125 
amples of public goods that could be produced in the private market but are not, 
since society places large value on the idea that everyone should derive equal 
benefit from such institutions regardless of income distribution—no exclusion 
should exist. 
(3) There are externalities or side effects associated with the production and/or 
consumption of the good. These effects come about when the production of certain 
goods affects other decisionmaking units who are not doing the producing or the 
consuming. Side effects are not included in the price of the good since there is no 
mechanism by which the external costs to society can be returned to the producer 
as the cost of a factor input to production—pollution is the classic example. 
These characteristics point to the breakdown of the price mechanism 
in the allocation of public goods since they all involve violations of the 
conditions of a properly functioning market. The crucial point that 
must be reemphasized is that frequently the total costs of opportuni- 
ties lost to society are not reflected in the price of certain goods. Al- 
though the social benefits of having an individual consume/produce 
(or not consume/produce) a particular commodity may exceed his pri- 
vate benefits, he will base decisions only on his private benefits. Hence, 
the private market, left alone, tends to produce too many private goods 
and too few public goods. This happens because the public goods are 
undervalued within the private market and are unable to compete 
on an equal footing with other goods in the allocation of scarce 
resources. For this reason, Government must step in and initiate 
some form of collective action in order to maintain social balance and 
achieve an efficient resource allocation consistent with the overall 
goals and values of society! 
We are now in the position to make the connection between shore- 
line recreational resources and their allocation in a private market 
economy. It seems clear that the shoreline should be considered as a 
public good in every sense of the word. We have established that it 
has an intrinsic value to society as a recreational resource in that 
everyone in a democracy has an inalienable right to derive equal benefit 
from the value of shoreline recreation to the physical, mental, emo- 
tional, and general well-being of all its members. 
A new slogan, declaring that recreation is the fifth freedom that we now ur- 
gently need to gain and enjoy the other four freedoms, might elicit a nationwide 
response and a reaffirmation of our traditional goals and historie aspirations. 
Seen as an indispensable, vitally imperative need in the great movement for 
human conservation, we can say that opportunity for outdoor recreation today 
is also an undeniable human right in a democracy * * * no one should be de- 
prived of outdoor recreation through which individuals can make human living 
more significant and fulfilling, more conducive to the realization of their human 
potentialities and attainment of our enduring goal values.‘0 
This tremendous importance demands that such a good be allocated 
with extreme care to msure that all members of present_and future 
generations can derive maximum benefit from its use. Yet we see 
that the private market has brought about a serious misallocation 
of these resources. Why has this happened? 
Historically, those uses that could pay the highest prices for the 
land have preempted most of the shoreline. These uses have frequently 
been those which entail highly capital-intensive development. Un- 
fortunately, public recreation ranks relatively low on a capital- 
intensive scale. The highest is industrial development followed 
by commercial development, housing, private recreation, with public 
recreation probably ranking near ecology in this respect. The bids 
40 Ibid., reference 23; p. 231. 
