National park userpays systems in Australia. Cost recovery vs access for all?

This paper discusses the tension between user pays systems as a means of cost recovery and equity of public access using the example of Australian national parks. Six Australian state based national park management agencies were interviewed about their user pays systems. Australian national parks ar...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hughes, Michael, Carlsen, Jack
Format: Journal Article
Published: Chinese Tourism Management Association 2011
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/37359
_version_ 1848755025413668864
author Hughes, Michael
Carlsen, Jack
author_facet Hughes, Michael
Carlsen, Jack
author_sort Hughes, Michael
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description This paper discusses the tension between user pays systems as a means of cost recovery and equity of public access using the example of Australian national parks. Six Australian state based national park management agencies were interviewed about their user pays systems. Australian national parks are managed as a public good, for biodiversity conservation, and to provide for recreation and tourism opportunities. Legislated social equity requirements result in discounted user pays systems that are generally not cost effective. This raises the question of whether user pays systems for cost recovery are compatible with access management based on social equity.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T08:49:45Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-37359
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T08:49:45Z
publishDate 2011
publisher Chinese Tourism Management Association
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-373592017-01-30T14:02:12Z National park userpays systems in Australia. Cost recovery vs access for all? Hughes, Michael Carlsen, Jack social equity national park user pays access management This paper discusses the tension between user pays systems as a means of cost recovery and equity of public access using the example of Australian national parks. Six Australian state based national park management agencies were interviewed about their user pays systems. Australian national parks are managed as a public good, for biodiversity conservation, and to provide for recreation and tourism opportunities. Legislated social equity requirements result in discounted user pays systems that are generally not cost effective. This raises the question of whether user pays systems for cost recovery are compatible with access management based on social equity. 2011 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/37359 Chinese Tourism Management Association restricted
spellingShingle social equity
national park
user pays
access
management
Hughes, Michael
Carlsen, Jack
National park userpays systems in Australia. Cost recovery vs access for all?
title National park userpays systems in Australia. Cost recovery vs access for all?
title_full National park userpays systems in Australia. Cost recovery vs access for all?
title_fullStr National park userpays systems in Australia. Cost recovery vs access for all?
title_full_unstemmed National park userpays systems in Australia. Cost recovery vs access for all?
title_short National park userpays systems in Australia. Cost recovery vs access for all?
title_sort national park userpays systems in australia. cost recovery vs access for all?
topic social equity
national park
user pays
access
management
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/37359