A functionalist approach to user fees

Few recreation issues are more controversial than imposing fees for access to public lands. Fee proponents argue that user fees: (a) promote equity by charging users directly; (b) increase economic efficiency; and (c) generate needed revenue. However, the argument from equity ignores the existence of nonuse values and fails to consider the effect of fees on people at the margin, particularly the working class. The efficiency argument relies on questionable assumptions about value and willingness to pay and weights public policy toward the preferences of the affluent. The argument from revenue generation tends to advance agency interests that may not be perceived as being consistent with the interests of the general public. As an alternative, I propose a functionalist perspective that focuses on the purposes associated with public-sector management of parks and recreation. Public parks, facilities, and programs must serve public objectives. It is these objectives that determine the appropriateness of user fees, a point that has been largely lost in the discussions of the mechanics of setting fees.