Recreation Ecosystem Services from Chaparral Dominated Landscapes: A Baseline Assessment from National Forests in Southern California

  • Cloé Garnache
  • Lorie Srivastava
  • José J. Sánchez
  • Frank Lupi
Part of the Springer Series on Environmental Management book series (SSEM)


This chapter examines recreation ecosystem services provided by chaparral dominated landscapes. Such areas are popular around the world amongst recreation users, including hikers, mountain bikers, campers, and nature enthusiasts. Yet, relatively few studies have documented the recreation services provided by chaparral landscapes such as national forests. For policy makers to manage these areas effectively, baseline information on the provision of recreation services and the populations who benefit is important, especially given current stressors such as overuse and projected climate change effects. To this end, this chapter examines four chaparral dominated national forests surrounding the Los Angeles and San Diego metropolitan areas, namely the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino. Using data from the USDA Forest Service’s National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) survey, we discuss the types of visitors using these public lands and their recreation use patterns. Our analyses suggest recreation in chaparral dominated national forests is especially important for minorities. Yet, these landscapes are facing altered human and natural disturbance regimes that may affect the recreation services they provide.


Chaparral National forests National Visitor Use Monitoring survey Recreation demand Visitor survey 


  1. Baerenklau, K., A. González-Cabán, C. Paez, and E. Chavez. 2010. Spatial allocation of forest recreation value. Journal of Forest Economics 16:113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbero, R., J. T. Abatzoglou, N. K. Larkin, C. A. Kolden, and B. Stocks. 2015. Climate change presents increased potential for very large fires in the contiguous United States. International Journal of Wildland Fire 24:892–899.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, S., M. Simpson, L. Tyrväinen, T. Sievänen, and U. Pröbstl. 2009. European forest recreation and tourism: a handbook. Taylor and Francis, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Boxall, P., and J. Englin. 2008. Fire and recreation values in fire-prone forests: exploring an intertemporal amenity function using pooled RP-SP data. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 33:19–33.Google Scholar
  5. Byrne, J. 2012. When green is white: the cultural politics of race, nature and social exclusion in a Los Angeles urban national park. Geoforum 43:595–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CDFW [California Department of Fish and Wildlife]. 2015. GIS Clearinghouse. California Lakes and Streams.
  7. Carr, D. S., and D. J. Chavez. 1993. A qualitative approach to understanding recreation experiences: Central American recreation on the National Forests of southern California. Pages 181-194 in A. W. Ewert, D. J. Chavez, and A. W. Magill, editors. Culture, conflict, and communication in the wildland-urban interface. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Chavez, D. J. 1992. Hispanic recreationists in the wildland-urban interface. Trends 29:23–25.Google Scholar
  9. Chavez, D. J. 1993. Visitor perceptions of crowding and discrimination at two National Forests in southern California. Research Paper PSW-RP-216. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Chavez, D. 2002. Adaptive management in outdoor recreation: serving Hispanics in southern California. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 17:129–133.Google Scholar
  11. Chavez, D., D. Olson. 2009. Opinions of Latino outdoor recreation visitors at four urban National Forests. Environmental Practice 11:263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. Oneill, J. Paruelo, R. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crano, W., R. Quist, and P. L. Winter. 2008. Forest visitation, media consumption, and diverse publics: lessons for outreach. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-210. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Duffield, J., C. Neher, D. Patterson, and A. Deskins. 2013. Effects of wildfire on National Park visitation and the regional economy: a natural experiment in the northern Rockies. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22:1155–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dwyer, J. 1994. Customer diversity and the future demand for outdoor recreation. General Technical Report RM-GTR-252. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.Google Scholar
  16. English, D., S. Kocis, S. Zarnoch, and J. Arnold. 2002. Forest Service national visitor use monitoring process: research method documentation. General Technical Report SRS-GTR-57. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Englin, J., J. Loomis, and A. González-Cabán. 2001. The dynamic path of recreational values following a forest fire: a comparative analysis of states in the Intermountain West. The Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31:1837–1844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Englin, J., J. McDonald, K. Moeltner. 2006. Valuing ancient forest ecosystems: an analysis of backcountry hiking in Jasper National Park. Ecological Economics 57:665–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fedkiw, J. 1998. Managing multiple uses on National Forests, 1905–1995: a 90-year learning experience and it isn’t finished. Technical report FS-628. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  20. FRAP [Fire and Resources Assessment Program]. 2015. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s CALFIRE. Fveg15_1 vegetation data.
  21. Freeman, S. 2012. Ecological and economic dimensions of fire and anthropogenic disturbance in maquis woodlands of the Carmel Range: implications for planning and management. Geography Research Forum 32:62–80.Google Scholar
  22. George, S. L., and K. Crooks. 2006. Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve. Biological Conservation 133:107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Green, G., J. Bowker, X. Wang, K. Cordell, and C. Johnson. 2009. An examination of perceived constraints to outdoor recreation. Journal of Public Affairs and Issues 12:28–53.Google Scholar
  24. Hesseln, H., J. Loomis, A. González-Cabán, and S. Alexander. 2003. Wildfire effects on hiking and biking demand in New Mexico: a travel cost study. Journal of Environmental Management 69:359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hesseln, H., J. Loomis, and A. González-Cabán. 2004. The effects of fire on recreation demand in Montana. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 19:47–53.Google Scholar
  26. Hilger, J., and J. Englin. 2009. Utility theoretic semi-logarithmic incomplete demand systems in a natural experiment: forest fire impacts on recreational values and use. Resource and Energy Economics 31:287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoover, K. 2016. Forest Service appropriations: five-year data and trends and FY2017 budget request (CRS Report No. R43417). Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, C. Y. 1998. A consideration of collective memory in African-American attachment to wildland recreation places. Human Ecology Review 5:5–15.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, C., J. Bowker, and K. Cordell. 2001. Outdoor recreation constraints: an examination of race, gender, and rural dwelling. Southern Rural Sociology 17:111–133.Google Scholar
  30. Irland, L., D. Adams, R. Alig, C. Betz, C. Chen, M. Hutchins, and B. Sohngen. 2001. Assessing socioeconomic impacts of climate change on US forests, wood-product markets, and forest recreation. Bioscience 51:753–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keeley J., C. Fotheringham, and M. Moritz. 2004. Lessons from the October 2003 wildfires in southern California. Journal of Forestry 102:26–31.Google Scholar
  32. Koniak, G., E. Sheffer, and I. Noy-Meir. 2011. Recreation as an ecosystem service in open landscapes in the Mediterranean region in Israel: public preferences. Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution 57:151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Loomis J., A. González-Cabán, and J. Englin. 2001. Testing for differential effects of forest fires on hiking and mountain biking demand and benefits. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26:508–522.Google Scholar
  34. Madsen, J., C. Radel, and J. Endter-Wada. 2014. Justice and immigrant latino recreation geography in Cache Valley, Utah. Journal of Leisure Research 46:291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment synthesis report. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  36. Outdoor Foundation. 2015. Outdoor recreation participation report 2015.
  37. Papaspyropoulos, K. G., C. Sokos, and P. Birtsas. 2015. The impacts of a wildfire on hunting demand: a case study of a Mediterranean ecosystem. iForest 8:95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rausch, M., P. Boxall, and A. Verbyla. 2010. The development of fire-induced damage functions for forest recreation activity in Alberta, Canada. International Journal of Wildland Fire 19:63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Restaino, C. R., and H. D. Safford. 2018. Fire and climate change. Pages 493-505 in J. W. van Wagtendonk, N. G. Sugihara, S. L. Stephens, A. E. Thode, K. E. Shaffer, and J. A. Fites-Kaufman, editors. Fire in California’s ecosystems. Second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.Google Scholar
  40. Richardson, R. B., and J. Loomis. 2004. Adaptive recreation planning and climate change: a contingent visitation approach. Ecological Economics 50:83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roberts, N. S., and T. Chitewere. 2011. Speaking of justice: exploring ethnic minority perspectives of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Environmental Practice 13:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sánchez, J., K. Baerenklau, and A. González-Cabán. 2016. Valuing hypothetical wildfire impacts with a Kuhn-Tucker model of recreation demand. Forest Policy and Economics 71:63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sauvajot, R. M., M. Buechner, and D. Kamradt. 1998. Patterns of human disturbance and response by small mammals and birds in chaparral near urban development. Urban Ecosystems 2:279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schmitz, M. F., I. Aranzabal, and F. Pineda. 2007. Spatial analysis of visitor preferences in the outdoor recreational niche of Mediterranean cultural landscapes. Environmental Conservation 34:300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scott, D., S. Herrera, and K. Hunt 2004. Constraints to outdoor recreation among ethnic and racial groups. Pages 17-20 in P. T. Tierney, and D. J. Chavez, technical coordinators. Proceedings of the 4th Social Aspects and Recreation Research Symposium, San Francisco, California, February 4-6, 2004. San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California, USA.Google Scholar
  46. Shaw, M. R., L. Pendleton, D. Cameron, B. Morris, G. Bratman, D. Bachelet, K. Klausmeyer, J. MacKenzie, D. Conklin, J. Lenihan, E. Haunreiter, and C. Daly. 2009. The impact of climate change on California’s ecosystem services. Report CEC-500-2009-025-F, California Climate Change Center, Sacramento, California, USA.Google Scholar
  47. Shechter, M., B. Reiser, and N. Zaitsev. 1998. Measuring passive use value: pledges, donations and CV responses in connection with an important natural resource. Environmental and Resource Economics 12:457–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Starbuck, C., R. Berrens, and M. McKee. 2006. Simulating changes in forest recreation demand and associated economic impacts due to fire and fuels management activities. Forest Policy and Economics 8:52–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tierney, P. T., R. Dahl, and D. J. Chavez. 1998. Cultural diversity of Los Angeles County residents using undeveloped natural areas. Research Paper PSW-RP-236. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California, USA.Google Scholar
  50. US Census Bureau. 2014a. American FactFinder.
  51. US Census Bureau. 2014b. American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates.
  52. USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Final environment impact statement, volume 1 land management plans: Angeles National Forest, Cleveland National Forest, Los Padres National Forest, San Bernardino National Forest. R5-MB-074-A. Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  53. USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Land management plan part 2 San Bernardino National Forest strategy. R5-MB-079. Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  54. USDA Forest Service. 2013. National visitor use monitoring results national summary report.
  55. USDA Forest Service. 2015a. Fiscal year 2016 budget overview. Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  56. USDA Forest Service. 2015b. National visitor use monitoring: visitor use report. Database queried for: Angeles National Forest (2006, 2011), Cleveland National Forest (2009, 2014), Los Padres National Forest (2009, 2014), and San Bernardino National Forest (2009, 2014).
  57. USDA Forest Service. 2016. Fiscal year 2017 budget overview. Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  58. Vincent, C. H., L. Hanson, and J. Bjelopera. 2014. Federal land ownership: overview and data. CRS Report No. R42346. Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  59. Washburne, R. F. 1978. Black underparticipation in wildland recreation: alternative explanations. Leisure Sciences 1:175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Washburne, R., P. Wall. 1980. Black-White ethnic differences in outdoor recreation. Research Paper INT-249. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah, USA.Google Scholar
  61. Witztum, E. R., and D. A. Stow. 2004. Analysing direct impacts of recreation activity on coastal sage scrub habitat with very high resolution multispectral imagery. International Journal of Remote Sensing 25:3477–3496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cloé Garnache
    • 1
  • Lorie Srivastava
    • 2
  • José J. Sánchez
    • 3
  • Frank Lupi
    • 1
  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  3. 3.USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research StationRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations