I. Pros and Cons

By Charles C. Harris and B.L. Driver

C oat recovery and revenue gen-eration have become buzzwords in the halls of federal

land-management agencies. In additionto debates over below-cost timbersales, requests for broader legal au-thority to implement recreation userfees are on the rise.

Recreation user fees come in variousforms. They can be levied as entrancefees to gain access to an area, or as usefees for services and facilities provided.They can be charges for special-usepermits that private firms pay to oper-ate ski areas or to provide guide andoutfitting services. They can becharges to concessionaires, leases forsummer homes, or excise taxes on rec-reation equipment.

Most municipalities charge fees to recover the costs of many recreation pro-

grams provided. Many states, too, nowrecover a large part, or all, of the oper-ating costs of outdoor recreation oppor-tunities such as camping. Constrainingauthorities by the U.S. Congress nowseverely limit the fees that federalagencies can levy. The President’sCommission on Americans Outdoors,which was established in 1985 to reviewexisting outdoor recreation policies,programs, and opportunities and torecommend actions to meet future ret-reation needs, submitted its draft re-port to the president at the end of 1986.Included among its draft recommenda-tions is its proposal that “local, state,and federal recreation and resourcesmanagement agencies charge visitorsfees to supplement regular appropria-tions, with the objective of recovering areasonable portion of operations and

maintenance costs” (President’s Conmission on Americans Outdoors 1987)

E v o l u t i o n _The first federal recreation fees wer

auto-entry permits collected at MounRainier National F’ark in 1999 F’rorthe start, the USDI National JWService and Congress were concernethat fees not be excessive. In 1928, Corgress barred the Park Service frorcharging camping fees, and the prohib

- e3,

;:dI-ni-

Charles C. Harris is assistant professor (wildland recreation management, University IIdaho, Moscow. B.L. Driver ia maearch fomsteUSDA Forest Service, Becky Mmmtain Fbraa n d Bange E x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n , Fbrt Collins, C(Published zw Contribution 300 of the Univeaaity (Idaho Fbrest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Stt i o n .

I-

-

MAY 1987 25

Lower feea may be needed tiw the elderlyand the goung.

tion remained until the sixties.Over the years, land-management

agencies have attempted to increaserecreation fees. In 1935, the FranklinRoosevelt administration instructedthe Bark Service to develop a fee pro-gram that would make operations self-sustaining. A program was adopted toincrease and expand fees slightly, butopponents raised arguments s t i l l heardtoday (Mackintosh 1983).

In 1962, Congress authorized theOutdoor Recreation Resources ReviewCommission (ORRRC) that called forfees “for those activit ies which involveexclusive use of facilities or which re-quire the construction of specialized fa-cilities by the government. Fee ratesshould be calculated to recover a rea-sonable port ion of the cost of adminis-tering, operating, and maintaining suchfacilities” (Outdoor Recreation Re-sources Review Commission 1962).

ORRRC was influential in passage ofthe Land and Water ConservationFund Act (RL. 85578) in 1965. This billauthorized federal agencies to desig-nate recreation areas for which en-trance, admission, and other types offees could be charged. Subsequentamendments generated congressionaldebate over the appropriate amount offees, the areas for which fees should becollected, and the uses that should bemade of fee revenues.

A 1972 amendment established thepolicies that federal agencies now fol-low. Fee programs vary among land-management agencies. Although the

Federal agencies can charges fees onlg at highlg developed sites but not, tiw example, atShenandoah National l%rk 0.

USDA Forest Service was authorizedto charge entrance fees at national rec-reation areas, the agency has chosennot to do so, primarily because of theprivate inholdings and multiple accesspoints in many national forests (Driveret al. 1985). The Forest Service does,however, charge use fees at those devel-oped recreation si tes that qualify underthe restrictive provisions of the Landand Water Conservation Fund Act, asamended. The National Bark Service,

“Tradition is a majordeterrent to increasing

recreation feeprograms.”

Corps of Engineers, Bureau of LandManagement, Fish and Wildlife Serv-ice, and the Tennessee Valley Author-ity, like the Forest Service, also chargeuse fees, which are mostly for devel-oped campsites. According to the 1972amendment, use fees are levied only atcertain sites and facilities like devel-oped campgrounds and swimming ar-eas, and permits with fees are issuedfor special uses, such as group activi-ties, recreation events, and motorizedrecreation vehicles.

The National Park Service is the onlyfederal agency currently charging en-

try fees. The 1986 budget for the ParkService nearly doubles entrance fees.It also directs that one-half of the in-creased income be prorated to allparks, based on their budgets, with theremainder returned to fee-collectingparks in proportion to their contribu-t ions .

In recent years, user fees have stayedonly s l ight ly ahead of inf lat ion. In 1986,of al l Forest Service campgrounds withuser fees, 95 percent charged $3 or lessper day. By 1984, among these units , 85percent were charging $4 or more. In1985, most Bark Service campgroundscharged at least $5 per day. Fees atForest Service swimming sites rangefrom 50C to $2, and cabin charges vary.Other federal agencies, such as theCorps of Engineers and Bureau ofLand Management, have similar feeprograms and levies (Driver et al.1985).

Public camping fees are generallyless than those charged by private rec-reation enterprises. A nationwide sur-vey conducted by the National Camp-ground Owners Association in 1982reported average per diem fees of $8.15for private tent sites, $9.33 for vehiclesites with electricity, and $10.54 for vehicle sites with all utilities (U.S. De-partment of the Interior 1983). Cornparisons are complicated, though, bythe different camping services and userdemands that prevail in the public andprivate sectors.

In 1982, the departments of the lnterior, Agriculture, and Army joined

26 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY

forces to propose a bill that would ex-pand their fee-levying authorities.Strong bipar t isan congressional opposi-t ion prevented i ts introduct ion, as i t d idother proposed fee legislat ion by thosedepartments during subsequent years.The land-management agencies areconsidering new proposals , incorporat-ing input from user groups and fromthe President’s Commission on Ameri-cans Outdoors. Congress remains cau-tious but did, in 1986, finally grant theNational Park Service broader author-ity to expand entrance fees. Some law-makers hesi tate to change the tradit ionof relatively unconstrained access tothe nation’s recreation resources.

For Free AccessAn early argument for free access to

public re&eaGon resources was rootedin the belief of the National F’ark Serv-ice that management should seek thebenefit and enjoyment of the peoplerather than financial gain. User-fee op-ponents insis t that i t is unfair to chargerecreation&s twice, once through taxa-tion and once with user fees. They alsoargue that fee programs are inequita-ble, because they discriminate againstpeople who cannot afford to pay the fee.In debates over the Land and WaterConservation Fund, some members ofCongress were concerned that userfees might fall more heavily on theirconst i tuents than on residents in otherparts of the nat ion.

Historic precedent-%&ion is a ma-jor deterrent to increasing recreation

fee programs. For more than a century,individuals such as Frederick LawOlmsted, the noted landscape archi-tect, urban park designer, and early ad-vocate of national parks, stressed theresponsibilities of government to pro-tect natural areas while making themreadily accessible to the public. He andothers contended that public recreationpromotes social cohesion in Americansociety and increases the capability ofAmericans to govern themselves (Cock-

“Opponents insist thatit is unfair t0

charge recreationiststwice,

once through taxationand once with user

fees.”

rell and Wellman 1985).Merit goods-A corollary idea is that

public recreation opportunities aremerit goods because of their benefi ts tosociety in general. Implicit in this con-cept is the belief that recreation re-sources should be subsidized with pub-lic funds because recreation is good forsociety as well as for the individual par-t icipant (Howard and Crompton 1980).

A lamg tmdttion exisbs tbr charging fees Ibr hunting and fishing but not Ibr “noncom

Public subsidies-Fee opponents alsoare concerned that some form of sub-sidy is needed for future generations,for those who cannot afford fees today,and for the elderly. Other argumentscenterontheconceptofoutdoorrecre-ation as an intrinsically motivated andrelatively unstructured experience(Driver and T&her 19’70, Gunter 1979).The fee-collection process i tself is thenseen as degrading the leisure experi-ence that motivated use of an area inthe first place.

For User FeesCost recovery and revenue genera-

tion are the two main justificationsgiven by advocates of recreation userfees on public lands. Meeting operatingand, in some cases, capital costs of ad-ministering and protecting the re-source has been the rationale ever sincerecreation fees were introduced in themajor national parks from 1908 to 1915.

Increasing quality-Advocates pointout the benefits of returning revenuesto the agency to increase the quantityand quality of recreation services. Inits early years, the National Park Serv-ice retained fees in a special treasuryaccount for park development. In 1984,a primary reason for passage of the Mi-gratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (16USC 718) was to acquire additionalland for what are now national wiidliftirefuges with fees from sales of a duckstamp.

Congestion control-Others arguethat rationing recreation use to those

Chalgtng a fee mag help reduce Utter&Jand destruction.

MAY 1987 27

I

willing to pay may help reduce conges-tion and resource damage. ‘Pail usersof federal wildlands have begun discus-sing the need for hiker fees of somekind (Johnson 19841, and Minnesotasuccessfully introduced a fee-based li-censing system for cross-country ski-ers.

Market prices-Some proponentsstate that increased fees would pro-mote national economic development.With resources allocated in an economi-cally efficient manner, fees are viewed,similar to market prices, as indexes ofbenefits the users receive (see articleby Binkley and Mendelsobn on page31). Unfair competition with the pri-vate sector would be reduced, too, iffees for public recreation were com-mensurate with prices for similar op-portunities provided by the private sec-tor.

Declining bwlgets-Some proponentscontend that decreasing budgets (inreal dollars) for federal recreation pro-grams are adversely affecting the abil-ity of agencies to manage for the longterm (Zaslowsky 1935, Cordell andHendee 1932). Broadening the author-ity of federal agencies to collect feescould help reduce the impacts of cur-rent and future declines in recreationbudgets.

Comparative equity-Another argu-ment is that paying for public recrea-tion programs with tax-based fundingplaces an unfair burden on low-incomeindividuals who lack the means to takeadvantage of those programs (Clawsonand Knetsch 1966). This argument ap-plies especially where federal recrea-tional lands are inaccessible to low-in-come individuals, who cannot afford thetravel and other costs involved. Re-search suggests a disproportionatelylow representation of low-income recre-ationists on federal lands (vaux 1975).

On-&& wrera-In 1976, a study con-ducted by Economic Research Associ-ates measured public sentiments toward user charges and found that,although a majority of all groups fa-. _ _ .

college-educated groups. Fee propo-nents argue that actual users of sitesand facilities should bear a larger partof the additional costs resulting fromtheir recreation (LaPage 1966). Userfees would increase the total cost torecreationists relatively little, consider-ing the expense of equipment, supplies,and transportation.

Off-site users-Advocates argue thatoff-site users-those who value the ex-istence of a resource even though theyrarely use it-should still help bear thecosts of environmental preservationthrough taxes. General revenues couldalso be used to subsidize the elderlyand indigent, to capture collective spin-off benefits to society at large, and topromote other social goals related topublic outdoor recreation. Under sucha pricing system, nonusers would pro-vide a smaller proportion of the tax-based funding than they now provide,subsidies would be keyed to specifiedbeneficiaries, and on-site users wouldcover more of the management costs at-tributable directly to their use.

Recreation ManagementQuestions are being raised regarding

the practical operation of user-fee pro-grams. How will charges be assigned?What form will they take? How willfees be collected cost-effectively, espe-ciallyinareasofdisperseduseandwithout entrance stations? Will the feeseven equal the cost of collecting them?How will user fees be used?

Except for a brief period between1972 and 1980, revenues collected tm-der provisions of the Land and WaterConservation Fund Act have been deposited in the fund for uses such as fed-eral land acquisition and state planningand development. This use of fee reve-nues provided less incentive for federalagencies to collect fees than did the al-ternative policy-in effect from 1972-39-of giving agencies discretion overrevenues. However, that discretionproved a mixed blessing, because theOffice of Management and Budget hadadvised agencies that recreation oper-ating budgets could be reduced in pro-portion to the amount of fee revenuescollected. The National F’ark Service

Fcer could help redistribute use afareaa arv’ i inefi

obtained explicit exception to that pol-icy as a part of the new authority theagency received late in 1986 to broadenentrance fees.

Analyses of proposed fee programssuggest that net returns would be sig-nificant to agencies that manage areaswith heavy recreation use, such,aa theBark Service and the Forest Service.Projections are that Bark Service en-trance fees could be raised at 25 parksand initiated at 23. Extending collec-tion hours at 14 parks would be cost-effective, and the price of the GoldenEagle Passport (annual entrance feelcould be raised to $25. These changeswere estimated to result in net addi-tional revenues of $29.7 million (U.S.General Accounting Office 19821.

Trends in recreation use on the na-tional forests suggest that revenuescould be obtained cost-effectively fromhigher user fees for most recreation fa

vored pay-as-you-go recreation funding,more of those in lower income, elderly,and rural groups favored it than did re-spondents in young, higher income, and

-

28 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY

ii

cilities and services. Entrance fees atfirst might be charged most acceptablyat wilderness and national recreationareas, national wild and scenic rivers,and national scenic trails. An annualpass or general-use fee would also becost-effective, but would probably takelonger to gain public acceptance (ac-cording to information provided by acitizens’ advisory group established bythe Forest Service).

Estimates suggest that when reve-nues collected nationwide through po-tential use and designated-area entryfees are added to revenues from recrea-tion special-use permits, less than 56percent of the costs of the agency’s rec-reation program would be covered. Ifan agency seeks to cover all costs, in-cluding fee collection, a program of gen-eral-use fees would be needed (Driveret al. 1985).

Forest Service personnel indicate

that recreation use and resulting hn-pacts are increasing beyond the capa-bilities of current management programs. Many sites are being managedat reduced-service or no-service levels,and many facilities are reaching theend of their useful life. The ForestService estimates that, during the per-iod between 1978 and 1985, the numberof its recreation sites being operatedbelaw national standards has increasedfrom 25 percent to 75 percent (NationalParks and Recreation Association1986).

The recreation rehabilitation pro-gram continues to fall further behind;for example, there is an estimated $296million backlog in deferred mainte-nance of developed recreation sites na-tionwide and a $98 million backlog intrails maintenance (per-s. conun., T. Oli-ver, USDA For. Serv., 1985). Theagency is closing some sites, leasingthe most profitable ones to private con-cessionaires, and relying upon vohm-teer programs.

Despite the general reluctance ofCongress to authorize expanded feeprograms, most recreationists supportthe concept of charging reasonable feesthat help recover recreation programcosts (Economic Research Associates1976, Market Opinion Research Inc.1986, Manning et al. 1984, Shelby et al.1982, USDI National Park Service1986).

Many users believe that the altema-tive to fees is decreasing quantity andquality of recreation opportunities. In-troduced p4aps as an undesirable ne-cessity, user fees could serve to legiti-mize recreation management andconserve the nation’s wildlands. H

Suggested ReadingCLAWSON, M., and J.L. KNETScti. 1966. Eco

nomica of outdoor reoreation. Johna HopkinaUniv. Preaa, Baltimore, MD. 323 p.

C~~KRELL, D., and J.D. WELL&AN. 19%. Againatthe rumung tide: demoeraq and outdoor reerea-tion uaer feea. I? 193-263 in Proe. 1966 outdoormcreat. t r e n d s symp. I I , C l e m s o n U n i v . , C l e m -son, SC. 331 p.

CORDELL, HE., and J.C. HENDEE. 1932. Renew-able reao- recreation in the United Statea:

s u p p l y , d e m a n d , a n d critical policy iaaues. A m .For. haoc., Washington, DC. 36 p.

DRIYER, B.L., J.E. BOSSI, and HE. CORDELL1966. Trenda in uaer fees at federal outdca reereation areas. P. Z&?-42 in FVoc 1936 outdoortecre& trends aymp. II, Clemson Univ., CIemson, SC. 331 p.

DRNER, B.L., and R.S. lbcri~x 19’70. lhwarda abehavioral interpretation of reemational engage-ments, with implieationa for planning. P. 9-31 inE l e m e n t s o f o u t d o o r mereation p l a n n i n g . B . L .Driver, ed. Univ. Mich. Press, Ann Arhor.

ECONO~UC RESEARCB Asscc~~~~s. 19’76. EvahrationofpuhiicwiUingneaatopayuaerehargeaforuse of outdoor recreation areaa and faoilitiea.U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, DC. 45 p.

GIJNTER, B.G. 1979. Properties of the leisure experienee. In Leisure: a psyehologieai approach. H.Ibraham and R. Crandall, eda. Hwong, Inc., LoaAlamit.oa, C A .

HO W A R D , D . R . , a n d J . L . cROMprON. 1936. Fhmneing, managing, and marketing reoreation andp a r k r e s o u r c e s . W m . C . B r o w n C o . , D u b u q u e ,L4.496p.

JOHNSON, R. 1934. You get what you pay for (Bark-packer Forum: FYice Hiked. Backpacker &fag.120:36,3&%2.

LAPAGE, W.B. 1963. The role of eampera’ feea incampera’ decisions. USDA Fbn Serv. Rea. Pap.NE-330.24 p.

MACKINTOSH, B. 1933. Visitor fees in the NationaiPark System: a legislative and administrativehistory. Hit. Div., USDI Natl. Park Serv., W&bhgton, DC. 118 p.

MANNING, R.E., et al. 1934. Differential fees: laiaing revenue, diatriiuting demand. J. Park & Retreat. A d m i n . 2(1):26-33.

MARKET OPINXON RESEARCH, INC. 1936. Rwtiei-pation in outdoor mow&ion among Americanadulta and the motivations whieh drive pat-tic&+tion. Detroit, MI.

NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION Assocu-TION. 1966. NPRA advocates mcreation management for national fore&. I%rka dk Reemat.l2w:l!L

OUTDOOR RECREATION RESOURCES REVIEWCOMMISSION. 1962. Outdoor recreation forAmerica. U.S. Cov. Print. Off., Waahingto& DC.MP.

PRESIDERS Coaaaamsrori ori AYERIcAN~ Our-DOORS. 1987. D r a f t s u m m a r y o f reeommendhtions. January 14. Washington, DC. 9 p.

SHELBY, B.M., et al. 1932. Preferences of ha&pa&era and river runnera for ailocstion tech-niques. J. For. 8X7):416-19.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 1933. Federal recreation fee report, 1933. Natl. Park Serv.,Washington, DC. 72 p.

U S D I N A T I O N A L P A R K SERYICE. 1936.1932-1983national recreation survey. U.S. Cov. print Off.,ifkahington, DC. 96 p.

U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. 1932 lncreasing entrance feea-National Park Sex-v&GAO/CED-3!&34. Whahington, DC. 61 p.

VAUX, J.H., JR 1976. The diatriition of ineemeamong wilderness uaera. J. Leia. Rea. ‘7(1)~3937.

ZASLOWSKY, D. 1936. Ski ia a fourletter nerd.A u d u b o n 8’7(3213-20.22-23.

MAY 1937 29