Politicizing the Environment

At the end of the 1950s, resource economists developed a method to derive demand functions for recreation sites from travel cost data for recreation planning purposes. Based on this work, a second, direct method of measurement was developed in the early sixties that became known as the contingent valuation method. Initially, this method asked respondents directly about their willingness to pay for a realistically described recreational amenity. When contingent valuation became used for valuation studies of environmental and health issues in a regulatory and legal framework, initial support for the method from resource and mainstream economists faded away, leading to a split in the profession between those who considered the method fit for this second purpose and those who considered this second use inappropriate and politically charged. Because much of this history has been told, including in this journal, the emphasis here is on the relation between indirect and direct inference pertaining to both methods, and the challenges that contingent valuation, as a method of direct inference, poses to the quality of a questionnaire and the possibilities of educating respondents in making a reasoned choice for the amenity on offer.

Outdoor recreation planning and management considering FROS and Carrying capacities: A case study of forest wetland in Yeongam-gum, South Korea

Since demand for outdoor recreation in forests has been increasing, a structural planning framework for sustainable use while minimizing ecosystem degradation is needed. Utilizing the recreational opportunity spectrum (ROS) and carrying capacities (CC) have been long-standing tools in management outdoor recreation and tourism. Therefore, this study proposes using FROS (forest recreation outdoor system), LAC (limits of acceptable change), and CC for outdoor recreation in forest wetland in Youngam-gum, South Korea. An analysis of the spatial characteristics of the site—geological features, elevation, slope, viewshed, water system, forest age class, etc.—were carried out. Based on this analysis, an outdoor recreation planning and management framework was developed, including expert elicitation and a field survey of the site. This study found that (1) FROS classified the site as “rural developed” (zone 1), “rural natural” (zone 2), and “semi-primitive” (zone 3); (2) LAC considered spatial characteristics and tourism attractions network around the site by each zone; (3) and ecological CC (104.1–485.5 people per day), physical CC (130.9 ~ 445.1 people per day), and social CC (25 people for “PAOT,” or “persons at one time”) were proposed for sustainable management of the site. Compared to previous studies, this study has the novelty of suggesting an integrated outdoor recreation model for sustainable planning and management by introducing systematic zoning and coping with the changing environment. This result can be useful for policy-makers who are concerned with the outdoor recreation of forest wetland to conserve and utilize the site, and to prioritize suitable sites depending on the determining variables used in this study.