13 through discussion and research. Additionally, managers of specific recreation areas must weigh the preservation of leisure experiences against funding realities, private competition, local value systems, regional economic conditions, agency policies, quality of the opportunities provided, and the logistics of fee collection. As a guide to such site-specific work, however, four general policy guidelines are offered that reflect an ethical commitment to the preservation of leisure opportunities and are sufficiently general to apply to a variety of areas. First, as has long been recommended in community recreation (e.g. Rodney 1964), the impression of unsympathetic external control should be minimized. Fees should be set by policy and not by opportunity; services should be based upon need and not upon profitability. Once a decision has been made to levy a charge on direct users, the most unobtrusive method available should be chosen. Thus, recreation permits like fishing licenses, or excise taxes on critical equipment would be preferable to on-site entrance fees. User fees should be explicitly targeted for the maintenance and expansion of outdoor recreation opportunities, and visitors should be informed of the enhanced opportunities through interpretive media. Second, fee structures should reflect the degree to which an experience is based on unconfined.freedom and personal choice. The Selway River in Idaho, for example, offers a four to ten day challenging w110 river trip, entirely through classified wilderness, with drinkable river water and unregulated camping. One party per day (most of which are private parties) is permitted to launch so that opportunities for sol1tude and unconfined recreation may be 14 maximized. If we are to encourage the experience of personal freedom, a fee for this experience would be inappropriate. The New River Gorge National River in West Virginia also offers a highly challenging river trip. However, 92 percent of the 82,000 people who float this river each year participate in commercially outfitted trips with a guide in each raft. Decisions about equipment, food, transportation, scheduling and safety are all made for the customers. Almost all trips are day trips. A head tax for the New River experience seems more justifiable than for the Selway. Third, recreation experiences clearly based on education or contemplation should be free. These are as much a merit good as education in the public schools. Most forms of outdoor programming (interpretation, environmental or outdoor education) would fall into institutions and commercial outfitters in a 1984 revision of their outfitting and guiding permit policy (Federal Register 1984). Social benefits provided, especially to disadvantaged clients, specifically exempt a non-profit organization from paying for a commercial permit. A similar rationale should apply in the selective application of other user fees. Finally, user fees might be structured to support leisure subcultures, rather than impeding their development. If explicitly Towered fees are attached to specific experiences (e.g. season passes for hang giiding in a national forest), then the fee itself 15 may communicate support for serious individual commitment to the activity. This effect could, of course, be enhanced through other symbols of group membership 11ke cards or patches, opportunities for participants to volunteer their efforts in management of the activity, or through specially targeted interpretive activities. In addition, reduced fees for repeat visitors may communicate support for long-term involvement. The generalizations we offer here suggest that user fees can be compatible with an emerging ethical imperative for the park and recreation profession. They will only be compatible, however, if they reflect a well-formed philosophy guiding the total management examine some of the historical and philosophical issues involved in pay-as-you-go recreation, and to suggest an ethical framework from which to proceed. As we said in the beginning, fees seem justifiable, expeditious, and inevitable. Our hope is that they may be applied judiciously by conscientious professionals, and not as a quick fix for å sagging recreation resource system. 16 REFERENCES Berrier, D. 1. 1984. Minnesota's new cross-country skiing program. Paper presented at Conference on Fees for Outdoor Recreation on symposium, School of Forestry and W11011fe Resources, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA April 19, 1984. Cordell, H. K., and Hendee, J. C. 1982. Renewable Resources Recreation in the United States: Supplye Demande and Critical doma in? journal ef Environmental Education 8(2):21-29. of Reward: New Perspectives on the Psychology of Human 17 Driver, B. L. 1984. Public responses to user fees. Paper presented at Conference on Fees for Outdoor Recreation on Lands Open to the Public. Durham, NH, January 1, 2, and 3. Dustin, D. Loe McAvoy, b. H. and Schultz, J. H. Gibson, P. J. 1979. Therapeutic aspects of wilderness programs. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 13(3):21-33. Kelly, J. R. 1982. Leisure. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, McDonald, C. D., Hammitt, W. E. and Dottavio, F. D. 1985. An individual's willingness to pay for a river visit. Paper Rouge, LA, Louisiana State University, October 30-Nov 3, 1984. Musgrave, R. A. 1959. The Theory of Public Finance: A Study in Public Economy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. |
0 Reviews Reviews aren't verified, but Google checks for and removes fake content when it's identified Write review |