A systematic review of visitor preferences concerning recreation allocation

The process of fairly allocating limited recreation opportunities across, and within, a broad range of user groups presents a challenging task to recreation managers, planners, and policy makers. The practice of recreation allocation can be controversial. Recreationists share deep values toward access to high-quality recreation opportunities, and recreationists tend to examine decisions of recreation allocation with a serious level of scrutiny when a use limit is implemented. Despite the controversy that recreation allocation decisions can generate, research-based guidance to inform decisions of recreation allocation is limited and has not been summarized to date. To support recreation allocation decision-making, as well as future research on the topic, we conducted a systematic review of visitor perceptions, preferences, and behaviors related to recreation allocation, including both allotment (allocation between groups) and rationing (allocation within groups). Using a PRISMA framework and a population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes search strategy, this review includes a systematic search of the recreation research literature and an analysis of fifty-two research items meeting the search criteria. Primary conclusions of this review include: (1) certain rationing strategies tend to favor certain groups, (2) preferences are often heterogeneous across user groups, (3) perspectives on rationing mechanisms are strongly influenced by perceived fairness—regardless of the mechanism, (4) willingness to accept a rationing strategy is contingent on the perceived chance of successfully accessing the resource, and (5) much of the research on recreation allocation is significantly dated relative to advancements in technology and recreation participation.