The role of moral philosophy in shaping visitors’ fairness perceptions of recreation fees: A case study of Indiana Dunes National Park in the U.S.

Although fairness is a dominant concern in the current debate on protected area recreation fees, various conceptualizations of what constitutes fairness exist. This presents a challenge for protected area management as it becomes difficult to develop a universally acceptable fee structure and policy that meet different stakeholders, thereby undermining the financial sustainability of protected areas. The purpose of this study is to understand how visitors define fairness in the context of a national park recreation fees, with the goal to provide a framework that can guide protected area management in addressing the recreation fee fairness challenge. Analysis of 40 semi-structured interviews with visitors to Indiana Dunes National Park (USA) and residents of surrounding communities found that statements about fairness of recreation fees reflected plural, competing and incompatible moral philosophies (egoism, egalitarianism, Rawlsian, utilitarianism, and particularism) and comparative bases (customary practices and consumption norms). More importantly, most participants wrestled with a strong sense of ambivalence towards fees. The findings of this study provide new insights into the longstanding disagreement over protected area recreation fees by extending the existing moral philosophy framework conceptualizing visitor fairness perceptions and revealing the pluralistic nature of visitors' moral perspectives.