13 through discussion and research. As a 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. 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 wild 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 solitude and unconfined recreation may be 14 The New maximized. If we are to encourage the experience of personal freedom, a fee for this experience would be inappropriate. 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 this class, but not all. The goal of the experience should be enhanced awareness and consequent freedom, sensitivity and responsibility--not entertainment. Thus, guided experiences are not synonymous with education experiences. The U.S. Forest Service acknowledged a distinction between educational or therapeutic 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 lowered fees are attached to specific experiences (e.g. season passes for hang gliding in a national forest), then the fee itself 15 activity. may communicate support for serious individual commitment to the This effect could, of course, be enhanced through other symbols of group membership like cards or patches, opportunities for participants to volunteer their efforts in management of the activity, or through specially targeted interpretive activities. 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 In they reflect a well-formed philosophy guiding the total management of a recreation resource. The policy guidelines we have offered are There will almost certainly be many really only skeletal ideas. complexities in application, contradicting principles, and exceptional situations. Our intentions in this paper have been to 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 a sagging recreation resource system. REFERENCES Berrier, D. L. 1984. Minnesota's new cross-country skiing program. Paper presented at Conference on Fees for Outdoor Recreation on Lands Open to the Public. Durham, NH, January 1, 2, and 3. Cheek, N. H., and Burch, W. R. 1976. Social Organization of Leisure in Human Society. New York NY: Harper and Row. Clawson, M. 1984. Outdoor recreation: 25 years of history, 25 years of projection. Paper presented at the twenty-five year symposium, School of Forestry and Wildlife 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: Supply, Demand, and Critical Policy Issues. Washington, DC: American Forestry Association. Crandall, D. A., and Driver, B. L. 1984. Recreation on public lands: Should the user pay? American Forests 10-11:49-53. Crompton, J. L., and Sellar, C. 1977. Do outdoor education experiences contribute to positive development in the affective domain? Journal of Environmental Education 8(2):21-29. Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1978. Intrinsic rewards and emergent motivation. In: Lepper, M. R. and Greene, D. The Hidden Costs of Reward: New Perspectives on the Psychology of Human Motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1975. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. DeGrazia, S. 1963. Of Time, Work and Leisure. New York, NY: Anchor Books. 16 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. L., McAvoy, L. H. and Schultz, J. H. 1982. Stewards of Access, Custodians of Choice. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing Co. Ellis, M. J. 1973. Why People Play. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Federal Register. Vol. 49. No. 32. Proposed Changes in the U.S. Flickinger, T. and Waterson, M. F. 1979. How to tighten the belt without pinching yourself. Parks and Recreation, March 1979, Gibson, P. J. 1979. Therapeutic aspects of wilderness programs. Kelly, J. R. 1982. Leisure Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Kleiber, D. A. 1979. Fate control and leisure attitudes. Leisure McDonald, C. D., Hammitt, W. E. and Dottavio, F. D. 1985. An Public Economy. 17 |