Multiple rationing systems are also in effect in several National Park backcountry 

 areas, generally involving a combination of request and queuing systems. 



Queuing might also represent an important complementary system in conjunction with 

 a pricing system. For the many present day wilderness visitors who possess higher 

 incomes, a fee would not be discriminatory because those rationed out would be primarily 

 those who placed a higher value on alternative uses of their money. In other words, it 

 would not be a matter of inability to pay that rationed these people out, it would be 

 a matter of willingness. This is how an efficient rationing system should operate. 

 But there are clearly others who would be willing but unable to pay the price. For 

 instance, students and low-income people would be discriminated against by a fee set 

 at a level sufficient enough to reduce use. However, time generally has a low oppor- 

 tunity cost for many of these people. By implementing a queuing system in conjunction 

 with a fee system, users could choose to pay by money or by time. 



We should also point out that each system is capable of flexible application. For 

 instance, the imposition of a fee does not necessarily mean one price for all locations. 

 In fact, differential pricing to alter use patterns would appear to be a more appropriate 

 action. Also, to counter problems of discriminating against those willing but unable to 

 pay, subsidies might be available to certain individuals. 



There are certainly difficult questions about rationing for which no clear answers 

 exist. For instance, if a combination of systems is planned, what is the relative 

 proportion of the capacity that should be allocated by each system? In areas where 

 commercial outfitting occurs, how should permits for entry be allocated to the commer- 

 cial sector; should the same system for private use be utilized or should some special 

 provision for commercial users be developed? Certainly the answer to such questions 

 would rest in knowing the present clientele, as well as the clientele in the near future. 



Guideline 4: Rationing Should Require Users to Judge the Relative Worth of 

 the Opportunity 



What rationing system is best? Although there are again no pat answers, we can 

 offer this observation. It appears to us that the ideal system or combination of sys- 

 tems should be based on establishing a relationship between the opportunity to visit 

 wilderness and the value an individual places on that opportunity. One of the advantages 

 of pricing is that it clearly requires people to make choices among the possible alter- 

 native uses of their money--it makes people "put their money where their mouth is." 

 At the same time, the uneven distribution of income makes pricing an imperfect system. 

 But people can pay in other ways--by time in a queue or by time and personal effort in a 

 merit system. Because wilderness is a scarce resource, it is our belief that rationing 

 should demand a personal assessment of worth on the part of potential participants. 



Guideline 5: Rationing Programs Need Monitoring and Evaluation 



Although there is evidence that people will support the institution of rationing 

 in wilderness, there is still much uncertainty about its effect on use, how it will 

 alter the wilderness experience, and so forth. Consequently, it seems important that 

 when the decision to ration is made and a particular system or combination of systems is 

 chosen, that a program of monitoring and evaluation also be established. From a simple 

 economic perspective, it seems unwise to invest a high level of money, manpower, and time 

 into the development of what is an inherently controversial program, without also estab- 

 lishing the ability to accurately evaluate performance at a later date. Moreover, be- 

 cause there are only limited data about how rationing might work in wilderness, how 

 people will behave and think of such measures, it seems doubly important that managers 

 have an accurate and systematic source of feedback. Well-designed surveys are important 

 sources of such information but even review by persons running the system would be helpful 

 as long as the information gathered was systematic and as objective as possible. 



18 



