Table 1 . --Summary evaluation of impacts and consequences of alternative rationing systems 







Eva luat ion 



Criteria 







Rationing 

 system 



: Clientele group 



: benefited by system : 



Clientele group : 

 adversely affected 

 by system 



Experience to date 

 with use of system 

 in wilderness 





Acceptability of 

 system to wilderness 

 users 1 



Request 

 (Reservation) 



Those able and/or 

 willing to plan ahead; 

 i.e., persons with 

 structured life styles 



Those unable or unwilling 

 to plan ahead; e.g., per- 

 sons with occupations that 

 do not permit long-range 

 planning, such as many 

 professionals. 



Main type of rationing sys- 

 tem used in both National 

 Forest and National Park 

 wilderness. 



Generally high. Good acceptance 

 in areas where used. Seen as 

 best way to ration by users in 

 areas not current lv rationed. 



Lottery 

 (Chance) 



No one identifiable 

 group benefited. Those 

 who examine probabil- 

 ities of success at 

 different areas have 

 better chance. 



No one identifiable group 

 discriminated against. 

 Can discriminate against 

 the unsuccessful applicant 

 to whom wilderness is very 

 important . 



None. However, is a common 

 method for allocating big- 

 game hunting permits. 



Queuing 

 (First-come 

 first-served) 



Pricing 

 (Fee) 



Those with low opportu- 

 nity cost for their 

 time (e.g., unemployed). 

 Al so favors users who 

 live nearby. 



Those able or willing to 

 pay entry costs. 



Those persons with high 

 opportunity cost of time. 

 Also those persons who 

 live some distance from 

 areas. The cost of time 

 is not recovered by anyone. 



Those unwilling or unable 

 to pay entry costs. 



Used in conjunction with 

 reservation system in 

 San Jacinto Wilderness. 

 Also used in some National 

 Park Wildernesses. 



Low to moderate. 



Low to moderate. 



Merit Those able or willing to 



(Skill and invest time and effort 



knowledge) meet requirements. 



Those unable or unwilling 

 to to invest time and effort 

 to meet requirements. 



None. Merit is used to 

 allocate use for some re- 

 lated activities such as 

 river running. 



Not clearly known. Could 

 vary considerably depending 

 on level of training required 

 to attain necessary proficiency 

 and .knowledge level. 



: Evaluation Criteria 



: Difficulty for 

 : administrators 



Efficiency - extent : • 

 : to which system can : : 

 : minimize problems of : Principal way in which 

 : suboptimization : use impact is controlled 



How system affects 

 user behavior 2 



Request 



( lieservat ion) 



Moderately difficult. 

 Requires extra staffing, 

 expanded hours. Record 

 Keeping can be substantial. 



Low to moderate. Under 

 utilization can occur be- 

 cause of "no shows," thus 

 denying entry to others. 

 Allocation of permits to 

 applicants has little re- 

 lationship to value of the 

 experience as judged by 

 the applicant. 



Reducing visitor numbers. 

 Controlling distribution 

 of use in space and time 

 by varying number of permits 

 available at different trail- 

 heads or at different times. 



Affects both spatial and 

 temporal behavior. 



Lottery 

 (Chance) 



Difficult to moderately 

 difficult. Allocating 

 permits over an entire 

 use season could be very 

 cumbersome. 



Low. Because permits are 

 assigned randomly, persons 

 who place little value on 

 wilderness stand equal 

 chance of gaining entry as 

 those who place high value 

 on opportunity. 



Reducing visitor numbers. 

 Controlling distribution of 

 use in space and time by 

 number of permits available 

 at different places or times, 

 thus varying probability of 

 success . 



Affects both spatial and 

 temporal behavior. 



Queuing 

 (Eirst-come 

 first-served) 



Low difficulty to mod- 

 erate. Could require 

 development of facilities 

 to support visitors wait- 

 ing in line. 



Moderate. Because system 

 rations primarily through 

 a cost of time, it requires 

 some measure of worth by 

 participants . 



Reducing visitor numbers. 

 Controlling distribution of 

 use in space and time by 

 number of persons permitted 

 to enter at different places 

 or times. 



Affects both spatial and 

 temporal behavior. User 

 must consider cost of time 

 of waiting in line. 



Pricing 

 (Eee) 



Moderate difficulty. 

 Possibly some legal 

 questions about imposing 

 a fee for wilderness 

 entry . 



Moderate to high. Impos- 

 ing a fee requires user to 

 judge worth of experience 

 against costs. Uncertain 

 as to how well use could 

 be "fine tuned" with price. 



Reducing visitor numbers. 

 Controlling distribution of 

 use in space and time by 

 using differential prices. 



Affects both temporal and 

 spatial behavior. User must 

 consider cost in dollars. 



Merit Difficult to moderately dif- Moderate to high. Requires 



(Skill and ficult. Initial investments users to make expenditures 



knowledge) to establish licensing pro- of time and effort (maybe 



gram could be substantial. dollars) to gain entry. 



Some reduction in numbers 

 as well as shifts in time 

 and space. Major reduction 

 in per capita impact. 



Affects style of user's 

 behavior. 



1 Based upon actual field experience as 



2 This criterion is designed to measure 

 (e.g., where they go, when they go, how they 



well as upon evidence reported in visitor studies 

 how the different rationing system would directly 

 behave, etc.). 



(Stankey 1973). 



impact the behavior of wilderness users 



1 -'1 



