Introduction The articles contained in the 3rd Quarter 1999 companion theme issues of the Journal of Park and Recreation Administration and the Journal of Leisure Research represent hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment by our society in developing and sharing knowledge to contribute to public recreation fee policy. These articles represent the best research available on the topic at this point in time. Through literature reviews and creative efforts, these authors have built well upon the limited research available previously. There are some minor inconsistencies in findings, but for the most part, the articles are very complementary, increasing our understanding of response to fees in a greater variety of recreation contexts and with a greater variety, of public segments. All authors and their sponsoring institutions are to be commended for responding to the immediate need for knowledge on this important topic. The purpose of this final article is not merely to summarize the findings of each article or to point out inconsistencies or agreement. Rather, we now have the ability to stop and think about the usefulness of the information contained in these two special issues, and use the information gathered here to guide us in future research and application of that research. It is neither a simple task nor one beyond controversy. The most controversial issue was evident in comments by many reviewers and within several articles. There has been a pervasive impulse to depend upon a strictly economic paradigm to answer public lands fee and pricing questions though there are huge social science issues of equity, public trust, government subsidies for public goods, and fair pricing that extend beyond traditional economic models. For that reason, an invitation was extended to Gamini Herath to spend four months in residence at the Leopold Institute, on sabbatical from the Business Department of LaTrobe University in Victoria (Australia), to contribute to this final analysis. Herath (an economist) and Watson (a social scientist) reviewed all papers submitted, all review comments, and all author responses. In some cases, we learned as much from papers that were rejected or ideas that were not accepted by reviewers of accepted papers as we learned from the final papers themselves. Our approach has been to summarize our response to this intellectual exercise of submittal, review and publication of these papers into a set of high priority research and application questions. While this is not an exhaustive list of research issues, these questions should be addressed before final decisions are made about the future of fees and pricing approaches in the public sector. 1. How can recreation fee research methodology address the controversial tradeoffs between considering fees from the public or collective perspective versus a purely consumer point of view? Today, there is a call for government to be more like private business in the way it describes and meets public needs. Public recreation agencies at all levels are responding with slogans and policies that place the recreation visitor in the light of a valued customer. It sometimes seems that pricing approaches which are based purely upon marginal demand curves may be taking this ideal too far. Trainor and Norgaard (JPRA) reference Schroeder's (1995) differentiation between a community metaphor and a customer metaphor in describing values associated with public land. Is use of public lands simply an act of individual utility maximization, as economic theory describes, or an activity in which one interacts with the land in a way that creates a relationship with the land to the benefit of the land, society, and the individual? An answer to that question will lead us closer to decisions about appropriate pricing methods. Additional conceptual reasoning is needed to help us all understand the original function of public lands and how subsequent legislation, policy actions and societal changes may have influenced this function. …
Read full abstract
Jun 1, 2016
Mark Rodgers + 3
Open Access
