求英译汉,不要直译!The term of public facilities is a vague and elast

求英译汉,不要直译!
The term of public facilities is a vague and elastic one .It is also one that is not specifically used in many countries ,or if it is used ,then only in ways that are not necessarily the subject material of this volume.
Here we are essentially concerned with public access facilities that are sense they inclde things like parks,waterfronts,and wildlife areas where the general public have access.But here they are seen as embracing a rather larger range of facilities such as sports arenas,zoos,theatres,art galleries,museums,and similar facilities where entry payments are ofen made for access.They may also include public hospitals and public schools that play a significant role in the welfare of a community.Strictly one could extend the definition to include defense and national security,although we do not go that far here.
In some cases in the past public facilities were confused whit the economic notion of ‘public goods’.There may be a few instances where this may be so; defense and certain forms of public health are possible examples although some would dispute even these.Since the seminal work of Coase,however ,it has been recognized that in practice,although facilities may be provided by local or central government,these goods and services seldom exhibit the strict economic features of a public good；they are lagerly neither non-rival （for example,public parks get congested and fire-services can easily be over-extended）,nor are they non-excludable （whilst it is easy to stop people getting into a public park,fire services in the past were regularly only provided to those who paid the companies fees）.It is more a public perception that goods or services provided by a public agency are inevitably public goods,but in practice most of these goods and services deviate considerably from any technical notion of a public good.
The funding of many public facilities also often militates against the public goods view.The institutional structure under which public facilities are provided varies enormly between countries,and often between sub-jurusdictions （for example,cities or states） within countries.
In some cases museums have free entry and the publicly provided,while in others there is payment even if they are public enterprises,although often only on a part cost recovery basis.
不要软件直译，或者在线翻译的那种！

The term of public facilities is a vague and elastic one .It is also one that is not specifically used in many countries ,or if it is used ,then only in ways that are not necessarily the subject material of this volume.
公共设施是一个模糊与弹性的术语；它也不被特别用于许多国家,或者如被使用,也只能是属于本文主题以外的方面.
Here we are essentially concerned with public access facilities that are sense they include things like parks,waterfronts,and wildlife areas where the general public have access.But here they are seen as embracing a rather larger range of facilities such as sports arenas,zoos,theatres,art galleries,museums,and similar facilities where entry payments are ofen made for access.They may also include public hospitals and public schools that play a significant role in the welfare of a community.Strictly one could extend the definition to include defense and national security,although we do not go that far here.
我们在这探讨的是关于有景色的公共使用设施,这些一般公众可以去的地方,包括像公园、滨水区及野生动物区.然而,它们却被涵盖于更大范围的公共设施,如体育场、动物园、剧院、美术馆、博物馆及其他通常公众都需要买票才能入场的类似设施.它们可能还包括在社会福利中扮演重要角色的政府医院及公立学校.再严格一点,甚至可以将定义延伸到国防及国家安全,不过我们在此不扯得这么远.
In some cases in the past,public facilities were confused whit the economic notion of ‘public goods’.There may be a few instances where this may be so; defense and certain forms of public health are possible examples although some would dispute even these.Since the seminal work of Coase,however ,it has been recognized that in practice,although facilities may be provided by local or central government,these goods and services seldom exhibit the strict economic features of a public good；they are lagerly neither non-rival （for example,public parks get congested and fire-services can easily be over-extended）,nor are they non-excludable （whilst it is easy to stop people getting into a public park,fire services in the past were regularly only provided to those who paid the companies fees）.It is more a public perception that goods or services provided by a public agency are inevitably public goods,but in practice most of these goods and services deviate considerably from any technical notion of a public good.
在过去,有时公共设施与‘公共物品’的经济观念被混淆了；将两者认为是一样的观念在几个例子中可能是对的,如国防及某些形式的公共医疗,虽然连这些也有人会提出异议.不过,自从科斯的巨大影响著作面世后,已被公认的是,虽然设施是由地方或中央政府所提供,但在实践中,这些物品与服务很少显示一个公共物品严格的经济特点；它们多数不是非竞争性的（比如,公园的拥挤和消防服务的过度扩展）,也不是非排他性的（阻止公众进入公园不难,同时,过去的消防服务时常只为缴费者提供服务）.由公共机构提供的物品或服务必然就是公共物品,这只是一种公众意识,实际上,这些物品及服务与公共物品的任何技术概念差之甚远.
The funding of many public facilities also often militates against the public goods view.The institutional structure under which public facilities are provided varies enormly between countries,and often between sub-jurusdictions （for example,cities or states） within countries.
In some cases museums have free entry and the publicly provided,while in others there is payment even if they are public enterprises,although often only on a part cost recovery basis.
对许多公共设施投放的资金也对公共物品的观念产生不利的影响.国与国之间所提供公共设施的体制结构差距很大,而国家内的管辖分区（如市或州）通常也是一样有差别.
有些博物馆是免费对公众开放,而也有些属于公营企业的却要收费,虽然通常只是按部分成本价收取.
注：对公共物品的界定标准不是它的非排他性(non-exclusive),而是它的非竞争性(non-rival).对这个概念的混淆有可能会影响我们对公共物品属性作用的看法.
按照上面这种标准的划分,我们可以区分四种类型的商品：
1,exclusive,rival：大部分的私人产品－－房子,汽车,面包和私人书籍,等等.
2,non-exclusive,rival:权利难以清晰界定,没有（很少）外部性的产品－－公海里的鱼,北极冰层下面的石油.
3,exclusive,non-rival：可以界定权利,但有外部性的产品－－私人住宅小区内的绿地,游泳池和有线电视频道.
4,non-exclusive,non-rival:无法界定权利,有外部性的产品－－清洁的空气,国防安全和法治环境.