The Benefits of Naturalist-Led Interpretive Programs: Implications for User Fees

Abstract

The 1996 Recreation Fee Demonstration program allowed some federal resource management agencies to keep a portion of user fees generated on-site, instead of returning all revenue to the general treasury. Funded primarily through entrance, activity, parking, and interpretive fees, this legislation has been successful in reducing the maintenance backlog for participating agencies. However, it is unclear what effect user fees might have on visitors attending interpretive programs and the benefits that agencies might be receive from implementing this policy. A field experiment was conducted to measure the outcomes of a naturalist-led, fee-based canoeing program offered by the San Bernardino National Forest Association in southern California. Two hundred twenty-seven canoeists at Big Bear Lake answered questions about their trips during the summer of 1999. Results indicated that the naturalist not only increased visitors’ appreciation of the resource, but also enhanced their perceptions of U.S. Forest Service fee policies.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Campbell

, & Stanley

(1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.

Carlson

(1995). From hands-on to minds-on: Model for learning in educationally oriented recreation facilities. Legacy, 6, 6–12.

Driver

(1990). Focusing research on the benefits of leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 93–98.

Foa

U.G.

, & Foa

E.B.

(1975). Resource theory of social exchange. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Hooper

, & Weiss

(1991). Interpretation as a management tool: A national study of interpretive professional's views. Legacy, 2, 10–16.

Jacobson

(1999). Communication skills for conservation professionals. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Knudson

, Cable

, & Beck

(1995). Interpretation of cultural and natural resources. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Kyle

, Kersetter

, & Guadagnolo

(1999). The influence of outcome messages and involvement on participant reference price. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 17, 53–75.

Manning

(1999). Studies in outdoor recreation (2nd ed.). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

10.

Mannell

, & Iso-Ahola

(1987). Psychological nature of leisure and tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 14, 314–331.

11.

McCarrville

, & Crompton

(1987). An empirical investigation of the influence of information on reference prices for public swimming pools. Journal of Leisure Research, 19, 223–235.

12.

McCarrville

(1991). An empirical investigation of the influence of cost information on willingness to pay for public aerobics classes. Leisure Sciences, 13, 85–96.

13.

McCarrville

, Crompton

, & Sell

(1993). The influence of outcome messages on reference prices. Leisure Sciences, 15, 115–130.

14.

McDonald

, Noe

, & Hammitt

(1987). Expectations and recreation fees: A dilemma for recreation resource administrators. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 5, 1–9.

15.

(1999). A functionalist approach to user fees. Journal of Leisure Research, 31, 227–244.

16.

Morgan

J.M.

, Absher

, Sutherland

, & Loudon

(1997). The relative effectiveness of interpretive programs directed by youth and adult naturalist in a national forest. Journal of Interpretation Research, 2, 13–26.

17.

Morgan

J.M.

, & Oh

I.K.

(1993). The effect of a persuasive communication message on consumptive recreationists: Implications for resource managers and interpreters. Legacy, 4 (2), 25–28.

18.

Roggenbuck

, Loomis

, & Dagastino

(1990). The learning benefits of leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 112–124.

19.

Roggenbuck

(1979). The field experiment: A suggested method for interpretive evaluation. Journal of Interpretation, 4, 9–12.

20.

Schneider

, & Budruk

(1999). Displacement as a response to the federal recreation fee program. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 17, 76–84.

21.

Sylvia

, Sallee

, & Berry

(1995). Determining leisure program formats based on participant preferences: A case study of nature-based education. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 13 (2), 55–72.

22.

Trainor

, & Norgaard

(1999). Recreation fees in the context of wilderness values. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 17, 100–115.

23.

Vaske

, Donnelly

, & Taylor

(1999). The price is “about” right: National wildlife refuge visitors’ evaluations of the fee demonstration program. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 4, 62–72.

24.

Vogt

, & Williams

(1999). Support for wilderness recreation fees: The influence of fee purpose and day versus overnight use. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 17, 85–99.

25.

Winter

, Palucki

, & Burkhardt

(1999). Anticipated responses to a fee program: The key is trust. Journal of Leisure Research, 31, 207–226.