155 
effects created by free enterprise in this application are offensive to 
our senses of equality and social justice. 
Pricing policy implications of the public good concept 
Under a pure public good system, free access to all recreational 
facilities should be the rule, regardless of the costs involved in the 
initial purchase, in construction, and in continuing general mainte- 
nance of an area. A general or special tax levy would provide the funds 
for such an undertaking and everyone would be charged, independent 
of the amount of individual benefit accrued. This “pure” pricing 
policy must be modified, however, to accommodate several very 
practical problems. 
Overuse, resulting from excessive demand, quickly despoils the 
esthetic quality of a wilderness environment. Several of our biggest 
resource parks (Yosemite and Grand Teton, in particular) are cur- 
rently in danger of such overuse as automobiles choke terrain-limited 
roadways during peak periods. Expansion of such areas is an impossi- 
bility due to the physical constraints involved, leaving price as the 
most obvious rationing mechanism. Valid philosophical arguments 
again appear, decrying the reliance on social externalities of consump- 
tion as being excessive. Fairness dictates then, that some form of user 
fee be implemented to impart some element of individual (versus 
eroup) justice. 
The arguments supporting user fees are entirely compatible with a 
modified public good concept. Advocates, referring specifically to 
State intermediate areas, reason that user fees make the person who 
lives out of State contribute, in some measure, to the cost of the area, 
relieving lecal taxpayers of the entire burden. Federal grants-in-aid 
to States cannot be expected, in this case, to alone eliminate this in- 
equality. User fees will insure that the poor will not subsidize the rich, 
given the demand patterns across income levels that presently exist for 
outdoor recreation. User attitude will be improved, it is believed, if 
some fee is levied, causing a respect to develop for the facilities that 
otherwise would not have existed. (One can think of the opposite case 
here, where users consider the charge to go toward clean-up men’s 
salaries, hence demonstrating less respect for an area.) As a manage- 
ment tool, fees could control use of parks, equalize income distribution, 
or accomplish a host of other policies that the central planning agency 
might promulgate. In a strictly practical vein, user fees would raise 
the necessary revenue to finance future expansion in the absence of 
government allocated funds, funds which require legislative sanction 
centered on the arousal of public opinion which may be difficult to 
generate. 
Opponents of user fees resort to the broad economic principles 
surrounding the pure public good concept. The price theory of value 
in public finance, although not generally accepted by economists, 
provides the backbone for the ‘free access” ® arguments. According 
to it, the Government acts as a producer or firm in the economy, 
providing public goods and services to the “buying” citizenry. Taxes 
are viewed as the price paid for such goods and services while the 
taxpayer is really a taxpayer-buyer. The determination of what 
quantities of goods and services to be supplied is then based on the 
9 Esearrez, Donald R., ‘The Price Theory of Value In Public Finance,’’ University of Florida Press, 
Gainesville, 1966. 
57—242—71——_11 
