Beyond the comparatively simple popular demands on natural areas, such as providing a campground or a spot by a stream or a lake for a picnic, there is another which presents a different and more difficult problem. This is the demand for large and, to varying degrees, uncrowded pieces of country where a person can "stretch his spirit." In this country, unlike some others, the real or implied "No Trespassing" signs that surround every piece of private property constitute a very real barrier to the wanderer who desires the freedom to walk over and to feel that he is a part of a larger area that extends beyond where he happens to be at the moment. Yet there are some who would be willing to pay substantial sums of money for the privilege of walking over lands that give the impression of being limitless.
Is it possible for the private market to satisfy these demands? Learning by experience in the eastern part of the United States, it is not. In the West the problem has not yet arisen because there are still large tracts in the hands of the federal government to which people with this particular taste can go. If their quality of sheer size should be destroyed—perhaps by the intrusion of highways or other accouterments of civilization—it is not likely that private enterprise would be able to assemble comparably large areas to which nature lovers would have access.
A problem analogous to that of wilderness is presented by shorelines. Less than two percent of the total ocean shorelines of the contiguous states is in public ownership for recreation. It is true that access is possible on a considerable part of the privately owned shorelines and that there is a well-developed market for beach activities, but there is a component of demand for undeveloped shoreline similar to that for wilderness, and this is not at all likely to be satisfied by the offerings of private enterprise.
The demand for wilderness areas and for long, untouched shorelines is a demand to be free from the pressures and constraints of development. If these demands are to be satisfied under public auspices, an estimate of their strength must be made to set against the sacrifice of revenues the areas could earn if they were used in other ways. If in some manner it was discovered that the devotees of wild areas and untouched shoreline were willing to pay a sum of money at least this large, total real national product would be increased by leaving the areas wild and untouched. But even if ways could be found to organize the payment of such a sum, the further question would arise as to whether the payments should, in fact, be exacted.
It is important to note that there may be not only one but two relevant tests of what a natural area is worth to these people. On the one hand, the question can be posed as it has been above: How much money would these people be willing to pay in order to secure the services of this type of area? On the other hand, the question could be asked in this way: How much would these people have to be paid, in the event the services of the area were taken from them, in order to make them feel that they were as well off as they were before its loss? If, in such circumstances, the services of the area constituted a large part of their real income, it is quite likely that the amount of money these people would have to be paid would be larger than the sum they would be willing to pay in order to secure the services of the area.
To take an extreme case, consider a person who has only a subsistence income, but who is able for many months of each year to enjoy the campsites, streams, and trails of a wilderness area or a park. If payment for these services were required, such a person would be able to pay very little. If, on the other hand, he were to be deprived of these services and be compensated fully—to the extent that he would regard himself as well off as he was before—the compensation required might well be larger than his actual money income.
The demand for natural areas runs the gamut from wilderness areas and national parks to spots for picnics or places where one can walk for a few minutes in the evening. The goal of private and public action should be to satisfy all of these demands so as to get the largest excess of benefit over costs. This goal cannot be achieved or even approached if only that type of service is provided which is demanded by most of the customers. This makes no more sense—and as bad sense—as supplying houses in one design regardless of variations in taste. Unfortunately, there seems to be a tendency for governmental agencies to cater to the most numerous group in their particular constituency and to neglect the demands of others. This tendency needs to be resisted, as indeed it is by good administrators.
Adapted from Quality of the Environment by Orris C. Herfindahl and Allen V. Kneese.
A version of this article appeared in print in the September 1965 issue of Resources magazine.
