153 
will ultimately reduce the satisfaction derived from that resource, on 
an individual basis. Such technical flaws do not preclude use of the 
public good concept in recreation, particularly in light of the numerous 
market imperfections inherent in a ‘‘private good” approach. It will 
be useful to methodically pursue the technical and practical arguments 
which have been put forth in defense of each. 
The case for the public good 
Competetive market imperfections abound when recreational 
services are considered. In pure competition, the seller must be able 
to withold his product or service to force buyer prices up. Like national 
defense, the more esthetic pleasures of wilderness (clean air, pano- 
ramas, wildlife) could be witheld only at great cost, thereby destroying 
the marketability of the recreational “product.” Public opinion also 
exerts market distorting forces as witnessed by the number of private 
landowners who have been coerced into opening their lands to hunt- 
ing, fishing, etc. As Ely put it in 1935:8 
Even though we respect the private owner’s rights to land for productive pur- 
poses, we often experience a feeling of resentment whenever land is “‘posted’’ to 
keep out picnickers, hikers, hunters, and nature lovers whose use of the land does 
not and need not interfere with commercial land utilization. 
Such opinion, though attenuated by increased urbanization, per- 
sists today. Clawson sums it up nicely: 
All in all, the market structure of the outdoor recreation “industry’”’ does not 
favor private suppliers of recreation opportunity.’ 
A number of practical investment considerations contribute to the 
lack of attractiveness of private recreational wilderness development. 
In the resource and intermediate parks, demand generally lags physical 
development of a facility, forcing the private operator to sustain losses 
during an uncertain number of years, during which volume must build 
to permit an eventual profit margin. Often the large size of recreational 
ventures, both physically and monetarily, present a risk factor great 
enough to deter investor pools. Even with government-sponsored risk 
imsurance, which has been adopted in some European countries but 
not yet in the United States, the return on investment remains 
sufficiently low as to encourage enterprise to enter a host of alternative 
industries rather than put capital in wilderness type recreation. The 
present government concession system which is receiving much current 
support, is strictly a compromise measure and cannot be considered a 
viable investment in the context of this pro-public good reasoning, it 
should be pointed out. 
Another valid argument points up a defect inherent im the free 
market system, namely the production of objectionable facilities 
under free enterprise due to the profit motive under which most 
managements must operate. By catering to those who are most willing 
and able to pay, recreational facilities will develop that do not appeal 
to the majority of prospective users. Cultural and esthetic aspects of 
the environment, it is reasoned, will be neglected as the construction 
of hotels, motels, and resort-type areas proliferates. An unequal income 
distribution would be the overall economic effect with the rich monopo- 
lizing the panoramas of the country’s resource based parks. A public 
