Compilers:
Alan Watson and Annette Puttkammer
Aldo Leopold Wilderness
Research Institute
Wild Wilderness has provided brief quotes from (and links to)
the following research papers. Click here to go directly to the Forest Service
Web Site where full information can be found.
The USFS has recently removed this material from
the web. All links are now dead.
ANNETTE PUTTKAMMER, ALAN E. WATSON
Managers should not assume that visitors will come to accept wilderness fees over time. This research suggests that the opposite may happen - visitors may continue to pay the fees, but they may become increasingly reluctant to accept them. If this trend continues, fees may cause changes in visitor choices of the type and amount of activities they participate in, which will have direct ramifications on the structure of fee programs.
ALAN E. WATSON, DANIEL R. WILLIAMS, CHRISTINE VOGT, JERRELL RICHER, ANNETTE PUTTKAMMER, NEAL CHRISTENSEN, DAVID J. PARSONS, SARAH FLEISHER TRAINOR
In order to make appropriate decisions about future fees policies, we need to understand why this sizable minority provides this negative response, how the fees will change their future relationships with wilderness, and how these changes relate to the intent of original legislation establishing the Desolation Wilderness.
ALAN E. WATSON, ANNETTE PUTTKAMMER, NEAL CHRISTENSEN
These findings suggest that the agencies need to develop a clear explanation to justify the fee demonstration project to the public. If the motivation of the agencies is simply to gain support for the fees, it may not be necessary to convince the taxpayer that the fees will definitely produce increased quality of services. People might be very attached to the services (or lack of services) they are receiving currently. Satisfaction is usually high with outdoor recreation experiences, and there may not be as strong a need as anticipated to show that our public land management agencies are managing experiences through provision of convenience services in the same way commercial enterprise responds to customer demands.
NEAL A. CHRISTENSEN, BILL BORRIE, DANIEL R. WILLIAMS
There is ample evidence and sufficient alternatives to suggest caution in applying recreation fees in designated Wilderness areas. The very act of purchasing a wilderness experience may have the associated civilizing effect of turning a natural area into a consumer good for some people. Fees are likely to have a commodifying effect by narrowing the focus of the meaning of wilderness to functional, utilitarian values at the expense of the symbolic, emotional, and spiritual experience values. Thus, a wilderness recreation fee program may run counter to the integrity of the relationship between people and wilderness. Civilization is the reduction of everything to the common denominator of the dollar. Wilderness would seem to be the very opposite.
STEVEN R. MARTIN
Agency fee programs need to address concerns about income and volunteerism/ stewardship. Agencies need to develop specific objectives for fee programs that go beyond laundry lists of on-the-ground projects on which fee revenue will be spent. These objectives need to more clearly reflect broader agency policy and philosophy, and address concerns about increased development of sites and increased influence of revenue motives in management decisions. Fee programs need to differentiate among users based on costs and impacts. Agencies need to work at incorporating on-site vs. off-site benefits, and merit goods vs. marginal costs, into their fee structures. Finally, agencies need to address two major public concerns that are political in nature--examining the equity of recreation fees charged for public land use relative to fees paid by other (commercial) public land users; and ensuring that fee revenue will not simply supplant normal appropriated funds, resulting in no net gains for recreation programs.
DANIEL R. WILLIAMS AND ALAN E. WATSON
Wilderness has value that goes well beyond its capacity to provide settings for primitive unconfined recreation. The finding that dependent users and day users are more accepting of fees suggests that those who see wilderness largely as a "use-area" for recreation are most willing to pay for that use. They perhaps see wilderness to some degree as a commodity, not unlike other recreation sites such as Disney World, Vail, or a KOA campground. The finding that people who identify with wilderness in a more symbolic and emotional way -- as defining who they are at some level -- are more likely to find the fee policy objectionable. The new fee policy for wilderness must be sensitive to the fact that wilderness managers are not just in the business to provide a wilderness experience commodity, but also to protect part of our American heritage. Fees may have the unintended result of re-defining the purpose of wilderness, turning it into a kind of pay-as-you-go playground rather than as a shrine to the American spirit. Users most sensitive to these sentiments may find fees objectionable to the extent that they detract from these symbolic values. Consequently, the most important factor determining attitudes toward the fee policy may be the perception of the purpose of the fee. For example, if people feel like the fee is intended to "protect" these larger wilderness values (i.e., mitigate any harm that comes from recreational use) they may be more supportive. If the purpose of the fee appears to be merely "customer service" oriented, (i.e., improve the "wilderness experience" by improving facilities and services), then many users may find this antithetical to the concept and meaning of wilderness and not support the fee.
SARAH FLEISHER TRAINOR
1. If fees are charged for wilderness use, revenues collected from fees should not be confused with total wilderness value.
Wilderness users generally support use fees. These users also widely hold spiritual or intrinsic values of wilderness. When quantitative and qualitative expressions of wilderness value are compared, the majority of respondents find monetary willingness to pay bids an inadequate expression of these values.
This cautions against the assumption that all wilderness values are commensurate with money and indicates a need for formal mechanisms that acknowledge and account for these non-econoic values in policy and decision-making. Therefore, wilderness managers and policy makers should NOT confuse willingness to pay, or revenues collected from fees with the total value of the wilderness.
2. Willingness to pay fees as an expression of support for wilderness does not necessarily imply an acceptance of the commodification of wilderness.
There are two distinct issues at stake in wilderness use-fee policy. One issue is economic and involves revenue generation to fund justified and needed wilderness management. The other issue involves the moral question of whether or not it is appropriate to commodify the wilderness resource. This moral issue is often overshadowed by funding needs but must not be overlooked. An overall support for wilderness use fees indicates a willingness to support the wilderness economically. It does not necessarily also indicate a support for the commodification of wilderness.
THOMAS A. MORE
Parks and other natural reserves were originally set aside in the public sector to accomplish a variety of public objectives. A rational pricing policy must begin by considering these objectives. What exactly is it that we are trying to accomplish, and how will fees affect this purpose? Some purposes are primarily biological, as with the protection of ecosystems and the associated biological services. Others are primarily individual (psychological benefits, enhanced family values, etc.), while yet others are social (stimulating local economies, reducing health care costs, etc.). Restricting public access through fees may enhance some of the biological benefits but is likely to significantly diminish net social and individual benefits. This is particularly true among the working class, although the increasing use of fees by municipal agencies may impact the urban poor as well. In sum, fees may end up restricting the benefits of public recreation facilities to the top two classes, raising real questions about equity in public-sector management.
Scott Silver, Executive Director,
248 NW Wilmington Avenue, Bend OR 97701
Phone (541) 385-5261 E-mail: ssilver@wildwilderness.org