Search results

The results of the vast array of willingness to accept compensation/ willingness to pay (WTA/WTP) disparity studies provide strong evidence that people value many losses and reductions of losses, more, and often much more, than otherwise commensurate gains or foregoing of gains. These findings also make it clear that people commonly value many changes not as final states as standard theory assumes, but as positive or negative changes relative to a neutral reference state. Consequently, not only are losses to be most accurately assessed with the WTA measure, but most positive changes that reduce losses are as well. Current practice, which rarely takes such reference dependence into account, is therefore likely to substantially understate the value and importance of projects, policies, and programs that reduce losses. Failing to take the possibilities of valuation disparities into account also appears to undermine other kinds of analyses as well, including, for example, the estimation of elasticities and setting effective levels of Pigouvian taxes.

Outdoor recreation economics is an area similar to numerous other study areas in the general field of eco nomics. Economists working in this area are concerned with the efficiency of the allocation of resources between outdoor recreation facilities and programs, on the one hand, and goods and services, generally, on the other—and, within the area of outdoor recreation, with the efficiency of the resultant mix of facilities and programs. Concomitantly, they become in volved with the question of "distributive justice," namely, the distribution of recreational opportunities among the vari ous segments of the population. In this paper, we distinguish roughly between resource-oriented outdoor recreation, on the one hand, and population- or market-oriented outdoor recrea tion on the other. In the former, we find a predominantly middle- or upper-middle-income clientele and an economic en vironment which favors application of the analytical, manage ment, and policy tools of "efficiency economics." In the latter, we find concentrations of the impoverished among ghetto residents, and the question of equitable distribution of recrea tional facilities and programs becomes equally as important as the efficiency with which they are provided.

It is observed that the essential concerns in the econ's of outdoor recreation differ little from those of econ concerns generally. Econ'ts working in this area face the problem of the efficiency of allocation of resources between outdoor recreation facilities & programs on the one hand, & goods & services in general on the other. The pricing system fails to function as a resource-allocator in recreation services. However, the use of fees as a means of rationing scarce resources & as manag tools to redistribute the load among all facilities more appropriately is considered necessary. The question of 'distributive' justice is discussed, ie, the distribution of recreational opportunities among the various segments of the pop. It is in this area that the creative integration of the contributions of econ'ts, soc psychol'ts & sociol'ts is needed in order to introduce the concept of consumer preferences meaningfully into the planning of recreational facilities & programs. While the provision of recreational facilities may be viewed primarily as a local public responsibility, the serious question of local fiscal capability & of state & federal responsibility must be raised. A policy of incentives & restraints might be created which would present more efficient & equitable provisions for recreational services. There is great need for careful stock-taking. Modified HA.