Rationing by Advance Reservation 



The capacity of a wilderness could be allocated by requiring potential visitors to 

 request, or reserve, an opening in advance. Such a system would operate fairly simply, 

 at least in theory. For example, a calculated daily capacity (say, 100 people at one 

 time [PAOT]) would be distributed to that number of visitors, probably on a first-come, 

 first-served basis. Once that capacity was filled, further requests would either be 

 placed on a waiting list (another way of rationing, as we shall discuss shortly), offered 

 an alternative time period, or returned to the applicant. 



The advance reservation system is an advantage to persons who work and live orderly 

 lives. Requesting a specific time implies an ability to foresee obligations and oppor- 

 tunities. It also calls for a certain psychological disposition towards predictable 

 behavior. Thus, a request system tends to discriminate against those who are unable or 

 unwilling to make long-term commitments--the spur-of-the-moment, impromptu sorts of 

 people . 



Our knowledge of wilderness users tells us that this system will create problems. In 

 a recent, yet unpublished study of rationing in the San Gorgonio and San Jacinto Wilder- 

 nesses in southern California, less than 20 percent of applicants planned trips more than 

 1 month ahead of time. 1 Spontaneity and relatively short planning horizons seem to 

 characterize many wilderness trips. 



Among wilderness users, two major subgroups are those employed in professional- 

 technical occupations and students. In many areas, these two groups often comprise 

 over one-half the users. Unforeseen demands on persons in professional occupations 

 often keep them from obligating future time. Students, although they have relatively 

 abundant leisure time, often operate in a fairly unstructured style. Moreover, the 

 degree of certainty about future events for both these groups is probably low. As a 

 result, the request system could discriminate fairly heavily against these two major 

 users of wilderness. 



Where free of charge, people make reservations even if there is a low probability 

 that they will ever, in fact, use their privilege. In effect, the reservation is free 

 insurance of the opportunity to go. For example, in 1973 the Inyo National Forest, 

 California, rationed use on the Mt. Whitney trail to a maximum of 75 parties per day. 

 Forest officials estimate that approximately one-half of the reservations resulted in 

 "no shows." People also make multiple reservations to maintain the broadest options 

 until a decision has to be made. Unless no-shows can be allocated, the area will often 

 be underutilized even at times when demand for entry is very high. 



Rationing by request also does not discriminate among users on the basis of the 

 relative importance of the wilderness experience; a phenomenon called "suboptimization . " 

 For example, a wilderness buff who gains great satisfaction from wilderness could be 

 denied entry by a casual, relatively disinterested visitor whose request happened to 

 be postmarked earlier. The enthusiast might have few alternatives, while the other 

 person might have many. The relative worth of the experience would have little bearing 

 on chances for getting a reservation. Obviously, a perfectly functioning system for 

 marketing reservations would substantially reduce this source of inefficiency. 



1 Stankey, George H. [n.d.] Rationing wilderness use: visitor evaluation of use 

 control in the San Gorgonio and San Jacinto Wildernesses, California. Unpubl. rep., 

 USDA For. Serv. , Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Stn. , Missoula, Mont. 



6 



