The advance reservation system could be burdensome to users and administrators 

 alike. Short, numerous trips characterize the style of use for most wilderness visitors 

 (Hendee and others 1968; Lucas 2 ] . Having to make multiple reservations over the use 

 season would be a problem for many people, particularly, as we pointed out previously, 

 when a high degree of uncertainty surrounds the future. Because of the typical short 

 planning horizon, many wilderness enthusiasts would frequently find their first choice 

 denied . 



Selection of rationing techniques should take into account the relative accept- 

 ability of the various alternatives to users. In a study of user attitudes toward 

 various control techniques, a reservation system was found to be the most acceptable 

 (Stankey 1973). Forty-three percent of the respondents favored such a system while 

 39 percent opposed it. These figures, of course, are subject to change with actual 

 exposure to alternative rationing methods. 



Rationing by Lottery 



A lottery system is a variant of a reservation system. Under a lottery system, 

 visitation rights would be distributed randomly. In many States, certain big-game 

 hunting permits are allocated in this fashion. Individuals seeking a permit might 

 be assigned a number and a drawing equal to the area's carrying capacity would be made. 

 Each individual would have the same probability of success. Operated properly, no 

 individual or group would be favored over another; a lottery, as Hardin (1969) has 

 noted, is "eminently fair." 



As was the case with the request system, a lottery would not discriminate among 

 users according to the relative value they place on the wilderness opportunity. Per- 

 sons who entered the lottery frivolously or to whom wilderness is relatively unimportant 

 would hold the same chance of winning as the wilderness enthusiast. Thus, the sub- 

 optimization problem is not eliminated with a lottery. 



A lottery would also favor those persons who sought entry to any wilderness 

 rather than persons who sought one particular area. The former group would be able 

 to apply for any of several areas, while the latter group would prefer only one loca- 

 tion. However, this situation might help disperse use from heavy-use areas to more 

 lightly used ones, as users consider the relative probabilities of success. This idea 

 has been explored in a recent paper by Greist (1975) in which he suggests the risks 

 of success bo made inversely proportional to the use intensity allowed in any one 

 area, a notion he refers to as "risk zoning." By focusing on the risk of rejection, 

 such a system requires the user to weigh the probability of rejection against the 

 benefits of his desired experience, thus eliminating the efficiency problem normally 

 associated with a lottery. 



There is also a problem with "leadtime," or the timespan between an applicant 

 receiving notice of having "won" the lottery and the date of his scheduled visit. A 

 short leadtime discriminates against those visitors requiring long planning horizons 

 and makes it difficult to arrange for alternative activities. But a long leadtime is 

 hard on the spontaneous user. 



In most wildernesses, crowding occurs only at certain times or at certain places. 

 For instance, during a recent use season, the Desolation Wilderness in California 

 recorded its highest use on August 8, when nearly 3,000 people were in the area. That 



2 Lucas, Robert C. 1970. Preliminary tabulations--1970 survey of visitors to 

 seven wilderness and related areas in Montana. Unpubl . rep., USDA For. Serv . , Intermt. 

 For. and Range Exp. Stn. , Missoula, Mont. 



7 



