Introduction: Recreation, Parks and Society€¦ · Once Again.Why Public Parks? Robert Manning...

Once Again. Why Public Parks?

Robert ManningThomas More

Introduction: Recreation, Parks and Societymay be a temptation to think of recreation as trivial, even

frivolous, most of us know better. As paradoxical as it might seem,recreation is a serious matter. The importance of recreation mani-fests itself in a number of ways. Perhaps dle most obvious to read-

ers of The George Wright Forum is dle philosophical and legal foundation of U.S.national parks as laid down in the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916.While national parks are clearly to be conserved, dley are also to "provide for dleerYoyment" of the people. This two-fold missi~n is at the heart of most publicparks and related areas. Thus, recreation, in a variety of fonns, is vital, even inte-

gral, to parks.The etymology of dle word "recre- ning and management. And there are

ation" is also suggestive of the impor- professional organizations devoted totance of its role in society. Rooted in recreation, such as dle Nationalthe Latin "recreatio" and "recreare," Recreation and Park Association. A"recreation" means, r~ectively, "to widely accepted definition in dle pro-refresh" and "to restore" (Edginton et fessional literature states that" recre-al. 2002). Given the increasing pace ation is "an activity that is engaged [in]and stress of contemporary society, it during one's free time, is pleasurable,seems likely that recreation will con- and which has socially redeemingtinue to grow in importance, and that qualities" (Kraus 1990). Thus, recre-parks will likewise escalate in impor- ation is widely seen as having value attance for dleir role in providing public the level of both dle individual and

recreation. society.The social importance of recre- This view has suggested that recre-

ation is further reflected in the profes- ation nught best be understood andsional activity and literature that has appreciated not necessarily as dlegrown up around it. There is a activities in which people engage, butreceived history of the "recreation - as the re;iiaonsthatmoti\'ate-ir-and themovement" in the U.S., a social move- benefits that it produces (Haas et al.ment designed to provide the benefits 1980; Driver et at. 1987; Driver 1990;of recreation to all Americans. Driver 1996). For example, researchStudents can now earn degrees in suggests that people engage in recre-recreation, parks, and rdated fields at ation to satisfy a variety of motivations,over 50 colleges and universities. such as appreciating nature, learningThere are public- and private-sector about culture and history, and enhanc-jobs and careers in recreation plan- ing family togetherness (Brown and

. "

212002Volume 19 . Number 2

Once Again, Why Public Parks?

Haaa 1980). Moreover, participationin recreation might produce a numberof benefits to individuals (e.g.,advances in physical and mentalhealth, personal growth and develop-ment), society (e.g., strengiliened fam-ily relationships, enhanced communi-ty pride, reduction of social deviance),the economy (e.g., increased produc-tivity, reduced health costs), and theenvironment (e.g., reduced pollution,protection of endangered species)(Driver 1990; Driver 1996; Stein andLee 1995; Allen 1996).

The Primacy ofRecreation In Parks

This special issue of The GeorgeWright F~m outlines a diverse rangeof values that public parks mightserve. How important is recreationamong dlese potential values? Thisquestion has received recent researchattention in a variety of park and pub-lic-land contexts (Manning andValliere 1996; Manning et aI. 1996;Negra and Manning 1997; Manning etaI. 1999; Minteer and Manning 2000;Morrissey and Manning 2000). Asmight be expected, human values havebeen die subject of considerable atten-tion across a variety of academic disci-plines (Rokeach 1973; Andrews andWaits 1980; Brown 1984; Bengston1994; ~ton et aI. 1995). Whileseveral dieoretical dimensions of valuehave been identified, die focus of tirisstudy is on preference-based held val-ues. "Held values" have been definedas "an enduring conception of diepreferable which influences choiceand action" (Brown 1984, 232). Thepreference-based component of thisconcept signifies that value is assigned

,through human preference as opposedto social obligation (e.g., societalnonns that suggest what peopleshould value) or physicalfbiologicalfunction (e.g., the ecological depend-ence of tree growth on soil nutrients).Recent commentary suggests thatpreference-based held values are theappropriate focus of park, forest, andthe public-land values research(Bengston 1994; Hetherington et al.1994). As used in this study, values arespecific notions that define "an endur-ing concept of the good" as applied to

parks.Several classifications of park and

related environmental values havebeen proposed in the literature(Rolston 1988; Rolston and Coufal1991; Manning 1989; Kellert 1985).Based on this literature, 11 potentialvalues of parks were identified asshown in Table 1. This set of potentialpark values was designed to be. ascomprehe~e as possible based onreview of the literature. (It is interest-ing to note the papers included in thisspecial issue of The George WrightF~m address nearly all of these val-ues.) These potential park values wereincorporated into a study of theVermont state parka. A representative.:ample ~f~7g visitors to 37 Vermontstate parks was administered a mail-back questionnaire in the summer of2001. .~ "-~ ~.~-

Two batteries of questionsaddressed potential park values. Thefirst asked respondents to rate theimportance of each potential value ''asa reason for having state parks." A six-point response scale was used thatranged from 1 ("extremely impor-tant") to 6 ("not at all important").

The George Wright FORUM22


Table 1. Values of state perks, Column key: 1 - "extremely," 2 - "very much," 3 - "moderately," 4 - "some-what," 5 - "slightly," 6 - "not at all," In "Mean Score" column, letters Indicate statistically significant dif-

ferences,

~Value (1) (I) w (6) Mean

~(5)

Recreation ("Stale parka are-~e. toenjoy outdoor reaeation

1Ctivitie.I~ l.~64.4 ~.$- 5.7 1.1 -"- 0~tJ)etlc("Stale parka are ~ tC.

enjoy die beauty of oaiWe ") l~29.5 6.660~! 2.4 1,1 0Educailo-n-(iiSia:iiparu-ue- places to

learn about naIure") 2.13C'1.8 'I.! 24.1 7.2 4.8 .4I Moral/Ethical ("'State parka are places -

to ~ our monI or etbicalobIipcion to respect and protect

plac:es dlat

ydlrougb

2-'8d19.7 ~SI,O '1.4 5.2 ...

2.~23.2 '6.9 2.1.9 10.£ ,.5 .7

~~tate parD are places toprotect die environment in order toiD8ure bwnan 1urYiva1") 2.4~33.6 25.5 18.5 11.3 ~ 5.0

Therapeu~tatc parbmPJacC8 tomaintain or regain one', hcaldl and

menralwel1-bcin&j 2.5SC28.% ~4 11.5 7.1 ~7-24.0Hlatorical/Cultunl ("State parka an

places that arc imponant to thehiscorv of thiI area'" 10.1 28.5 ~.,~ 17.9 ~.l 4.4 2.81

Saentific ("state parka are places toconduct scientific ImdieI on theoanaral environment") ~-'~16.0 18.7 ~~ 19.6 9.6 6.9

1n'iefiectua1 ("Sla~ par~jiCii"t;;go to think because civiliso.tioncannot intcrrul)(") ,,~17.8 19.6 22.2 ~ IU &.8

Spn~late parbatC placa ~dOICrtoCodorspiri&ualmattcn") ,...h15.8 20.0 ~49.9 1M 10-'---c-o. .. . ~ "-~~, .

addressed by odler papers included inthis special issue) is being increasinglyrecognized in society. Second, there isa hierarchy of values associated widlstate parb, and recreation is rated assignificantly more important thanother potential values. The secondbattery of questions asked visitors toallocate their willingness to pay to sup-

Findings are shown in Table 1.Two conclusions are evident fromthese data. First, nearly all potentialpark values appear to resonate withrespondents; ten of the deven poten-tial values received an average rating ofat least "moderately important," sug-gesting that the evolving diversity ofpark values included in thU study (and

Volume 19 . Number 2 2002 23


port the Vennont state park systemamong the potential park values.(Prior to this battery of questions,respondents had been asked to esti-mate their maximum willingness tocontribute to a fund to support thestate parks.) For this battery of ques-tions, the list of potential park valueswas reduced to ten to simplify burdenon respondents. Findings are shownin Table 2, and are similar to those inTable 1. However, using this questionfonnat, respondents discriminatedamong park values to a greater degree,and recreation emerged more stronglyas the single most important value ofthe state parks.

and reserves that can provide many ofthe same values. What differentiatespublic parks and makes them neces-sary? In a society that prides itself onmarket-based solutions to problems,we need to be clear about which ofthese values are publicly importantand why.

John Dewey (1954) argued that thepublic interest arises from the conse-quences of actions. When the conse-quences of an action or transaction areconfined to the individual( s) direcdyengaged in it, the action/transaction isessentially private. So, if two peoplehave a discussion or make anexchange, their action is private if

Table 2. Allocation of willingness to pay for state parks among park values.

Values---

Percentage of~~ess to Pay

RecreationAesEcolThe

ducationalultural

Sec

28.3~

13.9

13.5

8.1---7.37.27.26.34.24.1

Recreation and Public ParksThe spectrum of values described

above reflects the various purposes orfunctions that parks can serve withinour society. A further qualificationmust be applied, however: What doesit mean for something to be a "public"park? There are, after all, private parks

- ~ - -" ~'- '-'.-"'- ~ -

nobody else is affected. However, mosttransactions have consequences thatextend beyond the individual partici-pants to affect others, often in non-obvious ways. For example, we have abetter breakfast because of the princi-pally private transactions of farmers,grocers, and butchers all acting in

24 The George Wright FORUM


their own interests than we would ifwe were served in a philanthropicspirit. Such transactions are socialbecause they affect others beyond theimmediate participants. But Dewey iscareful not to conflate the social withthe public: "Many private acts areso~ their consequences contributeto the welfare of the community oraffect its status and prospects" (Dewey1954, 13). Rather, the dividing linebetween public and private comeswhen the indirect consequences ofactions are recognized as being soimportant as to require systematic reg-ulation to either enhance positive con-sequence! or control negative ones.Thus, the public sector is justified inacting when the market fails to pro-duce sufficient quantities of somethingpositive or when the negative effects ofmarket transactions must be mitigated.The public provision of parks is clear-ly an instance of the former.

So the reason that the public sectorintervenes is because private marketssometimes fail to produce enough ofsomething that we co~der valuable.We have public schools, publiclibraries, and public health clinicsbecause we believe that all childrenshould receive at least some educa-tion, that it 15 desirable to encouragethe distribution of books and othereducational material, and that low-income people should have access toat least a minimallevd of healthcare.Almost certainly these goals would notbe accomplished if we relied solely onprivate markets. In the past, publicparks and recreation have been cast inthe same mold (More 2002). Forexample, we have public playgroundsbecause the mothers of the play-

ground movement wanted safe, stimu-lating, educational spaces that wouldkeep children off dle streets and dleyrecognized dlat public action wasrequired to achieve dlese goals (Cranz1982; Taylor 1999). Or we estab-lished public campgrounds becausewe believed it was desirable to encour-age citizens to explore America and itsnatural and cultural history.

This view of parks as public goodshas sometimes come under attack bythose who chall~~ge the idea dlatrecreation is socially necessary andwho argue that dle private sectorcould do a better, more eflicientjob offul6l1in,g public recreation demand if itdid not face public-sector "competi-tion" (see, for example, Beckwidl2002). This argument is bolstered bydle many changes that have occurredsince dle great eras of park construc-tion in dle United States in dle late19th and early 20dl centuries. Forexample, cities now have many privateplay spaces, reducing the need forpublic playgroun,ds, and dle privatecampground industry is now a veryeffective supplier of camping experi-ences. It becomes imperative, then,dtat we ask what today's public parbdo that is different from what dle pri-vate sector does. In oilier words, why,and for whom, do markets fail so dtatdle public sector needs to step in--toprovide systematic enhancement?

Perhaps the most obvious exampleof market failure is widl uniqueresources-dlere is only oneYellowstone, only one Liberty Bell. Ifwe concede that such resources arecentral to our national heritage suchthat it is desirable for all Americans tosee dlem, dlen it would be inappropri-



many national parks, and for somestate parks, the scarcity argument canbe cogently !Dade and supported byreferencing other values such as his.toric/cultural, aesthetic, spiritual, andthe like. That is, parks such asYosemite or the Grand Canyon offerrecreational activities and experiencesin settings that are absolutely unique.If these areas were privately ownedand operated, their rarity would cauaethe price to rise so much that theywould be unavailable to much of thegeneral public. Public ownership abohelps to ensure the long-tenD protec-tion of these values by regulating com-mercial development that couldthreaten them.

Uniqueness or rarity is also a rela-tive factor that can be locally impor-tant as well. For example, lakeshore isan economically valuable resource inmany eastern states where lakes oftenare surrounded by privately ownedproperty. The wealthy have access inmany different ways; they !DaY ownshoreline/ roperty, belong to variousclubs an marinas, etc. But as wedescend the socioeconomic scale,access through private venuesbecomes increasingly limited, so pub-lic parks along lakes are warranted topreserve lake access for the rest of thepublic. Many urban parks also pre-serve green space that can be consid-ered unique relatiVe to theimrilematesurrounding environment.

In addition to preserving publicaccess to unique aesthetic and his-toric/cultural resource'8, recreationalso serves other ends that traditional-ly have been considered publiclyimportant in Dewey's sense of requir-ing systematic enhancement. For

ate to have them in the private sector.If they were operated privately (orquasi-privately according to marketprinciples), their rarity would drive upthe price, excluding low-income peo-ple-as may be happening with thecurrent fee demonstration progra,m inthe national parks (More and Stevens2000). In standard economics, whenthe supply of something is scarce andthe demand is high, the market willsignal producers to expand produc-tion, and demand and supply wouldeventually reach equilibrium. ButYellowstone and the Liberty Bell arenot widgets-their supply is fixed atone, and it is impossible to expandproduction in any meaningful sense.Consequently we ask the public sectorto oversee their allocation, not to allo-cate them efficiendy to the highest bid-ders (those moat willing to pay), butfairly, so that everyone has an opportu-nity to visit. Private markets are effi-cient, but they may not treat peopleequally (Okun 1975).

Many parks are set up to protectunique resources, but the uniquenesscan be problematic because there areso many ways to describe a place-as alandscape, a historic site, a potential1 . C h '__1 1_-~\)ca~Ctl .or ..' ~ .CIni.:-.u p~t, a vegeta-tive or soil type, etc.-that virtuallyany pl~ce can be made to soundunique under some description oranother {O'Neil 1993). Consequently,we must ask what it is that makes anindividual park valuable in and ofitself, which returns us to the valuesdiscussed above.

Recreation is undoubtedly themost widespread public value associ-ated with parks, as indicated by thestate park survey described above. For



when asked to apportion their willing-ness to pay. There may be widespreadpublic recognition that this value canbe important in specific locations, butthat not every park may contain rareand endangered species.

There was aL,o widespread recog-nition of the economic values associat-ed with parks. Unique natural or his-toric parks provide an identifiable des-tination for tourists and are frequendyused by the public to stimulate eco-nomic activity and financial invest-ment in low-income areas.

The other values-educational,moral, intellectual, scientific, and ther-apeutic-were not as highly rated, orhad mixed ratings between the valuemeasures (though nearly all potentialvalues were rated as at least "moder-ately" important). This does not nec-essarily mean that they are not pub-licly important, however; it may sim-ply be that the population surveyedwas not as familiar with them.Spiritual experiences, for instance,may not be commonly associated withparks. SiInilarly, the scientific valuesassociated with parks may be particu-larly important to researchers, yet thegeneral public may only be beginningto recognize this significance. Oftenthese values-moral, intellectual, sci-entific, and therapeutic-involveprocesses that are not yet fully cleareither to reSearcliin or fu- managen,or to the public themselves. Asresearch identifies the processesinvolved in each, we may come to aclearer understanding of the role ofeach, which may make their publicimportance more readily apparent.

In sum, parks are publicly impor-tant because they provide recreation

example, parks provide family-orient.ed experiences as well as opportuni.ties to explore natUre and learn aboutthe outdoors. In the past, we have con.sidered such activities to be sociallydesirable and worth encouragingthrough recreation in public parks.

A similar argument can be made forhistorical/cultural values, althoughthey were not as highly rated as recre-ation in the Vennont survey. Colonialsites or Civil War batdetields, forexample, are scarce resources. If wewant to encourage people to visit theseareas to reconnect with their heritage,then these areas properly belong in thepublic sector where visitation can beencouraged through subsidization. Ofcourse, there are many private founda-tions and not-for-profit organizationsthat ?{>.erate historic/cultural sites suc-cessfully. However, since the publicfunding for museums and other his-toric/cultural nongovernmental organ-izations is limited, these institutionshave needed to rely increasingly onfees, which again means that low-income people may ~ excluded. Inaddition, some parks were initiated bythe private sector, but were turnedover to the public sector after it wufoJ.trd th;tttbey r:oulci not be operatedat even a "break.-even" level (SaugusIron Works National Historic Site inMassachusetts is ~n .examp,le). Forsuch parks, the choIce 15 public-sectOroperation or non-existence.

Ecological values may occasionallybe justified on the basis of scarcity.Many parks protect habitat for rareand endangered plants and animab.The survey results suggested that peo-ple placed moderate importance onthis value, yet ranked it more highly



(and other) services that the marketeither cannot create or cannot distrib-ute equitably. The different values rep-resent combinations of functions thathelp us U!1derstand the unique rolethat public parks can play in contem-porary society.

increasingly important recreationalvalues to society, how can we ensurethese values accrue equitably to allmembers of society? Minority popu-lations are historically underrepre-sented in the national parks, and thisissue will become increasingly impor-tant as minority populations grow

Conclusion substantially in the coming decades,This paper suggests that recreation and issues of social and environmental

has taken on increasing importance to justice demand greater attention inthe well-being of both individuals and public policy (Floyd 1999; Floydsociety. Moreover, parks are clearly 2001). Ironically, the popularity ofidentified with recreation, and, in fact, parks may lead to "capacity" prob-recreation may be their most impor- lems, at least in some places at sometant value as judged by those who visit times (Manning 2001; Haas 2001).them. Finally, a number of arguments For example, the U.S. National Parksuggest tkat much of the recreational System now accommodates nearlyvalue of parks can be realized only .'300 million visits annually. While .thewhen they are owned and maintained popularity of parks is a testament toby common action through govern- their success and cause for celebra-ment. History suggests that public use tion, it may lead to unacceptableand appreciation (i.e., public recre. impacts to parks and to the quality ofation) were instrumental in the estab- recreation experiences. How muchlishment and growth of parks systems, and what kinds of recreation can ulti-including the U.S. national parks mately be accommodated in public(Runte 1997; Nash 2001). While an parks? A related issue concernsincreasing nUmber of values of parks potential coriflicts among the multipleare evolVing, recreation remains an values of public parks (Sellars 1997).important, often dominant, public When recreation affects significant~~~, anA s~ould remain a vital part of natural., cultural, historical, scientifi~,the philosophical and management educational, and other values of publicfoundation of parks. parks as described in this special issue

The primacy of recreation in parks of The George Wright Forum,has led to several paradoxes tha_t chal- informe~ mana.geme?t must balancelenge contemporary park manage- all these mcreasmgly uup'ottarrt ~ueS":'ment. For example, if parks provide

ReferencesAllen. L. 1996. Benetita-based management of recreation services. Parks aM &maIiOft 31, 64-76.Andrews, R., and M. Waita. 19B{). Theory and med1ods of environmental values research./nterdiseifllinary

Scieftce Review 5, 71 - 7 8 .

Bcckwid1, J. 2002. Parks, property righta, and the possibilities of the private law. 77ae CatD Joanlall:2

[http://www.cato.org/pube{ioumal/cjln2-6.html].



Bengston, D. 1994. Changing forest values and ecosystem management. SoI:iety and NatIITal RD-7't:a 7,

515-533.Brown, T. 1984. The concept of value in resoun:e allocation. Land ECDIIOmics 60, 231-246.Brown, P., and Haas, G. 1980. Wilderness recreation experiences: The Rawah cue. Joamal of Lei.nlre

&setm:lI12,229-41.Cranz, G. 1982. 77Ie Politics of ParI. Desip. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Dewey,J. 1954. 77Ie Public and its Problems. Denver: Alan Swallow.Driver, B. 1990. Focusing research on ilie benefits ofleiaure: Special issue introduciion.Joamal ofLIiJare

Ruean:'ll 22, 93-98.-. 1996. Benefits-driven management of natural areas. NahmIl.4r1a.r Joumal16, 94-99.Driver, B., R. Nash, and G. Haas. 1987. Wuc;iemess benefits: A state-of-knowledge revieW. In Pnx:«dinp-

Nt1.tiDfUIl Wildenuss Raetm:ol& Confnma ls.nles, State-ofK7IOWle~, Future DirIdiD7U. R.C. Lucas,ed. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service General Technical Report INT-220. Ogden, Ut.:

USDA-Forest Service Intennountain Research Station, 29~319.Edginton, C., D.Jordan, D. DeGraaf, and S. Edginton. 2002. Leisure and Life Satisfaction: FDU7IIlatiD7Ial

Per.,pectives. New York: McGraw-Hill.Floyd, M. 1999. Race, ethnicity, and the National Park. System. NPS Social Scimce RevierAlI :2, 1-24.-.2001. Managing parks in a multicultural society: Searching for Common Ground. 11ae ~

Wright Forum 18:3,41-51.Haas, G. 2001. VISitor capacity in the National Park. System. NPS Social Scimce Review 2:1, 1-28.Haas, G., B. Driver, and P. Brown. 1980. Measuring wilderness recreation experiences. In Proceedinp of the

WIlIlenIess P"cl&oloO Gnn'11. Durham, N.H.: Wilderness Psychology Group, 20-40.Hetherington, J., T. Daniel, and T. Brown. 1994. Anything goes means everything stays: The perils of

uncritical pluralism in the study of ecosystem values. Society and Natural Raoan-es 7, 535-546.KeIlert, S. 1985. Hiatorical trend. in perceptions and uses of anima\a in 20th century America.

Envinmmmtal Review 9:1, 19-33.Kempton, W.J.Boater,andJ. Hardey. 1995. Envinmmmtal Values in.4merican CullKre. Cambridge Mass.:

MIT Preas.Kraus, R. 1990. &mlJli4mand Leisure in Modem Society. New York: Harper Collins.Manning, R. 1989. The nature of America: VISions and revisions of wilderness. Natural Resources Joamal

29:1,25-40.--:-.2001. VISitor experience and resource protection: A &amework. for managing the carrying capacity

of national parks. JDUrIIal of ParI. and Rear.atiD'll.4tlministnlotion 19: 1,93-108.Manning, R. and W. Valliere. 1996. Environmental values, environmental ethics and wilderness manage-

ment: An empirical study.lntenaatiD'nal Joamal ofWildemess 2:2, 27-32.Manning, R., W. Valliere, and B. Minteer. 1996. Environmental Values and Ethics: An empirical stUdy of

the philosophical foundations for park policy.11ae Ge~ Wright Forum 13:2,20-31.Manning, R., W. Valliere, and B. ~inteer. 1999. Values, ethics.and.;!ttitM4ea '-'&Id~;)rest-mom"

agement. Society andNatuml Raoan-es 12:5,421-436.Minteer, B., and R. Manning. 2000. Convergence in environmental values: An empirical and conceptual

defense. Ethics, Place and EnviorD'll'meflt 3:1, 47-60.More, T. 2002. The marginal user as the justification for public recreation. Joumal of Leisure Raean:ll

34:1,103-118.More, T., and T. Stevens. 2000. Do user fees exclude low-income people from resource-based recreation?

JDUrIIal /JfLeisvre Raean:ll32:3, 341-357.Morrissey,J., and R. Manning. 2000. Race, Residence and Environmental Concern: New Englanders and

ilie White Mountain National Forest. Human EcoloO RevierAl7:1, 12-24.Nash, R. 2001. Wildenuss and the.411Urit:tm Mind. 4th ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Negra, C., and R. Manning. 1997. Incorponting environmental behavior, ethics, and values into nonformal

29Volume19 . Number 2 2002


environmental education programa.Joumal of Environmental Education 28:2, 10-21.Okun, A. 1975. Equality and EfficieIU1: 17ae B~ Tradeoff. Washington. D.C.: The Broomgs Institute.O'Neil,J. 1993. &ol4l~, Poli9 and Politics. London: Roudedge.Rokeach. M. 1973. 17ae Nature of H1mItm Yalws. New York: Free Press.Rolaton. H., Ill. 1988. E1Ivi1VftmmlGl Ethics. Phi1ad~hia: Temple University Press.Rolaton. H., Ill, andJ. Coufal. 1991. A forest edtic and multivalue forest management. Jounllll of Fora",

89:4,35-40.Runte, A. 1997. NatiOR4l Parks: 17ae American ExfIerimce. 3rd ed. Lincoln: University ofNebraan Press.Sellars, R. W. 1997. PmIrVi", Nature in tJu National Parks: A History. New Haven, Conn.: Yale

University Press.Stein, T., and M. Lee. 1995. Managing recreation resources for positive outcomes: An application of bene-

fits-baaed management.}otmIal of Pari _d Recreation Administration 13,52-70.Taylor,D. 1999. Central Park. as a model for social control: Urban parks, social clau, and IeiIure behavior

in nmeteenm century America.Jounaal of LIisan Ruean:h 31:4, 420-447.

Robert Manning, School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont, 356Aiken Center, Burlington, Vermont 05405;

. [email protected] More, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, P.O. Box 968, SouthBurlington, Yermont 05403; [email protected]

.- ., _.

The George Wright FORUM30 "T:1

Introduction: Recreation, Parks and Society€¦ · Once Again.Why Public Parks? Robert Manning...

Documents

Transcript of Introduction: Recreation, Parks and Society€¦ · Once Again.Why Public Parks? Robert Manning...