152 
value in public finance in which taxes, either general or special, are 
considered the price paid for a collective good which may be regulated 
via legislative influence, by the buyer-voter. A balance sheet must 
be constructed to reflect the trade-offs involved with both user fees 
and taxation. 
The effects of any pricing policy applied to recreational lands and 
services are quite pervasive. Investment decisions, mostly at the 
State level, often rely heavily on projected returns which might be 
required to retire bond issues. As a management tool, pricing can be 
used in rationing demand to prevent overuse, thereby maximizing 
total user satisfaction. By varying the pricing structure discriminately, 
user types can be regulated and various income distribution goals met. 
It will be the purpose of this section to explore in detail the various 
introductory issues, applications, and effects influencing the pricing 
policy decision as related to resource-oriented and intermediate 
recreational areas. The public versus private good issue will be docu- 
mented and a balanced opinion formulated. The implications on pricing 
policy generated by the public good classification will be researched 
highlighting the taxation or free access versus user fee issue. Finally, 
a cursory treatment of the various objectives and their pricing policy 
means will be offered as a basis for more detailed treatment in the 
section to follow on objective functions. 
Recreational goods and services—Public or prwate? 
The exact nature of, and justification for, a public good or service 
has been the subject of much economic theory and debate. Fiekowsky 
sets three criteria which an intended public service must meet to justify 
its collectivity :” 
1. It must be impractical to collect fees; 
2. Benefits from consuming the good must extend beyond the 
individual to other members of society; and 
3. The individual can have little knowledge of the effects of 
such consumption on his own welfare. 
Samuelson, in his theory of government expenditure, defines collec- 
tive consumption goods as those ‘‘which all enjoy in common in the 
sense that each individual’s consumption of such a good leads to no 
subtraction from any other individual’s consumption of that good.” 
Downs further clarifies “collective goods” as those whose cost all 
citizens should be coerced to pay since an individual’s share of the 
benefits is larger than the cost he alone would agree to pay.” He 
suggests intermediate cases of goods as well, noting that not all mem- 
bers of society benefit equally from public services which are limited 
by capacity. Margolis goes furthest i stating that there is no ‘‘tech- 
nical’? reason why services furnished by the Government could not 
be provided by private concerns.”* 
When focusing on recreation as a “collective good,’’ as defined 
by the theorists, several inconsistencies are apparent. Fees can be 
collected in many cases. Increased consumption of any one resource 
