September 11, 2020

Willingness to Pay for Campground Features and Amenities: Will do Campers value?

by H. Willow Shandry & Paul Oliver

Abstract

The Course of Action (SOW) scope includes a collection of previous research related to interest payments (DAP) and college tuition for sports. To address this topic at the SOW, researchers completed a data analysis on a wide range of topics directly and indirectly related to the main objectives of this project. The following information is part of the revised research for project integration, but is designed to be more of a social capital for the forest service. Although much of this information is mentioned in this article, some are not, but it has been included for their practical use. Many other studies aren’t included in the data if researchers find their results are lower.

Introduction

Across the studies, camper preferences for certain attributes seem to come through, including:

• Developed restroom facilities, specifically flush toilets and showers (Choi & Dawson, 2003; Lillywhite et al., 2013; McEwen, 1986; Oh, et al., 2007; Schroeder et al., 1999)

• Privacy of campsites, which is sometimes reported as “more vegetation,” “trees and bushes,” or “forested,” but these seem to be an indicator of privacy than affinity for flora (Brunson & Shelby, 1990; McEwen, 1986; Oh et al, 2007;  Stankey, 1973; Shelby & Heberlein, 1986; Verma et al, 2006)

• Proximity of campsite to water (Choi et al., 2003, Bamford et al., 1988)

• Ability to have campfires (Brunson & Shelby, 1990, Lillywhite et al., 2013; Lucas, 1985)

• Ability to make an advanced reservation (Verma et al., 2006)

One interesting take on campsite attributes is to put them into categories, as campers may do subconsciously.  Brunson & Shelby (1990) propose categorizing campsite attributes into necessity attributes, which provide minimum camping comforts, experience attributes, which facilitate preferred trip outcomes, and amenity attributes, which provide small embellishments on the overall experience.  An important component of this way of viewing campsite attributes is that different camper will assign different values to different category types.

Decision Making about Campgrounds

Much of the research on campground and campsite decision making works on the assumption that campground consumers are rational and that their choices are made after careful consideration of alternatives.  This does not seem to be the case in the real world and several researchers (e.g., Foster & Jackson, 1979; Lee, 1977;  Zuckert, 1980) found examples of campers either not knowing why they had selected their campsite, or had not selected their campsite based on their criteria a good campsite.  Schreyer et al. (1985) contends that campground choice is often a compromise between group members who value different experiences and therefore different campground attributes. Therefore, setting pricing policy also requires an understanding about decision making processes.

Building off of Brunson and Shelby, Lillywhite et al., (2013) propose that when considering campsites, campers first narrow choices into “Maybe buckets” (similar research has been done with hotel selection).  When selecting a campsite, visitors first assess the site for the presence of necessity, or “must have,” attributes.  If a campsite does not provide a necessity attribute, the camper removes the site from his or her prospective list. Obviously, what is a necessity for one camper might not be necessary for another.

Williams, (1985) adds that choices may also be limited by incomplete information. Online review sites are closing the information gap for increasing numbers of campers, but in certain situations campgrounds and campsites are encountered serially, without knowledge if a better place to camp may be available beyond, so there may be pressure to choose quickly because of competition, fatigue or threatening weather.

The notion of consumers making decisions without having all available information is not new.  Simon (1959) pointed out that people tend to select acceptable choices over optimal ones, a process he described as “satisficing.”  In other words, campers might make a decision about a camping location based on the first one that meets most of their criterial, rather than an optional one.  Context matters here as well.  It is easy to understand how a set of choices and a decision may be different when a camper is researching campgrounds and sites weeks or months before a trip as compared to when they are on the road in the afternoon and thinking about where they will likely be when they are ready to stop for the night.

Some additional takeaways from the literature include:

Categorization of Campgrounds

When it comes to available research, camping seems to only be broken into two categories: dispersed (primitive) and developed (e.g., Lilliwhite, et al, 2013; Mitchell et al.,1996; National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, 2000).  However, another component of this project looked at the features and amenities of campgrounds based on the type of provider (e.g., USFS, NPS, State Parks, Commercial, etc.).  According to this two-category distinction, almost all of the campgrounds examined would be in the same category: “developed campgrounds.”  However, as that section of this project shows, there are significant differences between, for example, USFS campgrounds and commercial campgrounds, with regard to amenity provision and price.  Other public sector camping providers seem to be offering more developed amenities to campers such as hookups, internet, and laundry.  This distinction is important to understanding campers WTP for certain amenities because several researchers, (e.g., Choi, 2003; Oh et al., 2007) have shown that people have different preferences based on the development level of campground they are considering and the type of camping they will be doing, and the needs of the camping party, such as size, activities and cooking methods.

Overall Trip Expense

A number of studies showed results indicating things such as out of state campers or campers taking longer trips having a higher WTP for certain amenities (e.g., Bamford, et al., 1988) or are willing to pay more for campgrounds vs. day use areas (e.g., Schroder, 1999), or decreases in visitation among locals (but not those from further away) when fees are raised.  Considering all of these together it seems plausible that people are not a resistant to higher campground prices, when the cost of the campground is a smaller percentage of the overall trip.  For instance, the difference between a $15 or $20 campsite is not as meaningful for a family taking a two week out of state vacation than it would be for a nearby family camping for the weekend.  As an example, Schroeder (1999) found a higher willingness to pay when people had travelled further, and at places they’ll be staying longer (e.g., campsites over day sites).  Similarly, in an experiment in raising prices for prime campsites (e.g., on a lake or pond) in Vermont state parks, Bamford et al. (1988) found that out of state residents were more likely to pay the premium price for the more desirable campsite than Vermont residents. This could also be the reason people seem more resistant to fees for day use areas than for campgrounds.

References

ABTS – Assemblea de Barris per un Turisme Sostenible (2016). Conclusions del I Fòrum Veïnal sobre Turismo. [Conclusions of the I Neighborhood Forum on Tourism] Retrieved from: https://assembleabarris.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/conclu.pdf

Almeida, P., & Cordero Ulate, A. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of social movements across Latin America.Dordrecht: Springer. 

Alvarez, S. E., & Escobar, A. (1992). Conclusion: Theoretical and political horizons of change in contemporary Latin American social movements. In A. Escobar, (Ed.), The making of social movements in Latin America (pp. 317–331). New York, NY: Routledge.

Andriotis, K. (2014). Tourism development and the degrowth paradigm. Turisticko Poslovanje, 2014(13), 37–45. 

Andriotis, K. (2018). Degrowth in Tourism: Conceptual, Theoretical and Philosophical Issues. Oxfordshire: CABI. 

Anyon, J. (2014). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. London: Routledge.

Barcelona Strategic Tourism Plan for 2020. Barcelona: Tourism Department Manager’s Office for Enterprise and Tourism.

Beckerman, W. (1975). Two Cheers for the Affluent Society: A spirited defense of economic growth. New York, NY: Saint Martin’s Press.

Beebe, J. (2001). Rapid assessment process: An introduction. Altamira: Rowman.

Belhassen, Y., Uriely, N., & Assor, O. (2014). The touristification of a conflict zone: The case of Bil’in. Annals of Tourism Research, 49, 174–189. 

Blanco-Romero, A., Blázquez-Salom, M., & Cànoves, G. (2018). Barcelona, Housing Rent Bubble in a Tourist City. Social Responses and Local Policies. Sustainability, 10(6), 2043. 

Blázquez, M., & Cañada, E. (Eds.). (2011). Turismo placebo: nueva colonización turística del Mediterráneo a Mesoamérica y el Caribe, lógicas espaciales del capital turístico. [Tourism placebo: New tourist colonization of Mesoamerica and the Caribbean, space logic of tourist capital] Managua: EDISA.

Boissevain, J. (Ed.). (1996). Coping with tourists: European reactions to mass tourism (Vol. 1). Providence, RI: Berghahn Books.

Bonilla, A., & Mortd, M. (2008). Turismo y conflictos territoriales en el Pacífico de Nicaragua: El caso de Tola, más allá de los titulares. [Tourism and territorial conflicts in the Nicaraguan Pacific: The case of Tola, beyond headlines]. San Salvador: Fundación Prisma.

Borja, J. (2010). Luces y sombras del urbanismo de Barcelona. [Lights and shadows of Barcelona’s urbanism] Barcelona: UOC Edicions.

Buechler, S. M. (1995). New social movement theories. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(3), 441–464. 

Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, 24(1), 5–12. 

Bamford, T. E., Manning, R. E., Forcier, L. K., & Koenemann, E. J. (1988). Differential campsite pricing: An experiment. Journal of Leisure Research, 20(4), 324.

Brooker, E., & Joppe, M. (2014). A critical review of camping research and direction for future studies. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 20(4), 335–351. 

Brown, P. J. & Schomaker, J. H. (1974). Final report on criteria for potential wilderness campsites, Logan, UT: Institute for Study of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. Supplement No. 32 to 12‐11‐204‐3 

Brunson, M. & Shelby, B. (1990). A hierarchy of campsite attributes in dispersed recreation settings. Leisure Sciences, 12(2), 197-209.  

Carmichael, C. & McCole, D. T. (2015). Understanding motivations of potential partners to develop an outdoor recreation program in an urban area. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 7-8, 55-64.  DOI: 10.1016/j.jort.2014.09.001

Canavan, B. (2014). Sustainable tourism: Development, decline and de-growth. Management issues from the Isle of Man. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(1), 127–147. 

Cañada, E. (Ed.). (2010). Turismo en Centroamérica: nuevo escenario de conflictividad. [Tourism Central America: New scenario of conflict] Managua: Enlace Editorial.

Cañada, E. (2015). Las que limpian los hoteles. Historias ocultas de precariedad laboral. [Those who clean the hotels. Hidden stories of job insecurity] Barcelona: Icaria/Antrazyt.

Culbertson, M. J., McCole, D. T. & McNamara, P. E. (2014). Practical Challenges and Strategies for Randomized Control Trials in Agricultural Extension and Other Development Programs.  Journal of Development Effectiveness, 6(3), 284-299. DOI: 10.1080/19439342.2014.919339

Clark, R. N., Hendee, J. C., & Campbell, F. L. (1971). Values, Behavior, and Conflict in Modem Camping Culture. Journal of Leisure Research, 3, 143-159. 

Choi, K.Y. & Dawson, C. P. (2003). Attributes affecting campsite selection at two types of campgrounds in the Adirondack Park. P. 94-101 in Proceedings of the 2002 Northeastern Recreation Symposium, Shchuster, R. (comp.). USDA For. Serv., Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.

Daniels, S. E. (1987). Marginal cost pricing and efficient provision of public recreation. Journal of Leisure Research, 19(1), 22. 

Foster, R. J., & Jackson, E. L. (1979). Factors associated with camping satisfaction in Alberta Provincial Park campgrounds. Journal of Leisure Research 11(4), 292-306.

Garst, B.A., Williams, D., & Roggenbuck, J. (2009). Exploring Early Twenty-First Century Developed Forest Camping Experiences and Meanings. Leisure Sciences, 32, 107 – 90.

Garst, B.A., D.R. Williams, & J.W. Roggenbuck. (2012). Trends in developed forest camping. P. 52-55 in Outdoor recreation trends and futures: A technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment, Cordell, H.K. (ed.). USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-561.

Harris, R. L. (1982). Evaluating methods for measuring visitor perceptions of ecological impacts at wilderness campsites, Oregon State University. Master’s thesis. 

Heberlein, T.A., & Dunwiddie, P. (1979). Systematic observation of use levels, campsite selection and visitor characteristics at a high mountain lake. Journal of Leisure Research, 11(4), 307-316.

Laarman, J. G., & Gregersen, H. M. (1996). Pricing policy in nature-based tourism. Tourism Management, 17(4), 247–254. 

Lee, J. .-H., McCole, D., Holecek, D. (2020). Exploring winery visitors in the emerging wine regions of the north central United States. Sustainability, 12(4), 1642. DOI: 10.3390/su12041642

LaPage, W.F., Cormier, P. L., Hamilton, G. T., & Cormier, A. D. (1975). Differential campsite pricing and campground attendance. Res. Pap. NE-330. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 6p.

Lee, R. G. (1977). Alone with others: The paradox of privacy in wilderness. Leisure Sciences, 1(1): 3–19.   

Lillywhite, J.M., Simonsen, J. E., & Fowler, J. M. (2013). Visitor preferences for campfires in US national forest developed campgrounds.” Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 28(2), 2013, 78-84. 

Lime, D. W. (1971). Factors influencing campground use in the Superior National Forest, Forest Service Res. Paper NC‐60 St. Paul, MN: North Central Forest Experiment Station. 18p.  

Lucas, R. C. (1985). Visitor characteristics, attitudes and use patterns in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, 1970‐82, USDA Forest Service Res. Paper INT‐345 Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest Experiment Station.

Manning, R. A. (1986). Studies in outdoor recreation, Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

McCole, D. T. & Vogt, C., (2011). Informing sustainability decisions: The role of parks, recreation, and tourism scholars in addressing unsustainability. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 29(3), 38-54.

McEwen, D.N. (1986). Recreation quality and the market for tent camping. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration, 4(2):83-95.

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) (2000). American’s participation in outdoor recreation: Results from NSRE2000 (with weighted data) (Round 1). Available online at www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/Nsre/ Rndlweightrpt.pdf; last accessed Apr. 15, 2012.

Oh, C. , Park, M. , & Hammitt, W. E. (2007). Predicting site choice behavior among types of campers. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 25(3), 23-40.

Koutra, C. (2010). Rapid situation analysis: A hybrid, multi-methods, qualitative, participatory approach to researching tourism development phenomena. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(8), 1015–1033. 

Latouche, S. (2009). Farewell to growth. Cambridge: Polity.

Latouche, S. (2014). Imaginary, decolonization of. In G. D’Alisa, F. Demaria, & G. Kallis (Eds.), Degrowth: A vocabulary for a new era (pp. 117–120). New York, NY: Routledge.

Lew, A. A. (2017). Tourism planning and place making: Place-making or placemaking? Tourism Geographies, 19(3), 448–466. 

Lew, A. A., & Cheer, J. M. (Eds.). (2018). Tourism resilience and adaptation to environmental change. London: Routledge.

Lustosa, I. M. C., & de Almeida, M. G. (2011). Turismo em terras indígenas: Auto-gestão e novo colonialismo no nordeste do Brasil. [Tourism in indigenous territories: Self and new colonialism in Northeastern Brazil]. Revista Geográfica de América Central, 2, 1–15.

Maney, G. M. (2001). Rival transnational networks and indigenous rights: The san blas kuna in Panama and the Yanomami in Brazil. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 23, 103–144.

Mansilla, J. A. (2016). Urbanismo, privatizacion y marketing urbano. La Barcelona neoliberal a traves de tres ejemplos. [Urbanism, privatization and urban marketing. The neoliberal Barcelona through three exemptions]. Encrucijadas-Revista Crıtica de Ciencias Sociales, 11, 1–18.

Mansilla, J. A. (2018). Vecinos en peligro de extinción. Turismo urbano, movimientos sociales y exclusión socioespacial en Barcelona. [Neighbors in danger of extinction. Urban tourism, social movements and socio-spatial exclusion in Barcelona]. PASOS Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 16(2), 279–296.

Mansilla, J. A. & Milano, C. (2019) Becoming centre: tourism placemaking and space production in two neighborhoods in Barcelona, Tourism Geographies.

McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (Eds.). (1987). Social movements in an organizational society: Collected essays. New York: Transaction Books.

McGehee, N. G. (2002). Alternative tourism and social movements. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 124–143.

McCole, D. T., Holecek, D., Eustice, C., & Lee, J., (2018). Understanding wine tourists in emerging wine regions: An examination of tasting room visitors in the Great Lakes region of the U.S. Tourism Review International, 22(2), 153-168. DOI: 10.3727/154427218X15319286372306

Park, J., Ellis, G., Kim, S., & Prideux, B. (2010). An investigation of perceptions of social equity and price acceptability judgements for campers in the U.S. national forest. Tourism Management, 31, 202–212.

Pfister, R. E. (1977). Campsite choice behavior in the river setting: A pilot study on the Rogue River, Oregon. Proceedings: River recreation management and research symposium. pp.351–358. St. Paul, MN: North Central Forest Experiment Station. Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. NC‐29.

Rice, W. L., Newman, P., Pan, B. (2019). Forecasting campground demand in US national parks Annals of Tourism Research, 75, 424-438.

Sánchez-Ollero, J. L., García-Pozo, A., Marchante-Mera, A. (2014). How does respect for the environment affect final prices in the hospitality sector? A hedonic pricing approach. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55(1), 31–39.

Schreyer, R., Knopf, R. C. and Williams, D. R. (1984). Reconceptualizing the motive/environment link in recreation choice behavior. Proceedings: Symposium on recreation choice behavior. pp.9–18. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest Experiment Station. Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT‐184. 

McCole, D. T. & Joppe, M. (2014). The search for meaningful tourism indicators: The case of the International Upper Great Lakes Study. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 6(3), 248-263. DOI: 10.1080/19407963.2013.877471

Schroeder, H. W., & Louviere, J. J. (1999). Stated choice models for predicting the impact of user fees at public recreation sites. Journal of Leisure Research, 31, 300-324. 

Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of decision‐making in economics and behavioral science. American Economic Review, 49(3): 253–283.

Stankey, G. H. (1973). Visitor perception of wilderness recreation carrying capacity, Forest Service Research Paper INT‐142 Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest Experiment Station.

Miller, C. L. & McCole, D. T. (2014). Understanding collaboration among farmers and farmers’ market managers in southeast Michigan (USA). Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 4(4), 1-25. DOI: 10.5304/jafscd.2014.044.003

Verma, R., Louviere, J. J. & Burke, P. (2006). Using a market-utility-based approach to designing public services: A case illustration from United States Forest Service. Operations Management, 24. 407-416.

Willis, C. E., Canavan, J. J., & Bond, R. S. (1975). Optimal short-run pricing policies for a public campground. Journal of Leisure Research, 7(2), 108. 

Zinkhan, F.C., Holmes, T. P. & Mercer, D. E. (1997). Conjoint analysis: A preference-based approach for the accounting of multiple benefits in Southern forest management. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 21(4), 180-186.

Zuckert, J. A. (1980). Environmental and psychological determinants of campsite selection at a High Sierra lake, Colorado State University. Master’s thesis