2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.050
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Valuing setting-based recreation for selected visitors to national forests in the southern United States

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A field survey was conducted in 2019 (April to June) to collect data. On-site sampling was used, ensuring that site users were included in the sample [83]. This study gathered data on the travel expenditure of individual visitors from their origins.…”
Section: Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A field survey was conducted in 2019 (April to June) to collect data. On-site sampling was used, ensuring that site users were included in the sample [83]. This study gathered data on the travel expenditure of individual visitors from their origins.…”
Section: Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dropping these individuals or modeling these individuals using a recreation demand framework with homogeneous preferences would be incorrect from a theoretical perspective as explained below. In addition, classifying visitors into a homogeneous class of visitors who mostly engage in developed activities is incorrect from a policy perspective because resource managers who manage decisions control multiple recreational settings such as developed, wilderness, and general undeveloped forest areas 1 (e.g., see Sardana, Bergstrom, and Bowker, 2016). The National Visitor Use Monitoring Program (NVUM) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service classifies settings into four categories: Wilderness (WILD), Overnight-use Developed Settings (OUDS), Day-use Developed Settings (DUDS), and General Forest Areas (GFA).…”
Section: Ad-hoc Truncation Homogenous Preferences and Heterogeneousmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Englin and Shonkwiler (1995) drop observations with annual trips greater than 12, allowing one trip per month. Egan and Herriges (2006), Bowker et al (2009), and Sardana, Bergstrom, and Bowker (2016) drop observations with annual trips greater than 52, allowing one trip per weekend. By dropping these observations, researchers truncate the distribution of visitors to the site, and the truncation is somewhat ad-hoc, that is, the truncation rule or threshold does not originate from theory.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Additionally, forest resources are the object of recreational use, as suggested above, and are also subject to conservation-but how to balance them is left a matter of controversy among researches (Eggers et al 2018;Heyman 2012). In order to consider this issue, many researchers have addressed the ecological impact from humans' recreational use of the forest, and have developed a suitability index to conserve and use forest resources, applying landscape characteristics (Morelle et al 2018;Nino et al 2017;Sardana et al 2016). The ROS (Huang and Confer 2009;Gundersen et al 2015) has also been utilized to determine the appropriate recreational site, as far as possible, to conserve forests.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%