FEA TU RE
Editorial Perspectives Sustainable Financing of Parks and Protected Areas— Are User Fees the Answer? By Alan E. Watson, Executive Editor (Science and Research)
A
ROUND THE WORLD we are all struggling to retain some wildness in our landscapes through legislation, responsible stewardship, and education of visitors and the public about wilderness values. These efforts could be in vain if we do not also strive to ensure a sustainable source to finance the continuing processes of education, restoration, monitoring, scientific investigation, and visitor services required to realize the benefits of protected places. Over the past 30 years an abundance of energy has been focused on “protection” of wilderness through the creation of national protected area systems in several countries, rallying support to protect more of the Earth’s surface, training of managers to make decisions which comply with the wilderness ideal, and development of “Leave No Trace” and other wilderness education programs. The work has just begun. How do we assure the sustainability of these places, the continuation of protection, and realization of benefits from an increasingly scarce resource? In several countries, there is rapid movement toward testing and use of recreation fees as a substitute or supplement for the ever unstable, politically susceptible, allocation of federal tax dollars. The International Journal of Wilderness invites papers from scientists and managers, nongovernmental and membership organizations, students, and private wilderness interests that offer different perspectives on the promises and perils involved with charging people who enter wilderness a daily or trip fee to participate in that experience. We also are interested in papers that thoughtfully describe alternative solutions to financial sustainability issues. It is clear that not all societies, or all members of all societies, are equally served by wilderness fee programs. In IJW volume 4, number 1, Jonathan Barnes provides an excellent contrast between local-use values and international nonuse values, and the importance of capturing some portion of these values as income by local, rural communities
in Namibia in order to accomplish the intent of wilderness allocation. Universal application of fees in this instance would be inappropriate as a method of sustainable financing. On the other hand, in the United States, many reports suggest that a slight majority of wilderness visitors who pay newly required camping fees feel that paying a fee is okay, and the established level (usually about $5 to $10 per night) is “about right.” We also know many people oppose the fees and we are constantly developing greater understanding of the basis for this opposition. How do we weigh this opposition and the negative effects a fee policy has on a segment of our society Article author and IJW Executive Editor against the attraction of alternative Alan E. Watson with his son Jubal. sources of funding for the basic job of providing recreational services to visitors and restoring sites impacted from increasing levels of public use? These are some of the most important political, philosophical, and personal questions we are going to have to answer in the next few years. Look beyond wilderness allocation. Look beyond this years political positioning on budget issues. Think about the appropriate method of providing sustainable financial support to ensure an enduring wilderness resource. We would welcome papers and comments on these topics. (For conceptual, research, monitoring, and case study papers on recreation access fees, see “Societal Response to Recreation Fees on Public Lands” at www.fs.fed.us/research/rvur/ wilderness/recreation_fees.htm.) IJW
THE IN TERNA TI ONAL J OU RNAL OF WILDERNESS Volume 4, Number 3
5