether income-level is a factor in how people

react to access fees. This question is based on classic economic theory which holds that:

raising the price of a good or service reduces the quantity of that good or service to be

purchased; those with the least money drop out of the market first; and all taxes levied

directly on consumption are regressive, causing people to pay the same regardless of

income level (More 2002).

Utility of Research

This project seeks to contribute to the literature by examining the relationship

between public land access fees, visitation patterns, and income. As the previous review

of the literature shows, there has already been research conducted on this issue, but

important gaps remain. More specifically, the new research conducted in this thesis is

necessary in three ways:

First, there is no research publicly available on this topic regarding Washington

State or Whatcom County. Although the Burns (2002) study did cover the entire Pacific

Northwest region of the U.S. Forest Service, which includes Washington State and

Whatcom County, this survey only examined policies regarding U.S. Forest Service land

23
and did not ask very detailed question relating to how income groups differ in their

response to access fees. Given the prominence and popularity of public lands in

Whatcom County, it seems especially important to examine the issue of access fees at

this location. Additionally, public land fees remain a controversial policy in Washington

State and one that may be in flux. Very recently, the majority leader of the Washington

State House of Representatives, Lynn Kessler (D), announced that she will introduce

legislation in the winter of 2006 to eliminate access fees at Washington State Parks

(Freiderich 2005).

Second, with the exception of the More and Stevens (2000) and Burns (2002),

virtually all of the research regarding the impact of fees do not use general-population

surveys but rather on-site interviews. This involves handing out surveys to be completed

– or later mailed in – at trailheads, boat launches and campground. The key weakness in

this approach is that the sample pool is self-selected and is not a genuine socio-economic

cross-section of the population – the respondents are people who had already made the

choice to go to public lands. Therefore, an on-site survey might have significantly

different results from a general population survey that contacts people who have already

been deterred from visiting public lands. Indeed, a U.S. Forest Service report found that

support for fees was almost twice as high when surveys were conducted solely at

recreation sites where fees were charged compared to general population surveys or

surveys conducted at non-fee sites (Williams and Black 2002).

Finally, another area in which the existing literature is somewhat thin is that most

surveys, again with More and Stevens (2000) excepted, inquire about fees at specific

parks or public-land types, rather than looking at fees being charged at a range of public

24
land areas. Given that not only federal lands now charge fees, but also state parks in

many locations, it is important to examine the impact of fees from the perspective of the

user who is faced with a range of park and fee options.

25
III. METHODS

The following section will examine the methods used to test the research

hypothesis of this thesis, which is: public land access fees dissuade some people from

visiting public lands and people of lower incomes are more likely to be dissuaded by fees

than people of higher incomes. To be more accurate, this thesis is attempting to disprove

the null hypothesis that fees do not affect behavior and that income does not play a role in

reactions to fees.

The method used to study this question was an attitudinal survey of residents of

Whatcom County, Washington. This section will examine the study area and then will

discuss the research methodology used to conduct the survey. Finally, there will be a

discussion of the statistical analysis used to analyze the data.

Study Area

This research focused on Whatcom County, Washington, and the sample pool

consisted of county residents. Whatcom County is located in the far northwest corner of

Washington State and shares its northern border with Canada. It is home to a wide

variety of public lands (Figure 2). The eastern portion of the county is entirely dominated

by two federal land holdings: North Cascades National Park and the Mt. Baker-

Snoqualmie National Forest. Scattered throughout the western half of the county are

various other public land units, including a number of state parks, county parks,

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife areas, and various urban parks such as

Bellingham City Parks.

26
 Figure 2- Study Area
Whatcom County, Washington

DETAIL OF BELLINGHAM AREA

Maps created using ArcMap in the Spatial

Analysis Lab of Western Washington
University in 2004-5 by Michael Kirshenbaum
using publicly available data sets.

27
 Until the mid 1990s, most of the public lands in Whatcom County were available

for visitation free-of-charge. But the situation has changed dramatically in recent years

and residents of Whatcom County currently pay a fee for access to many public land

areas. It is important to note, however, that fees are not charged at all access points. Mt.

Baker Snoqualmie National Forest, for example, has a number of trailheads and other

day-use areas for which no fee is charged. Fees are still charged at the majority of access

points, however, and at virtually all of the most popular recreation sites.

Although the study area for this thesis is Whatcom County, the survey questions

do not inquire solely about public lands in the county. All of the respondents for the

survey were drawn from the county, but I did not limit my questioning to their

experiences at public lands only in the county. Residents are likely to use public lands in

many areas and the issues surrounding public land fees are just as pertinent for the public

lands in those areas.

Methodology

To examine the impact of public land access fees on the attitudes and behavior of

Whatcom County residents, I conducted an attitudinal survey using standard survey

research techniques. Survey research was the most appropriate methodology for this

project because it is a time-tested technique for measuring human behaviors and attitudes

(Salant and Dillman 1994; Nardi 2003). It would have been almost impossible, for

example, to set up an actual experiment with two parks – one that charges fees and one

that doesn’t – and then hold all other factors constant in order to analyze the role that fees

play. An attitudinal survey, in contrast, allowed for a careful probing of people’s

28
attitudes and behaviors regarding public land access fees. Additionally, survey research

has been used in a number of other studies to examine the impact of public land access

fees.

Survey research has been likened to a telescope looking at society – it is the use of

scientific tools to gain a picture, small perhaps but hopefully accurate, of human attitudes

and behaviors (Featherman 2004). To use the telescope of survey research accurately,

however, requires proper design and adjustment of the instrument. Thus, there are a

number of steps in designing an effective survey and reducing the likelihood of error.

The design steps include: deciding what information will be collected and therefore what

the variables will be; choosing a survey method; selecting a sample size and method;

developing a survey instrument (questionnaire); conducting the survey; and finally

compiling and analyzing the results (Salant and Dillman 1994; Bourque and Fielder

2003; Nardi 2003; Featherman 2004).

All of the design steps must be carefully taken to minimize the impact of four

potential errors in survey research:

1. Coverage error: A large and important discrepancy between the target population

and the subset being examined produces coverage error. For example, using just

a phone book to generate telephone numbers might produce unacceptably high

coverage error because of unlisted numbers not being represented in the sample

pool.

2. Sampling error: This is the difference between results obtained from examining a

sample compared to the results that would be obtained from examining the entire

29
 population. All surveys have sampling error, but the goal is to minimize it as

much as possible.

3. Measurement error: Problems caused by questionnaire wording, the survey

method, the interviewer or the respondent can all contribute to measurement error.

For example, a question that has vague, highly-subjective wording that might be

interpreted differently by each respondent could introduce high measurement

error.

4. Non-response error: If a survey has a large number of people who were selected

and not interviewed, and if those people who refused differed in some pertinent

way from those who did respond, then there is non-response error. Non-response

error leads to a sample pool that is not representative of the population and

therefore not truly random. There is always some degree of non-response error

because surveys never have 100 percent response rates. This error is mitigated by

obtaining the highest response rate possible and ensuring that the non-respondents

do not differ in some key way (i.e. more low-income people did not respond than

upper-income people) that is pertinent to the research.

Next, I will explain this project’s design and the steps taken to minimize the effect of

these potential errors.

Project Design: Key Information and Variables

Surveys can have an infinite number of questions but it is critical to identify the

key concepts that a survey is seeking to understand and design the survey accordingly.

For this survey, the key concepts are the parameters needed to test this project’s

hypothesis: determining whether Whatcom County residents are dissuaded from using

30
public lands by access fees and whether income plays a role in how people react to fees.

Therefore, it was important to collect information on both reaction to public land access

fees and the demographics of survey respondents. There are numerous potential

reactions to public land access fees, but the pertinent issues for the purposes of this thesis

are:

• Do fees affect how people use public lands?

• What are people’s attitudes about paying fees, both in terms of the

appropriateness of fees and the economics of paying fees?

• How are the above questions affected by income or other demographic

characteristics?

To be more specific, I used the above questions to generate a list of dependent and

independent variables that would serve as the basis for constructing the survey

instrument. The dependent variables measure how fees affect the following behaviors:

frequency of visitation; site selection; fee evasion; and the economic difficulty of paying

fees to visit public lands. Additional dependent variables measure the following

attitudes: support or opposition to fees as a method of funding public lands; and the

appropriateness of charging fees in the context of public versus private goods.

The primary independent variables measure standard demographic characteristics,

such as gender, age, income, education, and location. A secondary set of independent

variables measure outdoor behavior proclivity (hiker, hunter, biker, etc.). The

independent and dependent variables were then used in bivariate and multivariate

statistical analysis, as will soon be discussed in the Statistical Analysis section.

31
Project Design: Survey type

There are a number of methods for conducting survey research, including

telephone, mail, and internet surveys. All methods have pros and cons, but telephone

surveying is considered a top choice because it has significant advantages in reducing

errors (Salant and Dillman 1994; Nardi 2003): First, a telephone survey is usually the

quickest survey method, minimizing the impact of intervening events changing the

research environment. Second, unlike in mail or internet surveys, telephone surveys are

usually implemented by trained callers and the interaction between the respondent and

the survey instrument is highly controlled. With a mail survey, for example, a potential

respondent may “read ahead” and decide whether they will participate or not based upon

the content of the survey. With telephone surveys, there is only a short introductory

statement before a respondent decides whether he or she will participate. This reduces

the likelihood that respondents will self-select based on attitudes towards the survey

topic. Additionally, a telephone survey allows for the respondents to ask for clarification

of questions or answer categories (Salant and Dillman 1994; Nardi 2003).

The disadvantages of telephone surveys include: cost, because of the significant

labor and equipment requirements; and telephone surveys are not the preferred method

when the survey asks sensitive or private questions. As explained below, the cost issue

was mitigated by the creative recruitment of labor and the sensitivity issue was not

relevant because of the generally innocuous nature of questions regarding public lands.

Additionally, there are coverage error concerns with telephone surveys, as with all

surveys. Not all people have telephones, such as the homeless or those who cannot

afford or choose not to have telephones. However the penetration rate of telephones is

32
quite high, with 95 percent of residences in Washington State having telephones (NTIA

1999). Cell phones are not included in the sample pool because of the uncertain ethics of

calling phone numbers which charge the receiver for the call (Gillin 2002).7 These gaps

in the ability of a telephone survey to reach all people, therefore, introduce a small degree

of coverage error. This potential deficiency, however, is mitigated by the higher response

rate and other beneficial factors of telephone surveys compared to other methods.

Project Design: Sample method

For this project, I used a general population survey of a random sample of

Whatcom County residents. There is relatively little research that has been conducted

regarding access fees that has used a general population survey approach. Rather, most

of the survey research on this topic has used site-specific samples conducted at trailheads,

campgrounds and other public-land access points (More and Stevens 2000; Williams and

Black 2002). The disadvantage of using on-site surveys is that this method limits the

potential respondents only to those people who are already using the public lands. A

general population survey, conversely, allows for sampling the attitudes of all people and

may capture those who have been dissuaded from using public lands, a critical subgroup

for testing the hypothesis of this thesis.

Conducting a general population survey, therefore, necessitated a random

sampling method for the entire study area of Whatcom County, Washington. For a

general population telephone survey, the sample pool normally consists of all residential

telephone numbers in the given study area. The sampling method used for this survey

7
The omission of cell phone’s from telephone surveys is a growing concern in the survey research field
and there is fear that younger people, many of whom rely on cell phones as their primary telephone service,
may become underrepresented in surveys if current trends continue.

33
was a stratified random sample with an oversampling of phone numbers from lower-

income areas of the county. This was done to ensure that there would be enough

respondents from lower-income households to perform robust statistical analysis. A

similar method was used in a previous access-fee study (More and Stevens 2000). A

stratified sample is not a true random sample because some types of people, in this case

low-income, are over-represented in the sample pool. Therefore it may be better to

consider this method as providing a study-specific sample that cannot be generalized to

the larger population. On the other hand, the stratified sample used for this survey

resulted in a fairly accurate representation of Whatcom County demographics, as

compared to the 2000 U.S. Census (see Results section below), therefore the sample

could be considered to be representative of the general population.

The sample pool of phone numbers was generated by a survey database company,

Survey Sampling International (SSI), using a random-digit-dial (RDD) technique. RDD

uses a computer to randomly generate the final four digits of phone numbers in assigned

prefix areas. SSI also screened the calls for disconnected numbers and businesses,

although this screening missed a high percentage of such invalid numbers.

The project had a sample size target of 300 respondents. This total was based on

survey research statistical guidelines that show, for a population of more than 100,000

(Whatcom County has a population of 166,814 according to the 2000 Census), a sample

size of 300 produces a sampling error of plus or minus five percent at the 95 percent

confidence level (Salant and Dillman 1994). In other words, I can claim that this

research is 95 percent confident that the results of the survey are within plus or minus

five percent of the results for the actual population. To explain this concept using an

34
example: Consider a survey that shows support for Candidate A at 55 percent and support

for Candidate B at 45 percent with a sampling error of four percent at the 95 percent

confidence interval. That means that the survey researcher could state that they are 95

percent confident that, if the entire population were surveyed, support for Candidate A

would be between 51 and 59 percent and support for Candidate B would be between 41

and 49 percent.

Project Design: Survey Instrument Construction

The process of translating a general research problem into discrete survey

questions is called operationalizing. This involves taking the dependent and independent

variables – response to public land access fees and demographic information – and

converting them into a questionnaire, known as a survey instrument.

Question design is a complex task. To minimize measurement error, the

questions must be written in a way that reduces subjective interpretation of the wording

and is clear and accessible to the respondents. One method of determining appropriate

language is to conduct focus groups in order to scope the range and style of language

used by potential respondents (Salant and Dillman 1994; Nardi 2003). This project did

not include focus groups, however, due to time and cost limitations Another method of

good survey design is to examine existing research and adopt previously tested language.

I examined several previous surveys regarding public land fees and adopted some of the

language from those survey instruments (More and Stevens 2000; Burns, Graefe et al.

2002).

Another step to reduce measurement error and design good questions is to pre-test

the survey and then make adjustments to the wording of questions based on the

35
experience of reading the questions to pseudo-respondents (Bourque and Fielder 2003).

A pre-test was conducted for this project and provided useful fine-tuning of the questions.

Question order is also an important consideration for survey construction. This

survey began by asking users a series of questions about what types of public lands they

use and what types of activities they do at those public lands. The objectives of these

preliminary questions were two-fold: First, the questions provided useful information

about the interests of respondents that could be used for statistical analysis (i.e.: Do

backpackers support fees more or less than hunters?). Second, and primarily, these

questions were asked at the beginning of the survey in order to stimulate recall of

visitation to public lands in advance of the more important questions about public land

access fees. Encouraging recall through introductory questions is a recommended

technique in survey research (Salant and Dillman 1994; Nardi 2003).

The second half of the survey asked a series of questions about public land access

fees. These questions can be divided into two categories: behavioral and attitudinal. The

behavioral questions focused on whether people changed their actions because of access

fees, such as going to parks without fees or going to parks less because of fees. The other

questions examined attitudes towards fees, including whether it is difficult to pay fees

and whether it is appropriate for fees to be charged. The survey features multiple

questions for each of these categories so that the respondent’s attitudes can be assessed

from a variety of angles. Asking multiple questions in order to assess attitudes and

behaviors is based on the “scaling” survey technique. The advantage of scaling is that it

avoids oversimplification and allows for the integration of a series of questions into the

analysis of how people think and behave about an issue (Salant and Dillman 1994).

36
 Lastly, the survey turned to demographic questions, most of which serve as the

independent variables for the statistical analysis. It is common survey practice to ask the

demographic questions at the end of a survey because these are relatively easy questions

for tired respondents to answer (Nardi 2003).

Project Design: Conducting the survey

The interviewers for the survey consisted of myself and 11 undergraduate

students. The students participated in the survey as part of a one-credit independent

study course in survey research methodology taught by Professor Grace Wang. The

assignments for the class consisted of approximately ten hours of phone calling for this

project. To minimize the effects of measurement error that can be produced by the

interviewers, all of the callers were trained in survey research interviewing techniques

through readings, lectures and instruction by a professional survey researcher, Dr. Pamela

Jull. Additionally, all of the calling took place under supervision so that any

clarifications needed by callers or respondents could be quickly addressed and then

shared with the entire group of interviewers to ensure consistent application of the survey

instrument.

The telephone survey was conducted over the course of May, 2005. Calls were

primarily made in the early evening hours of weekdays (6:00 – 9:00pm), but some calling

was conducted on weekends and during afternoons. All calling was conducted at

Western Washington University (WWU) using the school’s computers and telephone

equipment. The survey instrument was loaded onto WWU’s computer server using

Perseus Survey Solutions software, a web-based survey software package. The

interviewers then accessed the survey via the internet, read the questions from the

37
computer monitor and entered the results via mouse and keyboard. The software

compiled the results into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, which was then imported into

SPSS 13.0 for data analysis.

Statistical Analysis

I used several statistical techniques in this project to analyze the survey data.

First, I used univariate descriptive statistical techniques, such as frequencies, to examine

broad patterns of response to the survey questions. This technique allowed for measuring

the overall response to the questions, from all of the people who were interviewed,

without regards to how various subgroups answered the question differently.

Next, I examined the data using bivariate techniques to assess relationships

between the independent variables, such as income, and dependent variables, such as

reaction to fees. The answers to each question can be analyzed to show how respondents

from different income groups answered the questions; for example, what percentage of

low-income respondents, compared to upper-income respondents, are opposed to fees?

This method is called “crosstabulation” and is a very simple but useful technique that

allows for an introductory exploration of the results to find associations between

variables. Another advantage of crosstabulation is that it is ideally suited for nominal or

ordinal data (Nardi 2003).

To test the hypothesis of this thesis, it was necessary to use more advanced,

multivariate statistical techniques to determine to what extent income, versus other

characteristics, played a role in how respondents answered the questions. Therefore, I

used linear and logistic regression to examine the role of income versus other

independent variables. Regression works best with data that are at the interval or ratio

38
measurement levels, yet it is still possible to use this technique to analyze survey

research. Doing so involves converting answer categories with equal appearing intervals

into a numerical scale (Nardi 2003). For example, suppose a survey question has five

answer categories such as: (1) strongly agree, (2) somewhat agree, (3) neither agree nor

disagree, (4) somewhat disagree or (5) strongly disagree. These answer categories have

equal-appearing differences between them. Each answer category can then be coded as

one through five and those values can then be used in a linear regression. So if someone

answers “somewhat agree” to a question, the value for that variable would be two.

A potential problem with using linear regression is that several of the questions in

the survey did not have answer categories with equal-appearing intervals. A logistic

regression was used to analyze the results for these questions. The reason for this is

linear regression cannot use dichotomous dependent variables (for example, did or did

not buy a parking pass). Linear regression allows dependent variables to have values of

greater than one or less than zero, and with dichotomous variables the values can only be

zero or one. A logistic regression, however, operates only within the zero to one range

and therefore is more appropriate for dichotomous variables (Pampel 2000).

Another potential roadblock to using regression analysis is that not all of the

independent variables produced interval- or ratio-level data. Some of the variables, such

as location (rural / urban) and sex (male / female), are purely nominal-level data which

are not compatible with regression analysis. Therefore I used “dummy variables” in

order to convert the data for the regression. Creating dummy variables allows for the

representation of qualitative, or nominal, information in quantitative terms that can then

be plugged into a regression analysis. Defining dummy variables involves creating a set

39
of dichotomous, true / false variables that represents all of the categories of the base

variables (Hardy 1993). For example, the independent variable of gender has two

nominal answer categories (male / female) that cannot be ranked or given a numerical

value in any way and are thus impossible to use in a regression. Converting the variable

into a dichotomous true / false statement, with true equaling one and false equaling zero,

produces a value that can be plugged into a regression. Thus, nominal- or ordinal-level

answer scales are converted into a series of ratio-level variables.

One important note on dummy variables is that there is always one less dummy

variable created than the total number of answer categories in the original base variable.

Using the gender question example again, if we created a dummy variable category for

respondents answering “female,” with those saying female receiving a value of one (true)

and those saying male receiving a value of zero (not true), then we would not need to

create a “male” dummy variable with the opposite values. The reason for this is because

of the regression rule that explanatory variables cannot be written to form a perfect linear

combination of variables, in order to avoid redundancy (Hardy 1993). Therefore, in the

results section the reader will note that there appears to be several variables absent from

the regression coefficient tables. Only a “female” variable is listed, but not a “male”

variable, and there are only variables for two of the three income categories. The “male”

variable or the “upper income” variable are not present by design – all of the missing

variables form a reference group from which the visible variables can be compared.

One final note to avoid confusion when looking at the regression tables: there are

several variables labeled “missing” in the tables. These are not the missing dummy

variables as described above but rather refer to all respondents who did not answer

40
certain questions. For example, the variable Income Missing refers to all of the non-

responses – people who refused to answer or hung up early – to that demographic

question.

41
IV. RESULTS

This section examines the results to the key questions in the survey. First, I will

provide a summary of the most important results. Next, will be a discussion of the

survey’s response rate, followed by an overview of the demographics of the survey

respondents. Finally, there is a presentation of the results from the primary survey

questions regarding the attitudes and behaviors of people towards public land access fees.

Please note that results for every question are not reported here – some of the survey

questions had wording problems or were not relevant to the overall analysis. The

complete results for the entire survey can be found in the appendix.

Summary of Key Findings

In general, this survey interviewed a fairly representative sample of the Whatcom

County population. Most of the respondents are very involved in outdoor activities, visit

public lands frequently and are aware of public land access fees. While there are

consistent majorities who support fees or do not find fees to affect how often they use

public lands, there is a sizeable minority who are negatively affected by fees. That

minority is disproportionately made up of lower-income residents.

Some of the specifics are:

• The survey found that there is wide exposure to public land access fees in

Whatcom County with 60 percent reporting having paid an access fee for public

lands.

• Approximately 50 to 60 percent of respondents reported, over a series of

questions, that fees do not affect their behavior.

42
 • About 30 to 40 percent of respondents reported, over a series of questions, being

negatively affected by fees – meaning they were dissuaded from using public

lands that charge fees or found it hard to pay fees.

• Income is consistently the most important variable in predicting response to fees.

Lower-income respondents reported being much more negatively affected by fees

than respondents from the middle and upper income groups. These findings are

statistically significant (p < 0.05) for most of the questions.

• The questions regarding the appropriateness of charging fees did not follow the

pattern of major differentiation between income groups and did not generate

statistically significant results. In general, the results showed majorities

supporting the policy of using fees to pay for public lands.

Response Rate

A total of 1,386 phone numbers were called during the survey (Table 3). Of

those, there were 648 valid contacts with 301 completed calls for a response rate of 46

Table 3 – Calling Results

Figure 3 – Response Rate
Completed calls 301
Refused 249
No answer/ Voice Mail / Busy 91 CC
Callback 7 ________________
Total valid contacts 648 RR = Total valid contacts:
CC+R+NA+CB
Bad # 546
Unable to respond (language) 33 RR = Response rate
Max attempts (5 calls) 159 CC = Completed calls
Total invalid contacts 738 R = Refused to participate
NA = No answer / voice mail / line busy
Total telephone #s called: 1386 CB = Call back scheduled

Response rate (completes / 46%

valid contacts)

43
percent. The response rate was calculated using the formula shown in Figure 3. Each

respondent did not necessarily answer all of the questions – some refused to answer

certain questions and a few hung-up in the middle of the survey. Therefore, there are less

than 301 responses for most of the questions. There is no standard response rate level – it

depends on many factors (method, subject, time, resources) but the higher the better (Fink

2003).

Demographics

In general, the demographic results obtained in the survey track fairly closely to

the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2000 results for Whatcom County (U.S.-Census-Bureau 2000).

One important note is that for the purposes of the statistical analysis of this research,

much of the demographic data are aggregated into broader categories, i.e. income into

three categories of low-, middle-, and high-income. The aggregation categories for

income, as well as other demographics such as age, are not based on any preconceived

definitions – i.e. “low income” does not correspond to the federal poverty level. Rather, I

created the subgroups to test whether there is a difference in reaction to fees based on a

range of incomes. For the purposes of testing the hypothesis, it is less important to

discover how the “poor,” as defined by the federal government, react to fees than it is to

examine whether fees affect people differently based on a range of incomes.

(continued on next page)

44
The following is a summary of the main demographic results:

• Household income: The survey results are very close (max variance < 5%) to the

2000 Census data:

Table 4 – Household Income in Whatcom County

Survey Survey 2000 Census
Frequency % %
Low Income 120 40.3% 43.6%
$0-34,999
Middle Income 114 38.3% 38.2%
$35,000-74,999
High Income 41 13.8% 18.2%
$75,000+
Refused 23 7.7% n/a
Subtotal 298 100.0% 100.0%
Missing 3
Total 301

A binomial test comparing the sample and the Census data found that there were

no statistically significant differences for the income categories with the exception of for

the high income category.

• Education level: The survey had a more highly-educated sample with 75 percent

of respondents with at least some college-level education compared to 60 percent

in the 2000 Census. A binomial test shows that there is a statistically significant

difference between the sample and the Census.

• Age: The survey respondents were slightly older than what is reported in the

2000 census, but the differences are small:

Table 5 - Age Results

Survey 2000 Census
18 – 34 years 29% 36%
35 – 54 years 40% 38%
55 or over 30% 24%

45
 A binomial test found that there is a statistically significant difference between the

survey sample and the Census data for the 18-34 and 55 or over groups.

• Race: The survey sample has 90 percent reporting being “white.” This compares

to 88 percent for the 2000 Census. This difference is not statistically significant.

• Gender: 61 percent reported being female and 39 percent male in the survey.

These results are somewhat different from the 2000 Census, which reports 51

percent female and 49 male. It is not uncommon for females to respond to

telephone surveys at a higher rate than males, and the gender difference in this

survey is consistent with previous survey research (Dillman 1978). A binomial

test shows a statistically significant difference between the Census data and

survey sample.

Results for General Outdoor Usage Questions

These questions examined which types of public lands, as defined by agency,

respondents frequented in the past year and what types of activities they did at these

public lands. These questions were asked at the beginning of the survey to stimulate

memory of using public lands before asking the important fee questions. Additionally,

the answers to these questions provided another set of characteristics to use as

independent variables.

• Public land usage question: “Please tell me whether you have visited this type of

area since May of last year:” The results show that city parks top the list with 73

percent (Figure 4). Additionally, 97 percent reported visiting at least one of the

different types of public lands in the past year.

46
 Figure 4 - Public Land Usage

100%

73%
Percent 75% 69% 68% 65%
answering that
they have visited 50%
50% 42%
the following land
types in the
previous year 25%

0%

ts

ks
s

s
s
s

rk
es

rk
rk
rk

ar
Pa

Pa
pa
or
pa

lp
lF

ty

na
e
ty

er
at
na

un
Ci

th

tio
St

O
tio

Co

Na
Na

• Activity question: “Please tell me which of these you like to do:” The results

(Figure 5) show that Whatcom County residents engage in a wide-range of

activities at public lands.

Figure 5 – Outdoor activities in the past year

Tell me if you like to do any of the following activities

100%
87%
75%
75%
61% 59%
Percent 53%
answering 50% 42%
35%
"yes" 28%
23%
25% 15%

0%
gn
ng

ng
ng

ki
g

g
g
g

in

t in
in

in

in
in

ac
pi

pi
ki

n
at

cl
sh
ik

am

am

un
kp
ic

un
cy
H

Bo
cn

Fi

H
ac
tC

C
R
Bi
Pi

tb

V
n

R
Te

gh
ni r
ve
O

The final general outdoor usage question asked whether people visit parks as

often as they would like. The results of that question found that only 39 percent reported

47
going to parks “as often as they would like.” The survey then asked why they don’t go as

often as they would like. By far the most important reason was being too busy, with 86

percent responding that they “don’t have enough time.” In an effort to begin to

understand to what extent economics play a role in decisions about visiting parks, the

respondents were also asked if one of the reasons for not going often was “You can’t

afford to go?” Twenty-seven percent said this was a reason they don’t go to parks as

often as they would like.

Results for Behavioral Fee Questions

Q: How does the requirement to pay a fee affect how often you go to those places?

It is clear from the first question about fees – which asked whether people go to

public lands the same, less often or more often because of fees – that fees affect the

behavior of some people: Nearly 38 percent of the respondents reported decreased

visitation to public lands because of fees. Cross-tabulating the data to examine how the

different income groups answered the question shows that a much higher percentage of

the lower-income group (49.6 percent) reports going less often because of fees than the

other income groups. As the chart shows (Figure 6), there is a clear linear trend related to

income and response to the question – the bar representing “go less often” decreases as

income increases. In other words, the deterrent effect of fees is most strongly seen for

lower income group and most weakly reported by the upper income group.

48
 Figure 6
How does the requirement to pay a fee affect
how often you go to those places?

Go Less Often Go Same / More Often

100%

80.5%

75%
65.4%

49.6% 50.5%
50%
34.5%

25% 18.4%

0%
Low (0 - Middle ($35 - High
$34,999) 74,999) ($75,000+)

A logistic regression of this question examined the relative strength of all of the

demographic independent variables in answering the question. The results show (Table

6) that the low-income variable has the highest coefficient and is the only variable,

besides the missing income variable8, to be statistically significant (p < 0.01). The

positive coefficient can be understood to mean that there is a positive relationship

between the “go less often” variable and the “low income” variable. Conversely, there is

a negative relationship between the “college educated” variable and the “go less often”

variable.

8
The missing income variable (Income - missing) tabulates those who refused to answer the question or
who ended the survey before answering this question. It is possible that people with lower incomes would
be more likely to refuse to answer the question to avoid embarrassment. If this were true, it would explain
the finding that the missing income variable has the second strongest association to going to parks less
often because of fees. But since there is no way of proving this point, the missing income variable should
be ignored.

49
 Table 6 - Fees and visitation question
How does the requirement at some parks to pay a parking or
entry fee affect how often you go to those places?
Logistic Regression (0 = go the same / more often; 1 = go less often)
B S.E. Sig. Exp(B)
Income – low ($0 - $34,999) 1.265** .448 .005 3.542
Income – middle ($35 - $74,999) .786 .451 .081 2.195
Income – missing 1.217* .588 .039 3.376
Age – young (18-34 yrs) .201 .332 .544 1.223
Age – middle (35-55 yrs) .141 .303 .641 1.152
Age – missing -.213 1.026 .835 .808
Race – white -.578 .385 .134 .561
Education – college -.333 .291 .252 .717
Gender – female .402 .265 .129 1.494
Location – Bellingham .076 .249 .759 1.079
Constant -1.081 .632 .087 .339
* Significant at the p < 0.05 level
** Significant at the p< 0.01 level

Q: In the past year, have you avoided going to any parks because there was a parking

fee?

The next question asked if the respondents had avoided any parks because of fees

in the year leading up to the survey. The overall results show that 22 percent answered

affirmatively. A cross-tabulation examining how the different income groups answered

this question shows (Figure 7) that lower-income respondents were much more likely to

say they had avoided parks because of fees than the higher income groups.

50
 Figure 7 – Avoidance of paying a fee in the past year

In the past year, have you avoided going to any

public lands because there was a parking fee?

40% 34%

30%
Percent within each
income group 20%
14%
answering "yes" 10%
10%

0%
Low (0 - $34,999) Middle ($35 - High ($75,000+)
74,999)

A logistic regression analysis similarly shows income to be the most important factor. In

this case, the “missing” income variable has a stronger association, but the low-income

variable is close behind (Table 7). Both are statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Table 7 – Avoidance of paying a fee

In the past year, have you avoided going to any
parks because there was a parking fee?
Logistic regression (0= no; 1 = yes)
B S.E. Sig. Exp(B)
Income – low ($0 - $34,999) 1.471* .574 .010 4.354
Income – middle ($35 - $74,999) .384 .599 .521 1.469
Income – missing 1.936** .695 .005 6.934
Age – young (18-34 yrs) .057 .380 .881 1.059
Age – middle (35-55 yrs) -.021 .357 .953 .979
Age – missing -1.120 1.277 .380 .326
Race – white -.625 .417 .134 .535
Education – college -.447 .327 .173 .640
Gender – female .111 .309 .720 1.117
Location – Bellingham .285 .290 .326 1.330
Constant -1.533 .760 .044 .216
* Significant at the p < 0.05 level
** Significant at the p< 0.01 level

51
Q: Have you ever avoided paying fees by going to another park that doesn’t charge fees?

The next question asked whether the respondents altered their site selection in

order to go to a park that didn’t charge fees. The overall results show that 36 percent of

the respondents avoid fees by going to a park that doesn’t charge fees.

The cross-tabulation for Figure 8 – Altered site selection

Have you ever avoi ded payi ng fees by going to another park
this question shows that members that doesn't charge fees ?

60%
of the lower-income group were
46%

much more likely to choose free Percent w ithin 40%

32%
income group
answ ering
parks than the higher income "yes" 20%
17%

groups ( Figure 8). A logistic

0%
Low (0 - Middle ($35 - High
regression analysis found that the $34,999) 74,999) ($75,000+)

low-income variable has the

strongest statistically significant

association (p < 0.01) with answering affirmatively, but it also shows that the middle

income group has a significant, but weaker, association (Table 8). Interestingly, residents

of Bellingham also reported altering their site location to avoid fees at a statistically

significant level (p < 0.05).

52
 Table 8 – Altered site selection
Q: Have you ever avoided paying fees by going to a park that doesn't charge fees?
Logistic Regression (0= no; 1 = yes)
B S.E. Sig. Exp(B)
Income – low ($0 - $34,999) 1.614** .474 .001 5.025
Income – middle ($35 - $74,999) .973* .473 .040 2.646
Income – missing 1.659** .613 .007 5.253
Age – young (18-34 yrs) .585 .341 .086 1.796
Age – middle (35-55 yrs) .483 .315 .125 1.620
Age – missing .544 1.058 .607 1.723
Race – white -.111 .393 .778 .895
Education – college .131 .298 .661 1.140
Gender – female -.458 .267 .086 .633
Location – Bellingham .535* .255 .036 1.708
Constant -2.136 .660 .001 .118
* Significant at the p < 0.05 level
** Significant at the p< 0.01 level

Q: Do you ever avoid fees by parking outside of the official parking lots and walking in?

The final behavioral question asked whether respondents park outside of official

parking lots and then walk in to avoid paying parking fees. This is a common practice in

the Bellingham area as seen on weekends along entrances to Larrabee State Park. Thirty-

seven percent responded affirmatively to this question. The crosstabulated data and a

logistic regression show that income does not play a role, but age does ( Table 9).

Younger respondents were much more likely to answer in the affirmative and the finding

is highly significant (p < .01). A possible explanation for this is that younger people are

more able, because of being fit and willing, to park at some distance from a destination

and then walk in to avoid complying with the fee system.

53
 Table 9 – Walk-in to avoid fees
Q: Do you ever avoid paying fees by parking outside
the official parking lots and walking in?
Logistic regression (0 = no; 1 = yes)
B S.E. Sig. Exp(B)
Income – low ($0 - $34,999) .350 .413 .397 1.419
Income – middle ($35 - $74,999) .533 .410 .194 1.703
Income – missing -.389 .686 .571 .678
Age – young (18-34 yrs) 1.369** .343 .000 3.933
Age – middle (35-55 yrs) .502 .320 .116 1.653
Age – missing -19.992 16202.824 .999 .000
Race – white -.540 .389 .165 .583
Education – college -.123 .298 .680 .884
Gender – female -.061 .264 .818 .941
Location – Bellingham .083 .254 .745 1.086
Constant -.924 .629 .142 .397
** Significant at the p< 0.01 level

Results for Attitudinal Fee Questions

This set of questions explored the respondents’ opinions regarding the difficulty

and appropriateness of paying access fees. Some of these questions presented an answer

scale with equal-appearing intervals and thus linear regression is used for these questions.

Q: Paying a fee is economically hard for me to do.

The first question asked whether paying a fee is economically difficult. The

overall results show that 30 percent either somewhat or strongly agreed with the

statement that paying a fee is “economically hard for me to do” while 61 percent either

somewhat or strongly disagreed with the statement. An examination of the data using

income as a factor demonstrates that a significant percentage of the low-income group

(45%) agreed that paying fees is economically difficult (Figure 9). Strikingly, none of

the high-income respondents agreed that paying a fee is difficult.

54
 Figure 9 – Economic difficulty of paying fees

Paying a fee is economically hard for me to do

60%

45%

Percent within 40%

income group to
either "strongly"
24%
or "somewhat
strongly" agree 20%

0
0%
Low (0 - $34,999) Middle ($35 - 74,999) High ($75,000+)

A linear regression confirms that there is a highly significant relationship (p <

0.01) with the low income and middle income variables (Table 10). The Beta coefficient

for the low-income variable is twice as strong as for the middle income variable, showing

the strongest effect on the lowest income group. Note that these associations are negative

which is explained by the values Table 10- Economic difficulty of paying fees
Paying a fee is economically hard for me to do.
assigned to the answer categories. The Linear regression (1= strongly agree. . . 5= strongly disagree)
Beta t Sig.
answer “strongly agree” has a value of Income – low ($0 - $34,999) -.558** -6.605 .000
Income – middle ($35 - $74,999) -.267** -3.223 .001
one and the dichotomous dummy Income – missing -.182** -2.664 .008
Age – young (18-34 yrs) .048 .718 .473
variable for the income categories also Age – middle (35-55 yrs) -.036 -.555 .580
Age – missing -.066 -1.113 .267
has a value of one. Therefore the Race – white .008 .136 .892
Education – college .098 1.751 .081
regression line has a downward slope, Gender – female -.031 -.549 .584
Location – Bellingham -.017 -.316 .752
showing that the more strongly a Constant 11.372 .000
** Significant at the p< 0.01 level
respondent disagreed with the

55
question, the less likely they were to be in the low income group.

Q: I am opposed to paying fees so I don’t like to go to parks that charge fees.

The next question asked whether respondents are opposed to paying fees and

therefore avoid parks that charge fees. This question is both behavioral and attitudinal,

because it inquired about opposition to fees as well as of avoidance of parks that have

fees. In hindsight, the dual nature of the question is a mistake and the results should be

interpreted with care. Still, it is worth including in the analysis because it is the only

question that used the word “oppose” and therefore may be a good indicator of outright

resistance to fees.

The overall results show that a majority of people are not opposed to paying fees:

only 34 percent of the respondents either somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement,

and 55 percent either somewhat or strongly disagreed. An examination of the data using

income groups as the reference, however, shows (Figure 10) that a significantly larger

number of low-income respondents (39%) are opposed to paying fees compared to the

upper income group (20%).

Figure 9 – Opposition to fees

I am opposed to paying fees so I don't like to go

to those parks that charge fees

60%

Percent within 39%

each income 40%
32%
group to either
"strongly" or 20%
"somewhat 20%
strongly" agree

0%
Low (0 - $34,999) Middle ($35 - 74,999) High ($75,000+)

56
 A linear regression of the results shows that the low-income group has a

statistically significant (p < 0.05) negative relationship to the question. Interestingly,

there is a highly statistically significant (p < 0.01) positive relationship between the

college educated group and the question, showing that there is less opposition and

avoidance of fees from the more highly educated group (Table 11).

Table 11- Opposition to fees

Q: I am opposed to paying fees at parks so I don’t like
to go to those parks that charge fees
Linear regression (1=strongly agree . . . 5=strongly disagree)
Beta t Sig.
Income – low ($0 - $34,999) -.254** -2.884 .004
Income – middle ($35 - $74,999) -.164 -1.892 .060
Income – missing -.160* -2.228 .027
Age – young (18-34 yrs) .078 1.118 .264
Age – middle (35-55 yrs) .032 .480 .632
Age – missing -.017 -.271 .786
Race – white .105 1.807 .072
Education – college .217** 3.665 .000
Gender – female .046 .786 .433
Location – Bellingham -.017 -.304 .761
Constant 6.302 .000
* Significant at the p < 0.05 level
** Significant at the p< 0.01 level

Q: Do you think that going to public lands should be totally free, like going to a library,

or that it’s okay to charge entry fee, like going to a movie?

Finally, the survey asked two questions regarding the appropriateness of charging

fees. The first question asked whether public lands should be treated like public libraries,

with free access, or whether it’s acceptable to charge for entry, like going to a movie.

The overall results show a somewhat split opinion, with 49 percent saying that it’s okay

to charge fees and 43 percent saying entry should be free, like libraries. Examining the

answers based on income shows that the upper income group is very supportive of

57
charging entry fees, with 65 percent of this group in favor of fees and only 28 percent

saying parks should be free. A plurality of the lower-income group believes parks should

be free of charge (Figure 11). A logistic regression and chi-square analysis, however, do

not find these results to be statistically significant.

Figure 10 – Parks treated like libraries or movie theaters?

Do you think that going to parks and other public lands should be
totally free, like going to a public library, or that it's okay to
charge fees, like going to a movie?

80%
65%
60%
49%
44% 46% 44%
Percent within each Okay to charge
income group 40%
28% fees - like movies

20%
Should be free -
like libraries
0%
Low (0 - Middle ($35 - High
$34,999) 74,999) ($75,000+)

Q: Do you think operating funds should come primarily through fees, taxes, or a mix?

The other appropriateness-to-pay question also failed to find statistically

significant results. This question asked whether operating funds should come primarily

through fees, primarily through taxes, or from a mix of the two. A regression analysis

was not possible for this question because of the answer categories. The overall results

shows that a majority (58 percent) favors a mix of the two, with 32 percent believing

revenue should come primarily from general taxes, and only 7 percent saying it should

come primarily from fees. Income does not appear to play a role in the answers to this

58
question (Figure 12): 63 percent of the low-income respondents, 54 percent of the

middle-income respondents and 59 percent of the upper-income respondents answered

that operating funds should come from a mix of fees and taxes.

Figure 11 - Source of funding

Do you think that operating funds should come primarily through . .

Fees
Taxes
80% Mix of Fees and Taxes

63%
59%
60% 54%

Percent within
income group
40% 35%
32%
29%

20%
10%
8%
5%

0%
Low (0 - Middle ($35 - High
$34,999) 74,999) ($75,000+)

Additional Analysis With Extended Independent Variable Model

In addition to analyzing the answers to the above questions using a standard

demographic model, I also used the answers to the activity question as additional

independent variables. Doing so allowed for an examination of whether activity choice

plays a role in determining reaction to fees. In other words, the list of independent

variables is expanded to include not only characteristics such as age, income, gender, etc.

but also to include identifiers such as being a hunter or a hiker. The results show,

however, that activity choice appears to play a limited role in responding to fees, with a

59
few important exceptions (regression tables for the extended model can be found in

Appendix B):

• In response to the “paying a fee is economically hard for me to do” question,

respondents who identified fishing as an activity of choice joined the lower and

middle income groups in answering the question affirmatively at a statistically

significant level (p < .05).

• With regards to the “I am opposed to paying fees, so I don’t like to go to parks

that charge fees” question, hunters joined the lower income group as also having a

statistically significant response to the question. Interestingly, RV campers joined

the college educated group in disagreeing with the question at statistically

significant levels.

• People who fish also joined the lower income groups as responding affirmatively

to the question: “Have you ever avoided paying fees by going to another park that

doesn’t charge fees?” Although not as strong of an association as the income

variables, the fishing variable is statistically significant (p < .05).

• The question concerning avoiding fees by not parking in official lots found the

young age group as having a significant relationship in the original model. The

expanded model, however, shows that only hikers report this behavior (p < 0.05),

which is consistent with observations of hikers parking outside of trailheads and

walking in. The fact that the extended model does not show the younger group as

having statistically significant results suggests a high level of co-linearity between

the young group and the hiking group.

60
Qualitative Results

In addition to the empirical survey data, I also collected qualitative data from

some of the respondents. The gathering of these comments was somewhat unscientific –

if respondents voiced additional comments while they were answering the survey

questions, then I attempted to capture their comments, verbatim, in a Microsoft Word

document. To verify the accuracy of the comments, I would then read what I typed back

to the respondent and make any changes they requested. I did not make an attempt to

solicit comments from all of the callers, therefore these comments should be regarded as

anecdotal and only coming from the subset of people who were more outspoken, by

nature, or who had strong enough opinions to verbalize additional feedback. Those

caveats aside, the comments included here may provide insight to the reasoning and

emotions behind attitudes and behaviors concerning fees.

Several respondents commented on the economic difficulty of paying fees:

“I’m a mother with four small kids and it’s hard for me to pay fees.”

“I can remember when we were dirt poor and all we could afford to do
was go to parks. So I wish that parks didn’t charge fees.”

“I have concerns that if it affects me then for people with less money it
might affect them more. It’s hard to find a place to not pay the fee.”

“I’m glad you called because I was really disgusted with the fee the last
time we went to Larrabee and now we don’t go there any more. As a
parent, families with children don’t usually have extra money to go to a
park.”

“Do I pay $5 for a park or $5 towards the bill for my teeth?”

Other respondents had comments regarding the fairness of paying taxes and fees:

“I resent the fact that they take my tax money that I pay for these parks
and then they make me pay $5 to go have a picnic”

61
 “They should be free; haven’t our tax dollars paid for them already?”

“Taxpayers are already paying to keep them and that kindof burns me up,
we already paid for it once. They keep raising the taxes and then they
come back and want to charge entry fees and I totally disagree with that.”

A number of respondents also voiced support for fees, and that attitude was

generally tied into support for the upkeep of public lands:

“I think if someone uses some place they should pay for it.”

“I think fees are okay because they do a lot of good things and keep the
parks up for us; they should be kept low for young families. They keep
them nice, keep the garbage picked up, the money is used for a good
purpose.”

“If it’s within reason then I don’t see why not because there’s a need to
keep up the park.”

“I think it’s okay because it probably helps out with the maintenance of
the place; and people would probably live in them if they didn’t have to
pay.”

“Fees are okay as long as it’s not an outlandish fee because they help
maintain the parks and keep them usable.”

“I think it’s okay to charge because they have to pay people to keep up the
parks. I agree pretty strongly that it’s okay for them to charge people to
go to parks.”

“I think it’s okay to charge fees, especially if it helps to keep the parks
up.”

Summary of Results

The research results have disproved the null hypothesis that there is not a

relationship between fees, visitation patterns, and income. The lower-income group

consistently reported being more negatively affected by fees than the higher income

groups. The lower-income group responded, at statistically significant levels (p < .05)

that they do not use parks as often because of fees, that fees are economically hard to pay,

62
that they change their site selection because of fees, and that they are opposed to paying

fees. Income did not appear to play a role, however, in the attitudinal questions regarding

the appropriateness of charging fees. Without considering income effects, there is

majority support for fees and most people do not report being negatively affected by fees.

63
V. DISCUSSION

This thesis has investigated the relationship between public land access fees and

the treatment of public lands as merit goods. The fundamental nature of parks as merit

goods would be called into question if they are no longer available to all citizens,

regardless of an ability to pay. Therefore, the research question for this project focused

on whether public land access fees affect how people use public lands and whether

income level, an indirect measure of ability to pay, is related to the impact of fees. More

specifically, this project’s hypothesis is that those with lower incomes would be more

likely than upper income individuals to report being dissuaded from using public lands by

access fees.

Discussion of Results

The research conducted for this thesis clearly shows that public land access fees

affect how some Whatcom County residents use public lands. This finding is consistent

with previous research from different areas of the county. It is also consistent with new

data from Washington State Parks, which shows a nearly 20 percent drop-off in visitation

to state parks since the inception of fees in 2002 (Freiderich 2005). Indeed, the survey

question that asked most directly whether fees affect the frequency of visitation to public

lands found that nearly 40 percent of the respondents reported going to parks less often

because of fees. Additional questions attempting to more fully understand the impact of

fees found a significant number of respondents stating that fees change how they use

public lands: 22 percent said that they had avoided going to a park because of a fee in the

64
previous year; 36 percent said they avoid paying fees by going to parks that don’t charge

fees; and 37 percent reported parking outside of official parking lots to avoid paying fees.

Regarding the attitudes of Whatcom County residents towards fees, the results are

fairly similar. Nearly 30 percent of the respondents agreed with one of the most

important survey questions for the purposes of testing the hypothesis: “Paying a fee is

economically hard for me to do.” Similarly 33 percent reported being opposed to paying

fees and 43 percent said that parks should be treated like another merit good, libraries,

with free access.

The results also show, however, that support for fees is generally strong, with

majorities of between 50 and 60 percent reacting positively towards fees: 54 percent said

they were not opposed to fees and nearly 56 percent reported that fees do not affect how

often they visit public lands. There was also a majority that supports the appropriateness

of charging entry fees and who do not seem concerned about fees as a management

policy: 58 percent favor using a mix of taxes and fees to pay for public lands.

Taken at face value, these results suggest that most people are not adversely

affected by fees and generally approve of using fees as a way to pay for the upkeep of

public lands. Yet, when it comes to examining the impact of fees on the democratic

nature of public lands, demonstrating simple majority support is insufficient. Alexis de

Tocqueville’s famous warning of democracy’s potential for a “tyranny of the majority”

should be heeded when considering the impact of public land access fees (Tocqueville

2004). Indeed, majority support for fees does not ensure their consistently with the

democratic history and mission of public lands in the United States.

65
 The research presented here shows that fees run counter to the treatment of public

lands as merit goods. This is because fees dissuade people from using public lands and

because this pressure is not felt equally by all socioeconomic groups. As the results

demonstrate, it is clear that the further down the income ladder respondents were, the

more likely they were to find fees a barrier to visiting public lands. More specifically, the

research findings demonstrate that a significant proportion of lower income residents of

Whatcom County find access fees to be a deterrent to visiting public lands and that fees

have reduced their usage of public lands or have forced them into difficult economic

tradeoffs.

One of the most striking results of this research project is that while 45 percent of

lower-income respondents said paying a fee is economically difficult, not a single upper

income respondent answered the same way. Similarly revealing is that while half of the

lower-income respondents reported going to parks less often because of fees, only 18

percent of upper income respondents reported the same. Further, the regression analysis

conducted for most of the questions consistently found income to be the most important

variable relating to the impact of fees.

Fees and the Privatization of Public Lands

The findings presented here regarding public land access fees must be viewed

within the broader context of the creeping privatization of public lands. As discussed

earlier, public land agencies have adopted numerous market-based management practices

in recent years, including outsourcing of functions such as maintenance and

interpretation; promoting private sponsorship of projects; selling off holdings that do not

generate revenue; and shifting the entire budget of public land agencies from general tax

66
revenue to user fees. Although public ownership of parks and most outdoor recreational

areas remains the norm – indeed there has not been a wide sell-off of public lands – there

is clearly an erosion of the merit-goods nature of public lands.

These market-based changes, including access fees, are often promoted or

rationalized as a way to help public lands improve their bottom line and enhance service

to the public (Johnson 1991; Hanson 2005). Charging access fees, however, does not

appear to always generate new revenue to help land management agencies. There are

several reasons why the new fee money is not improving the fiscal bottom line for public

land agencies. First, it appears that, in some cases, fee revenue has replaced previously

appropriated dollars rather than create new resources. It is difficult to generalize this

conclusion to all fee programs throughout the country, but there are some important

findings that reinforce it. Congress slashed the U.S. Forest Service’s recreation budget

by more than a third between 1996 and 1999, for example, at the same time that the Fee

Demo program started (Michlen 2001). Similarly, the Deschutes National Forest in

Oregon generated $175,400 in user fees in 1998 and then had its budget for 1999 cut by

$175,800 (Michlen 2001). The most striking evidence of fee dollars replacing

appropriated dollars is found with state parks. In Kansas, the state legislature has moved

from fully supporting state parks to currently only paying for 20 percent of the park

agency’s operating budget with increased fees making up the shortfall (Sigman 2005).

Currently, Washington State Parks needs to raise 40 percent of its budget from fees,

whereas just a few years ago it received virtually all of its funding from the state’s

general fund (WSP 2005).

67
 Finally, access fees do not always generate the predicted amount of revenue.

Agencies appear to have spent significant sums implementing the program, cutting into

the net financial gain from charging fees. A comprehensive 2003 General Accounting

Office (GAO) report of the U.S. Forest Service’s implementation of the Fee Demo

program, for example, shows that the agency had spent almost as much money on

enforcing and promoting access fees as they generated from the fees themselves (GAO

2003). Fees may also affect visitation levels, as seen in Washington State, where visits to

state parks have dropped since fees were implemented in 2002. As a result, projected

revenue generated by the fee program has been much less than expected (Freiderich

2005).

Thus, it appears that the greatest impact of fees has not been to dramatically

improve the financial standing of public lands, but rather to shift how society pays for

public lands. We are moving from paying for public lands via broad, progressive

taxation to user fees that exclude or deter significant segments of society. In some cases,

this shift has been incremental, such as with some state park systems and most federal

lands, which still receive significant general funding from Congress. But in other cases

the shift has been total, such as with Michigan State Parks, which now receives all of its

funding from user fees and where land managers must find ways to promote visitation or,

in essence, sell their product, in order to fund their budget (Wureful 2003; Stang 2005).

This new reality was clearly stated by Mike Hayden, the head of the Kansas Department

of Wildlife and Parks, when talking about the role that fees have played in that state’s

park system: "Every time we raise fees we cut some people out (Sigman 2005).”

68
 A fair debate can be had between ideological opponents about the ethics and

efficacy of government services being privatized and government agencies adopting

business-like practices. Indeed, the evidence is somewhat inconclusive that fees do not

generate new, much needed revenue (GAO 1998; GAO 2003). What is undeniable,

however, is that access fees cause public lands to be treated more like private goods – a

fundamental change in the history of public land management. If proponents of user fees

suggest that there is much to be gained by this change in terms of market-based

efficiencies, greater responsiveness to “customer” needs, and perhaps even more funding

for land-management agencies, then it is equally important to determine what might be

lost by this shift. The research in this thesis clearly shows that what is at jeopardy is

something fundamental to parks and other outdoor areas: their public nature. At many

parks and other outdoor areas, the many benefits of public lands, so forcefully espoused

by Olmsted and others, are no longer available to all citizens, but rather only to those who

can pay entry fees.

Although some may argue that it seems difficult to believe that a $5 entry fee

would prevent someone from visiting a public land (Grewell 2004), this research clearly

shows that fees have a deterrent effect. The harsh economic reality facing some people

when they consider paying a fee was stated by one survey respondent: “Do I pay $5 for a

park or $5 towards the bill for my teeth?” When the nation’s relatively new public land

policy of charging fees forces such a tradeoff, then it is undeniable that public lands are

no longer as public, or democratic, as they once were.

69
Limitations of Research

There are several limitations to the research presented in this thesis that warrant

discussion. First, survey research is a somewhat imperfect tool for determining cause-

and-effect behavior. It certainly is the most common method for trying to understand

behaviors and attitudes, but it falls short of providing the clean research environment of a

controlled experiment. Thus, the research presented here is limited by the ability of

people to remember their behaviors and the factors that affected their behaviors. The

accuracy of responses depends on the respondents’ level of recall and their self-

knowledge regarding why they do what they do, i.e. do fees really cause them to reduce

their usage of public lands or does it just seem that way when thinking about it in

hindsight? Yet, survey research has a long history of effectively explaining attitudes and

behaviors and, while perhaps not as accurate as an actual experiment, still provides

informative results. As discussed in the Methods section, survey researchers have

developed a series of techniques to ensure accuracy and reliability, all of which were

employed in this research.

Next, there are several ways in which this specific survey project was limited and

some survey errors that proved difficult to avoid. Limits on time and money prevented

this project from having a larger sample size. A sample of 301 respondents is acceptable,

but a higher number of responses would have reduced the error rate. Additionally, the

respondents were significantly more likely to be women – not an unusual occurrence in

survey research – but more time and resources, and perhaps a different sampling method,

could have allowed for a greater gender balance. Given that the regression analysis

70
showed that gender did not play a significant role in how people respond to fees, this

deficiency does not appear to affect the overall findings.

If I were to conduct the survey again, I would also change some of the question

wording and spend more time on pre-testing questions. There are several questions or

statements that were worded negatively (“I don’t mind paying a fee”), that clearly

confused respondents when they were asked to agree or disagree with them and there

were many requests for clarifications on these questions. Thus, I have a low degree of

confidence in the questions that were worded in this fashion and did not include them in

the results analysis. The complete survey results can be found in Appendix A.

Finally, it would have been ideal to have a higher response rate. Forty-six percent

is somewhat below the rate (60 percent) normally expected in a telephone survey (Salant

and Dillman 1994), but it is higher than the rate in similar research regarding user fees

(More and Stevens 2000). The lower the response rate, the greater potential for error, but

it does not appear that the sample differed in any meaningful way from the population,

with the exception of gender.

Conclusions

There is an ongoing debate around public land access fees that is unlikely to

subside in the coming years. Reliance upon fees seems to be expanding: the National

Park Service recently announced increased entry fees at several nearby parks, with the

entry fee for Mt. Rainier and Olympic National Parks rising from $10 to $15 in 2006 (AP

2005). However, fees are also running into significant opposition, as shown by the new

proposal to eliminate fees at Washington State Parks (Freiderich 2005). Additionally, the

issue of fees discriminating against some socioeconomic groups has been raised by

71
government officials and citizens as a possible major drawback of access fees (More and

Stevens 2000; Nokkentved 2002; Mottram 2004).

Access fees represent a profound dilemma for those interested in public lands.

Fees may represent a new source of revenue for the upkeep of places that have suffered

from years of high use and insufficient funding. Yet, the evidence is mixed, at best,

whether fees actually provide additional funding. Regardless of the funding effects of

fees, this new policy alters the treatment of public lands as merit goods. Since the days

of Olmsted, public lands in the United States have been driven by an ideal of democratic

access. As the research presented here shows, fees clearly challenge the continuance of

that democratic notion. This study, along with several previous works, show that fees do

in fact cause people to use public lands less often, and that they are regressive. The effect

of fees on park visitation is exemplified by one survey respondent who stated: “I can

remember when we were dirt poor and all we could afford to do was go to parks. So I

wish that parks didn’t charge fees.” It is a new reality that, in Whatcom County at the

least, some people, likely lower-income people, will not go to public lands as often

because of access fees. This reality runs counter to the history of most public lands in the

United States and shows that the democratic nature of these special places has been

compromised.

72
VI. LITERATURE CITED

AP (2005). Fees are rising at state's national parks. Seattle Times. 10/13/2005.
Bach, A. (2003). Cost of cooling down goes up: Some state park visitors surprised to
encounter day-use parking fee. Seattle Times. 7/29/03: B1.
Beckwith, J. P. (1981). "Parks, property rights and the possibilities of the private law."
Cato Journal 1(2): 473-498.
Bourque, L. and E. Fielder (2003). How to conduct telephone surveys. Thousand Oaks,
CA, Sage Publications.
Burns, R., A. Graefe, et al. (2002). An examination of the Pacific Northwest Region
Recreation Fee program. Portland, OR, United States Forest Service.
Cockrell, D. and J. D. Wellman (1985). "Democracy and leisure: Reflection on pay-as-
you-go outdoor recreation." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 3(4):
1-10.
Connelly, J. (2001). Middle class should be aware of who will be used in the park user-
fee debate. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 3/9/01: A2.
Craig, L. (2005). Fees and our forest don't always fit. High Country News On-Line;
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.WOTRArticle?article_id=14894.
Cranz, G. (1982). The politics of park design: A history of urban parks in America.
Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York,
John Wiley & Sons.
Doyle, M. (2005). National parks looking for ways to pay back donors. McClatchy
Newspapers:
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=NATIONALPARKS-12-26-
05&cat=WW.
Duncan, M. (1991). Back to our radical roots. Recreation and leisure: Issues in an era of
change. T. L. Goodale and P. A. Witt. State College, PA, Venture Publishing,
INC.
Dustin, D. (1986). "Outdoor recreation: A question of equity." Forum for Applied
Research and Public Policy(Fall): 62-67.
Dustin, D. L. and R. C. Knopf (1988). General Technical Report SE-52: Equity issues in
outdoor recreation. Outdoor Recreation Benchmark. A. Watson. Ashville, NC,
United States Forest Service Southern Forest Experimental Station: 467-471.
Featherman, D. (2004). A telescope on society. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.
Fink, A. (2003). The survey handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
Floyd, M. (1999). "Race, ethnicity and use of the National Park System." Social Science
Research Review 1(2): 1-24.

73
Freiderich, S. (2005). Legislators target state park fees. The Daily World. Grays Harbor,
WA. 10/28/05.
GAO (1998). Recreation fees: Demonstration fee program successful but could be
improved (GAO / RCED-99-7). Washington, D.C., General Accounting Office.
GAO (2003). Recreation fees: Information on Forest Service management of fees from
the Fee Demonstration Program (GAO-03-470). Washington, D.C., General
Accounting Office.
Grewell, J. B. (2004). Recreation fees - Four philosophical questions. Bozeman, MT, The
Property and Environment Research Center: June 2004.
Hanson, J. (2005). Securing the future of Washington's State Parks: Market-based user
fees and privitization can solve budget surplus. Seattle, WA
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/ConOutPrivatization/PNParksMarketBasedFees
01-2.html, Washington Policy Center.
Hardy, M. (1993). Regression with dummy variables. Newbury Park, CA, Sage
Publications, Inc.
Harmon, D. and A. Putney (2003). The full value of parks: From economics to the
intangible, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Hendee, J., G. Stankey, et al. (1990). Wilderness Management. Golden, CO, Fulcrum
Publishing, North American Press.
Herrington, G. (2000). Would privatization help Washington's state parks? The
Columbian. Vancouver, WA: B2.
Johnson, R. (1991). Pay to play: A rationale for user fees. American Forests.
Kenworthy, T. (2005). Budgets chop away at park funds. USA Today. 2/2/2005.
Lee, J., D. Scott, et al. (2001). "Structural inequalities in outdoor recreation participation:
A multiple hierarchy perspective." Journal of Leisure Research 33(4): 427-449.
Lieber, S., D. Fesenmaier, et al. (1989). "Recreation expenditures and opportunity theory:
The case of Illinois." Journal of Leisure Research 21(2): 106-123.
Lindsay, J. and R. Ogle (1972). "Socioeconomic patterns of outdoor recreation use near
urban areas." Journal of Leisure Research 4(1): 19-24.
McClure, R. (2005). Bill would open public land: Thousands of acres could be privatized.
Seattle Post Intelligencer.
Michlen, J. (2001). Is this land our land? Washington Post. 6/24/2001.
Milstein, M. (2005). Mount St. Helens open to bids. The Oregonian. 10/18/2005.
Portland.
More, T. (1999). "A functionalist approach to user fees." Journal of Leisure Research
31(3): 227-244.
More, T. (2002). "'The parks are being loved to death' and other frauds and deceits in
recreation management." Journal of Leisure Research 34(1): 52-78.

74
More, T. and T. Stevens (2000). "Do user fees exclude low-income people from resource-
based recreation?" Journal of Leisure Research 32(3): 341-357.
Mottram, B. (2004). Forest Fiasco? Tacoma News Tribune. 4/29/2004.
Musgrave, R. A. (1959). The theory of public finance: A study in public economy. New
York, McGraw-Hill.
Nardi, P. (2003). Doing survey research: A guide to quantitative methods. Boston, Allyn
& Bacon.
Nash, R. F. (2001). Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven, CT, Nota Bene.
Nokkentved, N. (2002). Effects of park fees examined. The Olympian. Olympia, WA.
3/4/02.
NPCA (2004). Final spending bill shortchanges parks. National Parks. 78: 15.
NTIA (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. Washington, D.C.,
U.S. Department of Commerce. National Telecommunication and Information
Administration. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html.
NWI (1995). State by state government land ownership. Washington, D.C., National
Wilderness Institute.
P.L.-104-134 (1996). "U.S. Congress: Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
Appropriation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-134)."
P.L.-108-447 (2005). "U.S. Congress: Title VII - Consolidated Appropriations Act
(Public Law 108-447)."
Pampel, F. (2000). Logistic regression: a primer. Iowa City, Sage University Papers.
Putkammer, A. (2001). Linking wilderness research and management -- volume 3.
Recreation fees in wilderness and other public lands: An annotated reading list.
Fort Collins, CO, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-79-Vol 3: 29p.
Reiling, S. and R. McCarville (1994). Demand and marketing study at Army Corps of
Engineers day-use areas (Miscellanous Paper R-94-1). Waterways Experiment
Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Salant, P. and D. Dillman (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Schneider, I. and M. Budruk (1999). "Displacement as a response to the federal
recreation fee program." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 17(3): 76-
84.
Schroeder, H. and J. Louviere (1999). "Stated choice models for predicting the impact of
user fees at public recreation sites." Journal of Leisure Research 31(3): 300-324.
Schultz, J., L. McAvoy, et al. (1988). "What are we in business for?" Parks and
Recreation 23(1): 52-54.
Shute, N. (1995). This budget cut is destructive. High Country News. 10/29/95.

75
Sigman, B. (2005). Kansas parks at 100. Johnson County (Kansas) Sun.
Stang, S. (2005). Michigan state parks need a rise in campers. WNDU-TV. South Bend,
IN 5/31/2005.
Tocqueville, A. d. (2004). Democracy in America. New York, Library of America.
TPL (1998). Conservation Finance. San Francisco, Trust for Public Land.
Trainor, S. and R. Norgaard (1999). "Recreation fees in the context of wilderness use."
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 17(3): 100-115.
Turner, J. (2002). Commission approves parking fees at state parks. Tacoma News
Tribune. 9/13/02: A1.
Turner, J. (2003). Fewer folks visit state parks: Fees shoo away day patrons. Tacoma
News Tribune. 12/9/03.
U.S.-Census-Bureau (2000). Census 2000. Washington, D.C., United States Census
Bureau.
U.S.Congress (1978). "United States Congress. 92 Stat. 163: An act to establish a
Redwood National Park in the state of California and for other purposes."
USDA (2000). National survey on recreation and the environment. Washington, D.C.,
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/Nsre/nsre2.html.
Wellman, J. and D. Probst (2004). Wildland recreation policy. Malabar, FL, Krieger
Publishing Co.
White, C. (1992). "Legislative history of outdoor recreation fees." Recnotes R92(3): 1-5.
Williams, D. R., C. A. Vogt, et al. (1999). "Structural equation modeling of users'
response to wilderness recreation fees." Journal of Leisure Research 31(3): 245-
268.
Williams, P. and J. Black (2002). Issues and concerns related to the USDA's Recreation
Fee Demonstration program. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture;
U.S. Forest Service.
WSP (2005). Washington State Parks History; http://www.parks.wa.gov/history.asp.
Olympia, WA.
WSP (2005). Washington State Parks press release: Commission extends discounted
parking fee in state parks. 8/12/2005. Olympia, WA.
Wureful, B. (2003). Camping fees expected to increase. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources press release. 3/7/2003. Lansing, MI.

76
VII. APPENDIX A

Complete survey with responses to each question

Introduction

Hi, my name is (first and last name.) I’m calling from Western Washington
University. We’re doing a survey about the opinion of Whatcom County residents
towards parks and other outdoor areas in the county. The survey would only take
about five to seven minutes and is completely confidential. Will you participate in
this survey and help us learn about how people use parks in Whatcom County?

Intro2

Great. Are you at least 18 years old and live at this residence?

If YES then continue with survey, if NO the call back time was arranged to speak
with an adult.

Okay, then we’ll get started. You can refuse to answer any question or end the
survey at any time.

Q1. I am going to ask you a series of questions about parks and other outdoor
areas in Whatcom County. Please tell me for each one whether you have visited
this type of area since May of last year:

Yes No Don’t
Know
State parks, like Larrabee State Park or 65.4% 34.6%
Birch Bay State Park
National parks, like North Cascades 41.9% 56.1% 2.0%
National Park
National Forests, like Mt. Baker- 69.0% 31.0%
Snoqualmie National Forest (not including
the ski area)
County Parks, like Silver Lake Park or 67.7% 31.7% 0.7%
Chuckanut Mountain Park
City parks, like Lake Padden Park or your 72.7% 27.3%
local neighborhood park
Other Parks 50.0% 45.5% 4.5%

Q2. How many times since last May have you visited parks like all of those I just
asked you about?

77
CALCULATE # OF TIMES

Q3. I’m going to read you a list of activities that some people like to do at parks
and other outdoor areas. Please tell me which of these you like to do

Yes No Don’t
Know
Hiking 74.8% 24.9% 0.3%
Bicycling 41.9% 58.1%
Hunting 15.3% 84.7%
Overnight backpacking 34.6% 65.1% 0.3%
Fishing 53.5% 46.5%
Boating 60.5% 39.5%
Running 28.2% 71.4% 0.3%
Picnicking 86.7% 13.3%
RV Camping 23.3% 76.7%
Tent Camping 59.1% 40.9%

Q4. Are there other activities you like to do at parks and other outdoor areas?

Qualitative responses captured but not listed here.

Q5. Do you go to parks and other outdoor areas as often as you would like?

Yes No
Do you go to parks and 38.7% 61.3%
other outdoor areas as
often as you would like?

Q6. I’m going to read a list of reasons why you may not go to parks and other
outdoor areas as often as you’d like. For each one, please tell me if it is a
major reason, minor reason, or not a reason at all for why you don’t go to
parks and outdoor areas as much as you’d like.

(Question order rotated) Major Minor Not a Don’t

reason reason reason Know
You don't have enough time? 66.5% 19.2% 13.2% 1.1%
You're in poor health? 15.8% 7.1% 76.5% .5%
You have no way to get there? 4.9% 14.3% 80.8%
You can't afford to go? 7.2% 19.3% 72.9% .6%
You are too busy with other 62.6% 21.4% 15.4% .5%
activities?
The park facilities are not in good 1.6% 18.1% 78.6% 1.6%
shape?
The parks are too crowded? 5.5% 31.3% 62.1% 1.1%

78
Q7. Are there any other reasons you don't go to parks as often as you like?

Qualitative responses captured but not listed here.

Q8. Now I am going to ask you a few questions about fees charged at parks and
other public outdoor areas. Some of these places, like Larrabee State Park
and Mt. Baker National Forest, charge parking fees, usually around $5 a day
or $50 for an annual pass.

Have you ever paid a parking fee, or bought a pass, for a park or other
outdoor area in Whatcom County? (Not including the ski area)

Yes No Can't
Remember
Have you ever paid a parking 60.4% 39.3% 0.3%
fee, or bought a pass, for a park
or other outdoor area in
Whatcom County?

Q9. How does the requirement at some parks to pay a parking or entry fee
affect how often you go to those places? Do you . . .

Go Go Go Doesn’t Don’t
more the less affect you Know
often same often because
you don’t
go to parks
How does the requirement at some 1.7% 56.2% 37.8% 2.3% 2.0%
parks to pay a parking or entry fee
affect how often you go to those
places?

79
Q10. I am going to read a few statements about fees and parks. For each one,
please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor
disagree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the statement:

Strongly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Strongly Don’t

agree agree agree nor disagree disagree Know
disagree
Paying a fee is 12.5% 17.2% 8.8% 18.5% 42.1% 1.0%
economically hard
for me to do
I am opposed to 19.3% 14.5% 8.8% 20.9% 34.1% 2.4%
paying fees at parks
so I don't like to go
to those parks that
charge fees
I don't mind paying a 30.6% 28.3% 6.1% 13.1% 21.2% .7%
fee
Fees don't affect 35.2% 22.8% 5.7% 14.8% 20.5% 1.0%
how often I go to
parks

Q11. Have you ever avoided paying fees by going to another park that doesn’t
charge fees?

Yes No Not Sure

Have you ever avoided 36.2% 63.4% 0.3%
paying fees by going to
another park that
doesn't charge fees?

Q12. Do you ever avoid paying fees by parking outside of the official parking lots
and walking in?

Yes No
Do you ever avoid paying 36.9% 63.1%
fees by parking outside of
the official parking lots
and walking in?

80
Q13. Do you think that going to parks and other public lands should be totally
free, like going to a public library, or that it's okay to charge entry fees, like going
to a movie theater?

Should be totally free Okay to charge entry Don’t

(like libraries) fees (like movies) Know

43.1% 48.8% 8.1%

Q14. Parks and other outdoor areas need money to operate and stay open to the
public. Do you think that...

Operating funds should Operating funds should Operating funds Don’t Know
come primarily through come primarily through should come from a
entry and parking fees general taxes mix of the two

7.0% 32.9% 57.0% 3.0%

Q15. Okay, one last question about parks and fees. Since last May have you
avoided going to any parks or public lands because there was a parking
fee?
Yes 23.5%
No 75.8%
Not Sure 0.7%

Okay, we’re almost done. I just have a few questions about your background so
that we can compare your answers to those of other people. All of your questions
will be kept strictly confidential and used only for the purposes of this survey.

Q16. Do you live in or RIGHT NEXT TO Bellingham?

Yes 48.8%
No 50.9%
Don’t Know / 0.3%
Refused

81
Q17. Please tell me what the yearly income is for your household. Is it . . .

Count Percent

Less than $10,000 13 4.4%

$10,000 to under 10 3.4%

$15,000
$15,000 to under 37 12.4%
$25,000
$25,000 to under 60 20.1%
$35,000
$35,000 to under 66 22.1%
$50,000
$50,000 to under 48 16.1%
$75,000
$75,000 to under 23 7.7%
$100,000
$100,000 to under 12 4.0%
$150,000
$150,000 to under 4 1.3%
$200,000, or
$200,000 or more 2 0.7%

DON'T KNOW/ 23 7.7%

REFUSED

Q18. How many people in your household are supported by that income?

CALCULATE

Q19. Is your age . . .

Count Percent
18 - 19 years 10 3.4%
20 to 24 15 5.0%
25 to 34 61 20.5%
35 to 44 59 19.8%
45 to 54 60 20.1%
55 to 59 34 11.4%
60 to 64 20 6.7%
65 to 74 20 6.7%
75 to 84 14 4.7%
85 or older 2 0.7%
REFUSED 3 1.0%

82
Q20. What is your race?

Only categories for which there was a response are shown.

Count Percent
White / 263 88.6%
Caucasian
Hispanic or 6 2.0%
Latino
American Indian 8 2.7%
and Alaska
Native
OTHER 15 5.1%
REFUSED 5 1.7%

Q21. What level of school have you completed?

Count Percent
Elementary 1 0.3%
(1-6 years)
Junior High or some high 11 3.7%
school (7-<12 years)
High School Graduate 59 19.9%

Some college 105 35.4%

(13-16 years)
College Graduate 80 26.9%

Advanced degree 40 13.5%

(>16 years)
REFUSED 1 0.3%

Q22. I know this question may sound silly, but I have to ask it: are you male or
female?

Count Percent
Male 115 38.6%

Female 182 61.1%

Refused 1 0.3%

Okay, we're all done. Thank you very much for your participation in this project.
Have a good night (day). TERMINATE.

83
VIII. APPENDIX B

Regression tables utilizing expanded demographic model for select questions

1. Paying a fee is economically hard for me to do. Linear regression (1= strongly agree . .
. 5 = strongly disagree)

Coefficients a

Unstandardized Standardized
Mode Coefficients Coefficients
l B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 4.674 .480 9.731 .000
Income - Low Dummy -1.672 .258 -.554 -6.470 .000
Income - Middle Dummy -.785 .254 -.258 -3.095 .002
Income - Missing Dummy -.876 .383 -.159 -2.289 .023
Age - Young Dummy .276 .255 .084 1.082 .280
Age - Middle Dummy -.012 .210 -.004 -.056 .956
Age - Missing Dummy -1.203 .879 -.082 -1.368 .172
Race - White Dummy -.039 .266 -.008 -.147 .883
Education - College
.348 .197 .101 1.764 .079
Dummy
Gender - Female Dummy -.190 .183 -.062 -1.036 .301
Location - Bellingham
-.113 .168 -.038 -.672 .502
(urban) dummy
Hunting Dummy -.100 .260 -.024 -.383 .702
Hiking Dummy -.101 .209 -.029 -.480 .631
Bike Dummy -.139 .182 -.046 -.765 .445
Backpacking Dummy -.229 .204 -.074 -1.123 .262
Fishing Dummy -.490 .187 -.165 -2.627 .009
Boating Dummy .213 .185 .070 1.151 .251
RunningDummy .189 .201 .057 .940 .348
Picnkicking Dummy .011 .252 .002 .042 .967
RV Camping Dummy .207 .200 .060 1.038 .300
Tent Camping Dummy .179 .212 .059 .843 .400
a. Dependent Variable: Paying a fee is economically hard for me to do

84
2. I am opposed to paying fees at parks so I don’t like to go to parks that don’t charge
fees. Linear regression (1= strongly agree . . . 5 = strongly disagree)
.
Coefficients a

Unstandardized Standardized
Mode Coefficients Coefficients
l B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 3.306 .520 6.353 .000
Income - Low Dummy -.799 .280 -.251 -2.856 .005
Income - Middle Dummy -.459 .273 -.144 -1.681 .094
Income - Missing Dummy -.777 .412 -.135 -1.884 .061
Age - Young Dummy .625 .279 .182 2.242 .026
Age - Middle Dummy .325 .228 .103 1.425 .155
Age - Missing Dummy -.557 .948 -.036 -.588 .557
Race - White Dummy .397 .290 .081 1.371 .172
Education - College
.781 .214 .216 3.644 .000
Dummy
Gender - Female Dummy -.098 .198 -.031 -.492 .623
Location - Bellingham
-.160 .182 -.052 -.881 .379
(urban) dummy
Hunting Dummy -.807 .279 -.187 -2.894 .004
Hiking Dummy -.217 .227 -.061 -.958 .339
Bike Dummy -.073 .199 -.023 -.370 .712
Backpacking Dummy -.186 .223 -.057 -.832 .406
Fishing Dummy -.298 .203 -.096 -1.472 .142
Boating Dummy .038 .201 .012 .188 .851
RunningDummy -.017 .220 -.005 -.076 .940
Picnkicking Dummy -.078 .271 -.017 -.289 .772
RV Camping Dummy .489 .217 .134 2.250 .025
Tent Camping Dummy -.032 .231 -.010 -.139 .890
a. Dependent Variable: I am opposed to paying fees at parks so I don't like to go to those parks
that charge fees

85
3. How does the requirement at some parks to pay a parking or entry fee affect how often
you go to those places? Logistic regression (0 = go the same / more often; 1 = go less
often)
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Step
a
IncLowDummy 1.297 .465 7.764 1 .005 3.658
1 IncMidDummy .785 .464 2.856 1 .091 2.192
IncMissDummy 1.310 .601 4.760 1 .029 3.708
AgeYoungDummy -.160 .401 .158 1 .691 .852
AgeMiddleDummy -.120 .338 .127 1 .721 .887
AgeMissingDummy -.512 1.056 .235 1 .628 .599
RaceWhiteDummy -.514 .407 1.600 1 .206 .598
EducCollegeDummy -.364 .306 1.417 1 .234 .695
GendFemaleDummy .489 .297 2.706 1 .100 1.631
LocBhamDummy .130 .266 .238 1 .626 1.138
HuntingDummy .404 .402 1.011 1 .315 1.498
HikingDummy .467 .339 1.898 1 .168 1.595
BicyclingDummy .291 .293 .987 1 .320 1.338
BPDummy -.385 .324 1.417 1 .234 .680
FisjhDummy .407 .299 1.848 1 .174 1.502
BoatDummy -.488 .291 2.821 1 .093 .614
RunDummy .038 .318 .015 1 .904 1.039
PicnickDummy .271 .407 .441 1 .507 1.311
RVDummy -.360 .323 1.237 1 .266 .698
TentDummy .387 .341 1.292 1 .256 1.473
Constant -1.737 .772 5.056 1 .025 .176
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: IncLowDummy, IncMidDummy, IncMissDummy, AgeYoungDummy,
AgeMiddleDummy, AgeMissingDummy, RaceWhiteDummy, EducCollegeDummy,
GendFemaleDummy, LocBhamDummy, HuntingDummy, HikingDummy, BicyclingDummy,
BPDummy, FisjhDummy, BoatDummy, RunDummy, PicnickDummy, RVDummy, TentDummy.

86
4. Have you ever avoided fees by going to another park that doesn’t charge fees?
Logistic regression (0 = no; 1=yes).

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Step
a
IncLowDummy 1.731 .495 12.237 1 .000 5.648
1 IncMidDummy 1.013 .488 4.308 1 .038 2.754
IncMissDummy 1.644 .637 6.665 1 .010 5.177
AgeYoungDummy -.022 .409 .003 1 .958 .978
AgeMiddleDummy .083 .351 .055 1 .814 1.086
AgeMissingDummy .466 1.074 .189 1 .664 1.594
RaceWhiteDummy .167 .429 .152 1 .697 1.182
EducCollegeDummy .030 .314 .009 1 .923 1.031
GendFemaleDummy -.318 .300 1.126 1 .289 .727
LocBhamDummy .685 .278 6.085 1 .014 1.984
HuntingDummy .052 .413 .016 1 .899 1.054
HikingDummy .355 .356 .994 1 .319 1.426
BicyclingDummy .438 .296 2.179 1 .140 1.549
BPDummy .222 .329 .455 1 .500 1.248
FisjhDummy .933 .316 8.725 1 .003 2.542
BoatDummy -.144 .299 .231 1 .631 .866
RunDummy .133 .323 .170 1 .680 1.142
PicnickDummy .132 .407 .104 1 .747 1.141
RVDummy -.607 .343 3.138 1 .077 .545
TentDummy -.120 .354 .115 1 .734 .887
Constant -3.117 .826 14.247 1 .000 .044
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: IncLowDummy, IncMidDummy, IncMissDummy, AgeYoungDummy,
AgeMiddleDummy, AgeMissingDummy, RaceWhiteDummy, EducCollegeDummy,
GendFemaleDummy, LocBhamDummy, HuntingDummy, HikingDummy, BicyclingDummy,
BPDummy, FisjhDummy, BoatDummy, RunDummy, PicnickDummy, RVDummy, TentDummy.

87
 5. Do you ever avoid paying fees by parking outside of the official parking lots and
walking in? Logistic regression (0=no; 1=yes).

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Step
a
IncLowDummy .344 .443 .602 1 .438 1.411
1 IncMidDummy .707 .438 2.610 1 .106 2.028
IncMissDummy -.544 .718 .575 1 .448 .580
AgeYoungDummy .468 .424 1.218 1 .270 1.596
AgeMiddleDummy -.029 .370 .006 1 .937 .971
AgeMissingDummy -20.682 15054.24 .000 1 .999 .000
RaceWhiteDummy -.356 .430 .687 1 .407 .700
EducCollegeDummy -.506 .335 2.282 1 .131 .603
GendFemaleDummy .003 .312 .000 1 .991 1.003
LocBhamDummy -.129 .288 .201 1 .654 .879
HuntingDummy -.512 .446 1.318 1 .251 .599
HikingDummy .986 .404 5.951 1 .015 2.682
BicyclingDummy .487 .300 2.641 1 .104 1.627
BPDummy .389 .327 1.417 1 .234 1.476
FisjhDummy -.399 .312 1.631 1 .202 .671
BoatDummy .122 .313 .152 1 .697 1.129
RunDummy .623 .319 3.808 1 .051 1.865
PicnickDummy -.067 .435 .024 1 .877 .935
RVDummy -.324 .347 .874 1 .350 .723
TentDummy .634 .360 3.097 1 .078 1.885
Constant -1.678 .827 4.119 1 .042 .187
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: IncLowDummy, IncMidDummy, IncMissDummy, AgeYoungDummy,
AgeMiddleDummy, AgeMissingDummy, RaceWhiteDummy, EducCollegeDummy,
GendFemaleDummy, LocBhamDummy, HuntingDummy, HikingDummy, BicyclingDummy,
BPDummy, FisjhDummy, BoatDummy, RunDummy, PicnickDummy, RVDummy, TentDummy.

88