Land management policy tools and institutionally contingent types of goods: understanding rock climbers’ resistance to and desire for public lands fees and quotas

ABSTRACT

This paper examines how users respond to ‘public lands’ of different underlying good characteristics, as shaped by various management policy tools. Using a survey experiment that varies the imposition of fees and quotas in hypothetical scenarios, we analyze U.S. rock climbers’ resistance or receptiveness to visiting public lands climbing destinations. Experimental results show that participants are most resistant to management tools that impose financial burdens without promising benefits in return. User receptiveness increases, however, when exclusive public land benefits can be secured. We further show that land management policy tool resistance/receptiveness is conditioned by household income and desire for solitude in recreation. The study's primary contribution is illustrating the theoretical utility of accounting for institutionally contingent shifts in resource good types, while also raising concerns regarding the exclusionary potential of land management policies, particularly in regards to lower-income users. Our study offers guidance for land managers and policymakers aiming to balance conservation, recreational access, and use by shedding light on the interplay between management policies, user characteristics, and types of goods.

KEYWORDS:

• Types of goods
• public land management
• policy tools
• climbing
• survey experiment

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the collaboration of Access Fund that made this research possible, and the contributions of Katie Goodwin, Erik Murdock, and Chris Winter, in particular. Any errors or omissions in this paper are those of the authors, alone. This study was also made possible by the many climbers across the country who took the time to participate – thank you!

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Cohen's d test statistics for effect size of mean response differences between scenarios for the permit, quota, and fee + quota groups were 0.34, 0.63, and 0.36, respectively.