The Distribution of Income Among Wilderness Users

Abstract

Increasing use pressures on the nation's wilderness areas must be tempered if continuing increases in congestion and environmental deterioration are to be avoided. Adoption of rationing schemes designed to restrict the intensity of wilderness use is likely to become widespread in the future. One such scheme, the imposition of a wilderness use fee, is often attacked as a measure discriminating against the relatively poor. Using a survey sampling technique, data were gathered at randomly selected wilderness areas in California. These data indicate that, with one unusual exception, persons with incomes in excess of $12,000 are predominant among wilderness users. With the exception of students, who appear to have understated their incomes, a disproportionately small group of low income people utilize wilderness areas. High income people represent a disproportionately large group of wilderness users. The subsidy inherent in federal assumption of costs to mitigate congestion and environmental deterioration will benefit proportionally few low income people. Such a subsidy is not likely to be an effective means of economically upgrading low income people. While care must be exercised in applying these data to wilderness areas in other regions or to those who recreate in wilderness areas during the fall or winter, it is concluded that imposition of wilderness use fees would not tend to discriminate against the poor.