trators across the country saw "realistic opportunities" for increased private sector involvement in the areas of: 1) development, 2) program services, and 3) concessions. Less than 1 percent of the respondents saw little opportunity for private sector involvement in the area of "administration."

Fees and Charges

The utilization of fees and charges will continue to be a primary revenue source to offset the loss of traditional funding sources. Seventy-six percent of the respondents indicated that due to budget pressures in 1981, they were planning to impose new fees or increase existing fees and charges. However, as the use of fees and charges increases, the tendency still remains for these monies to revert back to the general fund. Of those responding, 56 percent of the agencies reported that all fees collected would indeed revert back to the general fund, while 36 percent reported that all fees collected were dedicated to future parks and recreation use. The Great Lakes Region reported the highest percentage of agencies allowed to keep collected fees and charges (52%).

Attitudes Toward
Charging Fees

Attitudes and opinions of administrators were measured via three questions illustrated in Table IV. Administrators were split as to whether local government should

Study Results

A number of financial practices are evident from this survey. The following list summarizes the more prominent ones:

• Funding sources for parks and recreation agencies remain relatively the same with some increase in fees and charges.

• There appears to be a reliance on fees and charges to offset the loss of traditional funding sources.

• Many parks and recreation agencies are reporting budget cuts, but at the same time a number of agencies are reporting substantial budget in

creases.

• Innovative funding techniques are becoming a "way-oflife" for most agencies rather than an "option."

• Cooperative relationships with the private sector appear to be increasing.

• "Dedicating" fees and charges back to the parks and recreation fund for its exclusive use is increasing.

Conclusion

There are three conclusions that can be drawn from this nationwide survey: (1) the survey documents those "gut-perceptions" administrators have been expressing for some time about budget cuts, increased use of fees and charges, and the need to modify traditional philosophies; (2) It serves to support the results of previous studies in the

areas of fees and charges, general fund appropriations and the effects of budget cuts; (3) The data magnifies the need for future study which provides sound policy and operational recommendations in the area of park and recreation finances.

The following suggests possible research questions for future study: • If fees and charges are becoming a viable solution to drained resources, what criteria must be developed before establishing equitable user fees?

• Is the public sector becoming too dependent on fees and charges to maintain and expand services?

• What other areas of financing can be developed?

• What will be the long term effect of budget cuts if the following practices continue? -reduced maintenance -personnel cutbacks, salary freezes

-limited capital develop

ment projects

-reduced or eliminated
programs and facility
operations

• Will the reliance on private
and corporate funds result in
a loss of autonomy in policy
and operations?

Sarah M. Jones is a T.I. Hines Scholarship Recipient and an assistant to Sondra Kirsch, Director of the Revenue Sources Management School, Wheeling, West Virginia.

Who Can You Turn To?

Anderson, F.J., and N.C. Bonsor. Allocation, congestion, and the valuation of recreational resources. Land Economics. 50(1): 51-56; 1974.

Argow, Keith A., and John Fedkiw. Recreation user fee income: How far does it go toward meeting costs? J. For. 61(10): 751-753; 1963.

Bechter, Dan M. Congested parks-a pricing dilemma. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Monthly Review. 1971 June: 3-11.

Becker, Boris W. The pricing of educa

tional-recreational facilities: An administrative dilemma. Journal of Leisure Research. 7(2): 86-94; 1975. Bishop, Richard C., and Thomas A. Heberlein. Measuring values of extra-market goods: Are indirect measures biased? American Journal Agricultural Economics. 61(5): 926-930; 1979. Brehm, S., and J.W. Brehm. Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press; 1981. Brown, Gardner, Jr. Pricing seasonal recreational services. Western Economics Journal. 9(2): 218-225; 1971. Cialdini, R.B., J.E. Vincent, S.K. Lewis,

J. Catalan, D. Wheeler, and B.L. Dan-
by. Reciprocal concessions procedure for
inducing compliance: The door-in-the-
face technique. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 31: 206-215;
1975.

Clawson, Marion. How much should users

of public lands pay? American Forests. 71 (April): 34-39, 61-63; 1965. Clawson, Marion, and Jack L. Knetsch.

Economics of outdoor recreation. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press; 1966. 328 p.

Cordell, H. Kenneth. Pricing for allocating low-density recreational use between private and commercial users of natural areas. In Proceedings, National conference on allocation of recreational opportunities on public land between outfitted and nonoutfitted publics; 1981 April 3-5; Reno: University of Nevada. Cordell, H. Kenneth, and John C. Hendee.

Renewable resources recreation in the United States: Supply, demand, and critical policy issues. American Forestry Association. 1982 August: 81-83. Economics Research Associates. Evaluation or public willingness to pay user cha for use of outdoor recreation areas a

facilities. Prepared for Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, USDI; 1976. 45 p. Ellerbrock, Michael. Implementing user fees at public parks and recreation areas. Staff Paper No. 201. Gainesville, FL: Food and Resource Economics Department, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences, University of Florida; 1982. 10 P. Ellerbrock, Michael. Some straight talk on user fees. Park and Recreation. 1982 January: 59-62.

Ewert, Alan W. A futuristic model for wilderness management. In: Proceedings, Third Annual Conference of Wilderness Psychology Group; 1982 July 12-14; Morgantown, WV. Morgantown, WV: University of West Virginia; 1982: 15-27.

Festinger, L., and J.M. Carlsmith. Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 58: 203-210; 1959.

Fisher, Anthony, and John V. Krutilla. Determination of optimal capacity of resource-based recreation facilities. Natural Resources Journal. 12: 417-444; 1972.

Foa, U.G., and E.B. Foa. Resource theory
of social economics. Morristown, NJ:
General Learning press; 1975.
Foss, R.D., and C.B. Dempsey. Blood

donation and the foot-in-the-door technique: A limiting case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37: 580-590; 1979. Fractor, David T. Evaluating alternative

methods for rationing wilderness use. Journal of Leisure Research. 14(4): 341-349; 1982. Freedman, J.L., and S.S. Fraser. Compliance without pressure: The foot-inthe-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 4: 195-202; 1966.

Frey, John C., and Hays B. Gamble. Policy

issues and problems in outdoor recreation. Journal of Farm Economics 49: 1307-1317; 1967.

Goldin, Kenneth D. Recreational parks and beaches: Peak demand, quality and management. Journal of Leisure Research. 3(2): 81-107; 1971. ouldner, A.W. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American logical Review. 25: 161-178; 1960.

Grimes, Michael E., Thomas K. Pinhey, and Daniel C. Campos. Pay as you play: An analysis of attitudes toward a fee-for-use approach to outdoor recreation. In: Proceedings, First Conference of Scientific Research in the National Parks, Volume II; 1976 November 9-12; New Orleans: Robert M. Linn; 1976: 1013-1019.

Hendee, John C., George H. Stankey, and

Robert C. Lucas. Wilderness management. Misc. Pub. No. 1365. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1978: 326-327. Hines, Thomas I. Fees and charges. Man

agement Aid Bulletin No. 59. Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association. Revised 1974. 44 p. Howard, Dennis R., and John L. Crompton. Financing, managing and marketing recreation and park resources. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Company; 1980. 490

P.

Huszar, Paul C., and David W. Seckler.

Effects of pricing a "free" good: A study of use of admission fees at the California Academy of Sciences. Land Econ. 50: 364-373; 1974. Irland, Lloyd C. Costs of managing backcountry areas in Maine, 1978. Tech. Rep. No. 5. Augusta, ME: Bureau of Parks and Recreation, Department of Conservation. 1980. 4 p.

Irland, Lloyd C. Managing backcountry recreation areas. For. Plan. Jan/Feb 1981: 20-24; 1981.

Irland, Lloyd C. Wilderness economics and policy. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co.; 1979. 225 p.

Johnson, Randy. The Grandfather experience. American Forests. 9(10): 22-27; 54-55; 1983.

Kirsch, Sondra (ed.) Public policy mode for charges and fees. Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association; 1981.

Knox, R.E., and J.A. Inkster. Post decision dissonance at posttime. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 8: 319-323; 1968. Krutilla, John V., and Jack L. Knetsch. Outdoor recreation economics. In: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 389: 63-70; 1970.

LaPage, W.F. The role of fees in campers'
decisions. Res. Pap. NE-118. Broomall,
PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Ex-
periment Station; 1968. 24 p.
Lundgren, Allen L. Economic bases for

allocating resources in outdoor recreation. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-9. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station; 1974: 7-13. Manning, Robert E., and Sidney C. Baker.

Discrimination through user fees: Fact or fiction? Parks and Recreation. Sept. 1981: 70-74; 1981. McCallum, J.D., and J.G.L. Adams. Charging for countryside recreation: A review with implications for Scotland. Institute of British Geographers Transactions. 5(3): 350-368; 1980.

McCurdy, Dwight R. Recreationists' atti

tudes toward user fees: Management implications. J. For. 68: 645-646; 1970. Menz, Frederic C., and John K. Mullen.

Expected encounters and willingness to pay for outdoor recreation. Land Economics. 57(1): 33-40; 1981. Minnesota Department of Natural Re

sources, Trails and Waterways Unit.
User-fee feasibility on DNR-assisted
recreation trails. A Report to the
Legislature: 1983.

Moss, Phillip I. Pricing recreation services.

In: Public prices for public products. The Urban Institute, Selma J. Muskin, ed.; 1973: 335-350.

Munley, Vincent G., and V. Kerry Smith.
Learning-by-doing and experience: The
case of whitewater recreation. Land
Economics. 52(4): 545-553; 1976.
Muskin, Selma J., and Charles L. Vehorn.
User fees and charges. Governmental
Finance. 6(4): 42-48; 1977.
Nautiyal, J.C., and R.L. Chowdhary. A

suggested basis for pricing campsites-
demand estimation in an Ontario park.
Journal of Leisure Research. 7(2):
95-107; 1975.

Odell, Robert M., Jr. Use of recreation service charges. Governmental Finance. 1(1): 15-19; 1972.

Pliner, P., H. Hart, J. Kohl, and D. Saari. Compliance without pressure: Some further data on the foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 10: 17-22; 1974.

Price, Colin. Charging versus exclusion: Choice between recreation management tools. Environmental Management. 5: 161-175; 1981.

Public Land Law Review Commission. One third of the nation's land: A report to the Congress. Washington, DC; June 1970: chapter 12.

Robinson, Glen L. The Forest Service: A study in public land management. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press; 1975. 337 p. Robinson, Warren C. The simple economics of public outdoor recreation. Land. Econ. 43: 71-83; 1967. Rosenthal, Donald H., John B. Loomis, and George L. Peterson. An economic rationale for pricing public recreation areas. Res. Pap. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; (in press). Rupe, M.L., R.E. Leonard, and J.J. Lindsay. Hiker's views of backcountry management. Res. Rep. SNR-RM6. Burlington, VT: School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont; 1979. Schechter, Mordechai. Open-access recreational resources: Is doomsday around the corner? Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1977: 35-41.

Schmid, A. Allan. Nonmarket values and efficiency of public investments in water resources. American Economic Review. 57: 158-168; 1967.

Seckler, David W. On the uses and abuses of economic science in evaluating public outdoor recreation. Land Economics. 42: 485-494; 1966.

Shabman, Leonard, and Reid Ostrander.

Financial implications of outdoor recreation planning practices: A case study from Virginia. Leisure Sciences. 5(3): 161-179; 1983.

Stankey, G.H., and J. Baden. Rationing wilderness use: Methods, problems, and guidelines. Res. Pap. INT-192. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1977; 20 p.

Stdevener, Herbert H., and William G. Brown. Analytical issues in demand analysis for outdoor recreation. Journal of Farm Economics. 49: 1295-1306; 1967.

Twardzik, Louis F. Fees and charges in

public recreation. The Tennessee Planner. 23(3): 65-72; 1964. USDA Forest Service. Study of RPA Issue Area #8. User payment for recreational opportunities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1979. U.S. General Accounting Office. Increasing entrance fees. USDI National Park Service; August 4, 1982.

U.S. Senate. User fees and charges. Pub.

No. 97-101. In: Workshop on Land Pro-
tection and Management; Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources. 97th
Congress, 2nd Session; June 1982. Panel
VII: 626-687.

Vaux, H.J. The distribution of income
among wilderness users. Journal of
Leisure Research. 7: 29-37; 1975.
Walter, Gerald R., and John A. Schofield.
Recreation management: A program-
ming example. Land Economics. 53(2):
212-225; 1977.
Wennergren, E. Boyd. Surrogate pricing
of outdoor recreation. Land Economics.
43(1): 112-116; 1967.

Willis, C.E., J.J. Canavan, and R.S. Bond.
Optimal short-run pricing policies for a
public campground. Journal of Leisure
Research. 7: 108-113; 1975.
Wilman, E.A. Pricing of outdoor recrea-

tion. Discussion Paper D-28, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC; 1978. Younger, J.C., L.A. Walker, and J.A.

Arrowood. Post decision dissonance at the fair. Personality and Social Psychology. 3: 284-287; 1977.