After World War II, the rate of increase in visits to federal recreation areas began to decrease, until by the 1970s and 1980s it had slowed dramatically as more Americans availed themselves of local and private outdoor recreation facilities. Congress must now consider the role the federal government should play in providing and funding future outdoor recreational opportunities.
The first observance of Earth Day evoked great popular support for environmental measures. To a large degree, this new environmental movement reinforced, and was reinforced by, a continued increase in outdoor recreational activity in the United States. In the twenty years since the first Earth Day, however, this increase has slowed. In particular, the rate of increase in visits to national parks and other federal recreation areas has diminished in comparison to that of the decades before 1970. This and other trends in outdoor recreation have prompted a reassessment of recreation demand and supply and of the federal government's role in providing future outdoor recreational opportunities.
Over the last twenty years, researchers have observed several fundamental changes in patterns of outdoor recreation. These include a slowdown in the increase of visits to federal and state recreation areas and a more rapid rate of growth in the use of private outdoor recreation areas and facilities.
With respect to attendance at federal recreation sites, visits to national parks increased only 2.5 percent during the 1970s as compared to 5.4 percent in the 1960s, and increased only 2 percent between 1981 and 1986. The rate of increase was much larger at the more accessible national recreation areas, which tend to be located near urban areas, but it was still much lower in the 1970s than the preceding decade—only 5.7 percent as compared to 9.6 percent. The rate of increase in visits to state parks has also slowed since 1970. Growth in visits dropped to 2.3 percent per year in the period from 1971 to 1981, as compared to 6.3 percent between 1961 and 1971.
One explanation for the slowdown is that Americans, as a whole, have reached the limit of their use of the outdoor recreational opportunities provided by the federal and state systems. For a long time park managers and recreation specialists believed that use of such areas would continue to grow more or less at past rates. It now appears that the old assumption of continued growth is wrong and that further increases in per capita attendance at federal recreational areas will be small.
By contrast, there appears to be a greater rate of increase in the use of private outdoor recreation areas and facilities. Data on activities at these sites are usually poor or nonexistent. However, the data that are available on snow skiing, golf, tennis, and other sports suggest that use of private recreational facilities and areas has grown since 1970, although, as in the public sector, the rate of growth overall may have slowed compared to the 1945–1970 period.
Several factors may account for these changes in the use of recreational facilities. The first is a sharp decrease in leisure time. A survey of leisure activity conducted in 1984 revealed that between 1973 and 1984 average leisure time declined from 26 to 18 hours per week. While this change was not accompanied by a decline in reported outdoor recreation activities, there was an apparent shift to recreation close to home and to visits of shorter duration at federal recreation sites. This shift in recreational activity was probably the result of demographic changes, the most important of which have been the rapid aging of the U.S. population and the growth of participation in the labor force by women since 1965. The latter may account for a major portion of the decline in reported leisure. A second factor affecting recreational activity has been the rise in interest and participation in physical fitness activities such as jogging and bicycling that are generally engaged in close to home. They require neither specialized recreation facilities nor large unimproved land areas such as those characteristic of federal recreation sites.
The issue of who should fund outdoor recreation is a thorny one.
The increase in participation in physical fitness and decrease in leisure time have affected preferences for recreation sites. The Forest Service's Southeast Experiment Station has recently estimated that use of federal sites accounts for only about 13 percent of total leisure-time activity, while use of local recreation facilities accounts for more than 50 percent. Use of state and privately owned lands accounts for the remainder.
Recreation planning
The federal government's role in providing and funding recreational opportunities has been the major issue in recreation planning since 1958, when the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) was established. One of the commission's major concerns was the apparent lack of a coherent federal policy regarding outdoor recreation. It observed in a 1962 report that numerous federal agencies provided recreational opportunities as an incidental matter, but not as part of their primary, or even official, responsibilities. It therefore stressed the need for greater federal efforts in providing these opportunities.
The commission led directly to the establishment of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in 1963. The bureau was directed to prepare a comprehensive nationwide outdoor recreation plan within five years—a plan that would be revised and updated every five years thereafter. The initial plan, drafted two years behind schedule, was never released by the White House or transmitted officially to Congress. The attempted suppression of the report was probably due to its recommendation that the federal government play a far larger and more expensive role in providing recreational opportunities than many thought appropriate. Eventually issued by a Senate committee in 1974 as "The Recreation Imperative," the report stressed federal activity in providing local outdoor recreation.
A revised and toned-down report had already been prepared by the Department of the Interior and transmitted to Congress in December 1973. "Outdoor Recreation: A Legacy for America," which constituted the second nationwide recreation plan, did not deviate greatly from the first except for a reduced emphasis on the role of the federal government.
In 1979 the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, the successor to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, submitted the "Third Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan." Based on two comprehensive surveys, one on outdoor recreation participation nationally and the other on urban outdoor recreation, this plan differed from the previous two in that it sought broad public participation both in identifying preliminary issues and in shaping recommendations for decisions.
Each of the three reports considered recreation demand based on population and economic factors and on rates of participation in recreational activities by defined segments of the population. Each considered land and water areas available for outdoor recreation. And each discussed the role of government at various levels—especially the third plan, which called for better data and more research to determine what that role should be. However, none of the reports mention the slowdown in the increase of visits to federal recreation sites, a trend that had become quite noticeable by 1979. In addition, they all carefully skirt the most difficult policy issue: Who is going to pay the bill?
When the Reagan administration assumed office in 1981, it began to cut back substantially on federal funds for outdoor recreation. Payments were still made into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, out of which money was made available to federal agencies to purchase land or make improvements in it, but appropriations from the fund greatly lagged. Funds for the acquisition of private holdings in national parks and other federal areas were also cut back. At the same time, the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service was abolished and its functions transferred to the National Park Service. Funds and personnel for the Park Service were also cut back. In short, the federal presence in outdoor recreation was downgraded.
In light of this situation, several conservation and recreation leaders recommended that Congress authorize a new commission to reconsider and update the 1962 report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. The President's Commission on Americans Outdoors was appointed by executive order in 1987. Its report placed more emphasis on private recreational areas than earlier reports had. The commission acknowledged declining growth in the use of federal recreation areas but did not accord that decline prominent attention. In fact, its report rejected the idea that pressure on recreation resources was easing. Instead it noted the increasing interest in outdoor recreational opportunities close to home, where available resources and facilities were perceived as already crowded.
A presidential commission recommended dedicating revenues from recreation user fees to recreation uses.
Funding debate
As for funding to increase local recreational opportunities, the president's commission recommended greater reliance on recreation participants through the implementation of higher entry fees and equipment taxes. This would amount to an important shift in the funding of public outdoor recreation, which had typically involved substantial payments out of general public revenues. In 1982, per capita recreation expenditures by the federal government were about equal to those by the state governments combined. Together these expenditures were less than half the amount spent by county and city governments. User charges raised about a quarter of the operating costs for state parks and recreation areas and about a sixth for local areas, but much less for federal areas. Park managers have lacked interest in charging entry fees since those collected are not earmarked for recreation but go into the general fund. However, the commission was emphatic that revenues from such fees should be dedicated to recreation uses.
Recreation specialists once believed that attendance at federal recreation areas like the Shenandoah National Park would continue to grow steadily
The commission also recognized the importance of private providers of recreational opportunities and recommended the investigation of more effective incentives for private recreation supply. It sought special attention to the problem of increased liability of landowners, which was regarded as a barrier to greater use of private land for recreation.
The commission entered a highly controversial arena in its recommendation of an annual federal appropriation of $1 billion or more and the creation of an outdoor recreation trust fund into which money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and from other federal appropriations would flow. Federal agencies could make expenditures from the trust fund without going through the appropriation process. These funds would then be made available to local and state agencies, perhaps on a matching basis, for expansion of recreation facilities locally. The commission and supporters of these provisions were anxious to establish a reliable and dependable source of annual funds by sidestepping the control of both Congress and the Office of Management and Budget.
It is precisely this freedom from control which leads many, inside and outside Congress, to oppose strongly the creation of such a fund. Increased appropriations in this time of budget stringency are also hard to secure. Bills to implement the commission's recommendations were introduced but have yet to be approved in Congress. Nevertheless, many organizations interested in outdoor recreation strongly endorse the commission's recommendation that an outdoor recreation trust fund be created. They scarcely mention the major role of local government emphasized by the commission.
After reviewing the report of the president's commission, the White House Domestic Policy Council assembled a task force of officials from federal agencies concerned with recreation, which took a more analytical approach than did the commission. Whereas the president's commission, in its report, conveyed a sense of urgency and concern about deteriorating federal efforts for outdoor recreation, the task force report was congratulatory, taking great pride in what it viewed as the superior accomplishments of the Reagan administration. This substantial difference in tone perhaps obscured the extent to which the two studies reached similar conclusions. In view of the slowing growth in use of federal facilities, the task force considered the main federal issue to be the improvement of coordination among federal agencies. It strongly favored greater reliance on user fees at federal recreation sites. Such fees were promoted as rationing devices, revenue raisers, and a means of encouraging the private provision of recreational opportunities by eliminating unfair competition.
Like the president's commission, the task force placed special emphasis on the importance of local organizations and supported the commission's recommendations for the encouragement of local and private provision of recreational opportunities. However, in keeping with the political philosophy of the Reagan administration, there is no mention in the task force report of either the $1 billion annual appropriation or the trust fund.
Future use and management issues
The recent fundamental changes in patterns of recreation use have prompted a reevaluation of important recreation policy questions such as who is to provide recreational opportunities, who should pay, and in particular what the federal government's role should be. Today local governments remain the most important providers of recreational opportunities in the United States, as measured by visits. It is estimated that more than half of all recreation use takes place at local recreation sites, which mainly support user-based recreation activities such as athletic competitions that do not depend on particular site attributes. By contrast, the federal government remains the most important provider of resource-based recreational opportunities, offering sites that are unique for their natural wonder or historical significance. State recreation sites typically fall somewhere between user- and resource-based recreation. Recreational opportunities provided by the private sector can run the gamut from user- to resource-based.
While continuing to provide outdoor recreation, the federal government is unlikely to add to its recreation estate.
There is a certain economic rationale to the federal provision of resource-based recreation. While there remain numerous federal recreational areas that are scarcely distinguishable in their function and attractiveness from state or local sites, most observers agree that the federal government's role in outdoor recreation should be limited to those sites of national interest in the national park system and to the more important wilderness areas. Both the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors and the Domestic Policy Council's task force advocate decentralization of responsibility in the provision of recreation. If the growth in recreation demand is now primarily local, as recent trends suggest, then the best way to meet the demand is through local providers—that is, local governments and private landowners.
One special aspect of the growing interest in decentralization is the effect government actions have on private suppliers of outdoor recreation. Many people agree that it would be desirable for private citizens and organizations to play a greater role in supplying outdoor recreational opportunities. With this in mind, some states have passed laws relieving private property owners of legal liability to recreation users if no fee is charged. Yet such laws may remove financial incentives for resource owners to provide or allow outdoor recreation on their properties. Moreover, the fact that low or no entrance fees are charged for the use of public areas and public facilities makes it difficult for those private parties, who are trying to make a profit from the provision of outdoor recreational opportunities, to compete.
On the other hand, some states provide subsidies to private landowners to preserve wildlife habitats or to allow recreational uses. However, even in those instances in which the subsidies appear successful it is often difficult to determine whether landowners engage in the desired behavior because of the subsidy or whether they would have taken the action regardless of the subsidy.
No one doubts that the federal government will continue to play a major role in the provision of outdoor recreational opportunities, although major additions to the federal recreation estate are unlikely. A thornier issue is the provision of local recreational opportunities. While there is substantial agreement among interested parties that future additions to recreational capacity will generally be locally owned and operated, that does not necessarily mean that they will be locally financed. The Bush administration is likely to encourage local financing of local recreation, reserving federal funds for making improvements to existing federal sites. But some worry that even these funds might be cut as they were in the Reagan days. User fees at federal recreation sites might replace appropriations not forthcoming from the federal government. However, until such fees are dedicated to recreation uses at the places from which they originated, they are of little value in guaranteeing that future funding will be available where most needed.
Formerly the director of the Bureau of Land Management, Marion Clawson joined RFF in 1955 as director of land-use and management studies. He was later director of land and water studies, acting president, vice president, and consultant at RFF. He became a senior fellow emeritus in the Energy and Natural Resources Division in 1981.
A version of this article appeared in print in the May 1990 issue of Resources magazine.
