FiRUTHE GEORGE WRIGHT M Volume 19 2002* Number 2

THE JOURNAL OF THE GEORGE WRIGHT SOCIETY

Dedicated to the Protection, Preservation and Management of Cultural and Natural Parks and Reserves Through Research and Education The George Wright Society Board of Directors ROBERT J. KRUMENAKER • President Bayfield, Wisconsin LAURA E. S. GATES • Vice President Natchitoches, Louisiana PETER BRINKLEY • Treasurer New York, New York DENNIS B. FENN • Secretary Flagstaff, Arizona GILLIAN BOWSER • Washington, D. C. MARIE BERTILLION COLLINS • Piedmont, California ABIGAIL B. MILLER • Alexandria, Virginia DAVID J. PARSONS • Missoula, Montana DWIGHT T. PITCAITHLEY • Washington, D. C. RICHARD B. SMITH • Placitas, Neio Mexico STEPHEN WOODLEY • Hull, Quebec Executive Office P. 0. Box 65, Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 USA

v 1-906-487-9722; fax 1-906-487-9405

info@georgewright. org • http://www.geo7gewright.o?g David Harmon • Executive Director Robert M. Linn • Membership Coordinator Emily Dekker-Fiala • Conference Coordinator

The George Wright Society is a member of US/ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites—U.S. Committee), IUCN—The World Conservation Union, and The Natural Resources Council of America © 2002 The George Wright Society, Inc. All rights reserved. (No copyright is claimed for previously published material reprinted herein.) ISSN 0732-4715

Editorial guidelines may be found on the inside back cover. Text paper is made of 50% recycled fibers. Printed by Book Concern Printers, Hancock, Michigan THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM

Volume 19 • 2002 • Number 2

Society News, Notes & Mail 2

ONCE AGAIN, WHY PUBLIC PARKS? Guest Editor: Maurice H. Schwartz The Many Values of Public Parks Maurice H. Schwartz 4 Origins of Fully Funded Public Parks John W. Henneberger 13 Recreational Values of Public Parks Robert Manning and Thomas More 21 The Economic Foundations of Public Parks Thomas Michael Power 31 Why Urban Parks: A Matter of Equity? Heath Schenker 39 The Meaning of Nature: Wilderness, Wildlife, and Ecological Values in the National Parks James A. Pritchard 46 The Value of Historic and Cultural Resources in Public Parks Ross M. Kimmcl 57 Scientific Values of Public Parks David Graber 63 Why National Parks? Alfred Runte 67 State Parks: The Backbone James Dunmyer 72

Management of Resources-Based Tourism at Tikal National Park in Northern Guatemala Ikuko Fujisaki 77

On the Cover: Re-enactors depicting frontier life at 18th annual fair, Fort Frederick State Park, Maryland. Part of the frontier defenses in the French and Indian War, and now restored to its 1758 appearance, Fort Frederick is an example of the value of his­ toric resources in public parks. Maryland State Forest and Park Sendee photo, cour­ tesy Bob Beckett.

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 1 Society News, Notes & Mail

GWS, NPS Cultural Resources to Meet Jointly in 2003 The next George Wright Society biennial conference will be held in conjunction with CR2003, the National Park Service's servicewide cultural resources con­ ference. The GWS conference is one of the leading interdisciplinary profession­ al meetings on research and resource management in parks and other protected areas; the 2003 conference will be the 12th in a series dating back to 1976. CR2003 is NPS's flagship cultural resources meeting, and is designed not only for agency employees but for a wide array of preservation partners in the public and private sectors. The GWS arranged logistics for the fust edition of the CR conference, which was held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in December 2000.

By holding the conferences jointly, the GWS and NPS hope to encourage cross- disciplinary interaction among attendees while covering critical issues across the whole spectrum of cultural and natural resources. The theme of the joint con­ ference, "Protecting Our Diverse Heritage: The Role of Parks, Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites," emphasizes that heritage (both natural and cultural) is var­ ied yet shared, and that parks, protected areas, and cultural sites are critical to its protection.

Thejoint conference will be April 14-18,2003, at the Town and Countiy Resort and Conference Center in San Diego, California. Abstract submissions and reg­ istrations will be centralized through the GWS. A Call for Papers (CFP) will be issued August 1, 2002, and thejoint conference Web site will be launched then as well. The deadline for abstracts will be October 20,2002; complete details to appear in the CFP. Attendees will be fully cross-registered and so can attend either GWS or CR2003 sessions as they wish.

If you'd like to be notified when the CFP is issued, send an e-mail to the GWS office at [email protected].

Back Issues of THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM on the Web Last year the GWS Board of Directors decided to make all back issues of the FORUM available for free downloading from the GWS Web site. Over the past several months, the GWS's Bob Linn has been working away at scanning in the early issues. That task is now complete, and by the time you read this we expect to have most, if not all, the back issues up on the site in PDF format. Check out:

http://www.georgewright.org/pubslist.htinl

2 The George Wright FORUM Note that the versions of the PDF files posted on the Web will be of screen-res­ olution quality and are intended primarily for on-line viewing; if downloaded and printed, the results may not be satisfactory. The original scans are high-res (600 dpi), and we plan to offer those versions for sale on CD at a modest price. It will be a great opportunity to get more than 20 years of insightful writing about parks in a nice, neat package. Check the URL above for details.

Correction In the last issue's Society News, Notes & Mail, the Web site and e-mail address­ es for "Making Ecosystem-Based Management Work: Connecting Managers and Researchers," the Fifth International Conference on Science and the Management of Protected Areas (SAMPA V), were given incorrectly. The Web site is http://www.sampaa.org and abstracts should go to [email protected]. The deadline for abstracts is December 31, 2002.

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 3 Once Again, Why Public Parks?

Maurice H. Schwartz The Many Values of Public Parks

ike most of us, I took the national and state parks and forests for grant- ed—until the shock struck. That they were “public” simply had not really entered my consciousness. High-level talk about privatizing the national parks in the early 1980s, however, sent an imperative signal. ThoughL early, the time had come to recognize the long-term threat of the parks’ being converted into yet another money-making machine. This issue of THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM is intended to remind us, and to extend our under- standing, of the foundations of America’s remarkable system of national, state, county, and municipal public parks. Normally, I like to have my say. ly engaged in it, the action/transaction is However, the authors of the papers essentially private. So, if two people have a written for this issue of the FORUM discussion or make an exchange, their action responded so powerfully to the chal- is private if nobody else is affected. However, lenge “Once Again; Why Public most transactions have consequences that extend beyond the individual participants to Parks?” that I have decided to use two affect others, often in non-obvious ways. For sets of their words to introduce my example, we have a better breakfast because editor’s summary. of the principally private transactions of farm- In “Recreational Values of Public ers, grocers, and butchers all acting in their Parks,” Bob Manning and Tom More own interests than we would if we were write: “The spectrum of values [of served in a philanthropic spirit. Such transac- parks] reflects the various purposes or tions are social because they affect others functions that parks can serve within beyond the immediate participants. But our society. A further qualification Dewey is careful not to conflate the social must be applied, however: What does with the public: ‘Many private acts are social, their consequences contribute to the welfare it mean for something to be a ‘public’ of the community or affect its status and park? There are, after all, private parks prospects.’ Rather, the dividing line between and reserves that can provide many of public and private comes when the indirect the same values. What differentiates consequences of actions are recognized as public parks and makes them neces- being so important as to require systematic sary? In a society that prides itself on regulation to either enhance positive conse- market-based solutions to problems, quences or control negative ones. Thus, the we need to be clear about which of public sector is justified in acting when the these values are publicly important market fails to produce sufficient quantities and why.” They continue: of something positive or when the negative John Dewey argued that the public inter- effects of market transactions must be miti- est arises from the consequences of actions. gated. The public provision of parks is clearly When the consequences of an action or trans- an instance of the former. action are confined to the individual(s) direct- So the reason that the public sector inter-

4 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? venes is because private markets sometimes market failure is with unique resources—there fail to produce enough of something that we is only one Yellowstone, only one Liberty Bell. consider valuable. We have public schools, If we concede that such resources are central public libraries, and public health clinics to our national heritage such that it is desir- because we believe that all children should able for all Americans to see them, then it receive at least some education, that it is would be inappropriate to have them in the desirable to encourage the distribution of private sector. If they were operated privately books and other educational material, and (or quasi-privately according to market princi- that low-income people should have access to ples), their rarity would drive up the price, at least a minimal level of healthcare. Almost excluding low-income people—as may be hap- certainly these goals would not be accom- pening with the current fee demonstration plished if we relied solely on private markets. program in the national parks. In standard In the past, public parks and recreation have economics, when the supply of something is been cast in the same mold. For example, we scarce and the demand is high, the market have public playgrounds because the moth- will signal producers to expand production, ers of the playground movement wanted safe, and demand and supply would eventually stimulating, educational spaces that would reach equilibrium. But Yellowstone and the keep children off the streets and they recog- Liberty Bell are not widgets—their supply is nized that public action was required to fixed at one, and it is impossible to expand achieve these goals. Or we established public production in any meaningful sense. Conse- campgrounds because we believed it was quently we ask the public sector to oversee desirable to encourage citizens to explore their allocation, not to allocate them efficient- America and its natural and cultural history. ly to the highest bidders (those most willing to This view of parks as public goods has pay), but fairly, so that everyone has an oppor- sometimes come under attack by those who tunity to visit. Private markets are efficient, challenge the idea that recreation is socially but they may not treat people equally. necessary and who argue that the private sec- The second set of words is from the tor could do a better, more efficient job of ful- closing paragraph of Tom Power’s filling public recreation demand if it did not “The Economic Foundations of face public-sector ‘competition.’ This argu- Public Parks”: ment is bolstered by the many changes that have occurred since the great eras of park From the very beginning of Western construction in the United States in the late European urban settlement, open spaces to 19th and early 20th centuries. For example, which all citizens had a right of access were cities now have many private play spaces, central to urban political and social life. With reducing the need for public playgrounds, and industrialization and the growth of very the private campground industry is now a very densely settled urban areas, public health effective supplier of camping experiences. It considerations led to an expansion of that becomes imperative, then, that we ask what urban open space ideal: Citizens needed today’s public parks do that is different from access to some bit of the natural world or our what the private sector does. In other words, urban areas would become increasingly unliv- why, and for whom, do markets fail so that the able. Public parks could provide that. Public public sector needs to step in to provide sys- parks helped maintain crucial connections tematic enhancement? between citizens and the natural world and Perhaps the most obvious example of among fellow citizens by providing a shared

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 5 Once Again, Why Public Parks? common area. Our state and national parks open to the public. The first fully simply extended those concepts as we funded public park dedicated at the became an increasingly mobile population. outset as a commons financially sup- Community and citizenship centers on the ported by taxes was Birkenhead Park sharing of a broad range of values and com- on the outskirts of Liverpool, mitments. Public parks have played an impor- England, upon which work began in tant role in that civic sharing. That role has 1841. “Public parks in early nine- not diminished in this 21st century. The ‘new’ teenth-century England made the urbanism that seeks to revitalize our cities transition from those created under has come full circle to see the importance of royal and private initiative to those shared, open, common spaces in making our that were fully publicly funded,” cities attractive, livable places where eco- Henneberger notes. “The transition nomic vitality can blossom. occurred within the context of a pub- Surely one of the distinguishing lic park movement that sought to meet values of modern democratic societies recreational needs and deal with the is their public parks. The roots of social problems of poverty, disease, those parks extend back to the earliest and wretched living conditions of the of ancient civilizations. In our opening lower classes caught up in the excess- essay,“Origins of Fully Funded Public es of the Industrial Age.” At Parks,” John Henneberger tells us that Birkenhead, the establishment of a “parks were part of the ambience and fully funded public park was socially public activity” of the ancient cities in and physically based upon opposite which civilizations were born. directions. Socially, it was a top-down Henneberger, who was with the process, from royalty to commoner. National Park Service (NPS) for thir- Physically, it was a bottom-up process ty-three years as a ranger, superintend- of transforming an “unattractive, ent, planner, and manager in a number swampy, low-lying tract” to the excit- of parks and central offices, is current- ing landscape of the park built on its ly writing a history of parks from foundation. Paleolithic times to the present. He The early royal and private parks of points out that the early parks were antiquity served primarily for recre- not dedicated to “the specific purpose ation, including sport hunting, which of affording an amenity site for leisure is no longer an acceptable form of and recreational activity for use by all recreation in many public parks. New the people of the community.” That forms of recreation became popular purpose emerged only very recently. from time to time, and most were The early parks mainly served the added to the growing repertoire of royal and religious purposes of ruling recreation in parks. Given the com- elites. mon origins and mutually supporting With the passage of time, the pri- continuity and growth of parks and vate parks increasingly admitted more recreation, we have placed Manning and more of the general population, and More’s paper, “Recreational initially only for festive occasions. We Values Of Public Parks,” immediately can think of them as private parks following Henneberger’s “Origins.”

6 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? Bob Manning, a professor of recre- now accommodates nearly 300 million visits ation management at the University of annually. While the popularity of parks is a Vermont, and Tom More, a U.S. testament to their success and cause for cel- Forest Service research scientist, ebration, it may lead to unacceptable impacts report that their survey of visitors to to parks and to the quality of recreation expe- Vermont state parks reveals that visi- riences. How much and what kinds of recre- tors rate recreation as the most impor- ation can ultimately be accommodated in tant value of parks. public parks? A related issue concerns poten- Beyond their analysis of the con- tial conflicts among the multiple values of nections between parks and recre- public parks. When recreation affects signifi- ation, Manning and More set forth a cant natural, cultural, historical, scientific, number of arguments that support the educational, and other values of public parks view that much of the recreational as described in this special issue of THE value of parks can be realized only GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM, informed management when they are owned and maintained must balance all these increasingly important by common action through govern- values. ment. They write: “In sum, parks are Given that, “as a social science, publicly important because they pro- economics focuses on improving the vide recreation (and other) services ways we use scarce resources to satisfy that the market either cannot create or human needs and desires,” and given cannot distribute equitably.” Nowhere further that public parks serve a signif- do they imply, however, that any and icant array of those needs and desires, all forms of recreation are acceptable the linkage between public as well as in public parks or that there are no private parks and economics is very limits to recreation. Indeed, they close clear. In his article, Tom Power, pro- with the following candid appraisal of fessor of economics and chair of the the downside potential that one way or economics department at the another is an inevitable partner of all University of Montana, examines both human affairs: the direct and the indirect ways that The primacy of recreation in parks has led the range of public parks serve a wide to several paradoxes that challenge contem- variety of human purposes of econom- porary park management. For example, if ic significance. parks provide increasingly important recre- The economic role of public parks ational values to society, how can we ensure includes the variety of ways they these values accrue equitably to all members “improve the ‘livability’ of neighbor- of society? Minority populations are histori- hoods, cities, and regions. They do cally underrepresented in the national parks, this by providing a flow of valuable and this issue will become increasingly impor- environmental services: open space, tant as minority populations grow substantial- reduced congestion, contact with ly in the coming decades, and issues of social nature and wildlife, recreational and environmental justice demand greater opportunities, scenic beauty, attention in public policy. Ironically, the popu- improved air and water quality, quiet, larity of parks may lead to ‘capacity’ prob- a slowed pace of human activity, a lems, at least in some places at some times. relaxed place to meet and interact with For example, the U.S. National Park System Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 7 Once Again, Why Public Parks? fellow citizens, and so on.” This flow ical in Mexico, working on a book of services constitutes economic activ- about nineteenth-century public ity. “The point is that local environ- parks. mental quality—natural, social, and Schenker reminds us that “it is cultural—matters to people, and, important to remember that public because of that, has significant eco- parks are a potent symbol of certain nomic importance. It is the contribu- principles that should never really be tion of public parks to those site-spe- taken at face value. For one thing, they cific local amenities that is the basis of symbolize the principle of equity. The their economic importance.” notion of equity has been intrinsic to A major, very positive economic public parks since they first began to influence of the national parks is strik- proliferate around the world in the ingly summarized as follows: nineteenth century.” As a milestone For the longer period of analysis (1969- example, Schenker points out that 1998), almost all the areas surrounding the equity — fairness — was critically large national parks showed above-average important to Frederick Law Olmsted economic vitality. Ninety-one percent showed in his pioneering designs of American above-average population and job growth; parks. As she also points out, even 86% saw aggregate real income rise at above- tyrants have established public parks average rates. A third had above-average open to all. Reading her article has led growth in average real income. Averaged me to a new conscious realization that across all 21 large national park areas, popu- there are no places more equitable lation growth was almost four times faster than public parks. than the national average. Job growth was A second meaning of equity has to almost three times faster. Aggregate real do with financial considerations, income grew twice as fast as the national namely, “the money value of a proper- average. ty or of an interest in a property in Beyond their economic utility, excess of claims or liens against it.” parks are important symbols of social Modern parks, both private and pub- equity. “People of all ages and various lic, early on had close financial con- walks of life ... strolling, chatting, eat- nections. “The idea of public parks ing, playing games, boating, and gen- took hold around the world not only erally enjoying themselves” says it all because they served certain political for most public parks of the world. agendas and represented certain ideals Sure, our great national parks and oth- of social justice, but also, in large part, ers like them, such as Africa’s game because of real estate speculators who parks, conjure up a very different began to view them as a marketable vision. Parks in general, however, are amenity.” Successful middle-class wonderfully pictured in Heath businessmen “advocated public parks Schenker’s article, “Why Public because they believed that they would Parks: A Matter of Equity?” She is improve the image of a city, and there- associate professor of landscape archi- fore make it more attractive to new tecture at the University of business investors. What kind of busi- California–Davis, currently on sabbat- nessman would want to bring his fam-

8 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? ily to live in a city with no public Wilderness Act of 1964 that NPS park?!” overcame its historical reluctance to The case for the great natural pub- feature wilderness and to “embrace lic parks is clearly laid out in the histo- the wilderness preservation move- ry of wilderness, wildlife, and ecologi- ment.” NPS leadership viewed cal protection. One can imagine only Yellowstone, Glacier, and Grand very rare instances in which a private Canyon “as entire units, possess[ing] refuge was set aside for wilderness, the essential qualities of wilderness. wildlife, and ecological protection. If Declaring any particular part of the there is any preservation need as acute park as wilderness was simply redun- as “protecting scenic wonders and dant, and so the NPS advanced con- wilderness landscapes of unique beau- servative proposals for park wilder- ty against tawdry exploitation and ness areas.” As the years went by industrial incursion,” the root of the wilderness, wildlife, and ecological national parks, it is the need to protect values gradually rose in importance in wilderness, wildlife, and ecological the management of the parks. Like so values. many significant developments, this True, “wildlife” was specified in was necessarily a step-by-step process. the National Park Service Organic Pritchard, an environmental historian Act. It was not until 1930, however, as and teacher in the departments of Jim Pritchard informs us in “The landscape architecture and of animal Meaning of Nature: Wilderness, ecology at Iowa State University,vivid- Wildlife, and Ecological Values in the ly details the events and the people National Parks,” that “ecological and who made that development happen. wildlife values became firmly inter- It required “successive understand- twined in the national parks.” As a ings of nature” to redefine “the mean- matter of very special interest to most ings of wilderness, wildlife, and eco- readers of this journal, that firm inter- logical relationships.” twining drew heavily on the pioneer- Maryland’s state parks evolved ing biological work of George from state forest reserves, and were Melendez Wright, for whom the initially devoted to nature preservation Society is named. The newly estab- and shortly thereafter to public recre- lished wildlife division of NPS, led by ation. As Ross Kimmel, supervisor of Wright, “instituted the Fauna series of cultural resource management for the publications on national park wildlife, Maryland State Forest and Park recommended extensive biological Service, notes: “It wasn’t long, howev- research in the national parks, and er, before sites of historic significance proposed guidelines for wildlife man- were added to a growing universe of agement that departed from single- public parks.” This process of nature species management to emphasize an conservation first, followed by recre- ecosystem-oriented approach and the ation and then historic preservation, restoration of wildlife to natural condi- can be seen in the development of tions.” Maryland’s state forests and parks as It was only after passage of the described in Kimmel’s article “The

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 9 Once Again, Why Public Parks? Value of Historic and Cultural resources, saves and protects them, Resources in Public Parks.” and lets the people, whose heritage Although in Maryland many of the those resources constitute, experience acquisitions of historically or cultural- and learn from the resources. Public ly significant resources were made parks are among the largest reposito- explicitly to acquire the resources, ries of historical and cultural many such resources in “nature” parks resources. It is therefore morally and were celebrated upon their discovery profoundly incumbent upon public later on. Fort Frederick, a large stone parks to protect, enhance, and inter- relic of the French and Indian War pret those resources for the benefit of (1756-1763), pictured on our cover, is humanity.” an example of the first kind. A second, Science and public parks present a very different example is Point remarkable mutuality. As David Lookout State Park, the site of the Graber, the senior science advisor for largest prison camp of the Civil War. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Acquired for its historic significance, Parks, sets forth in his article it has become a major resource for a “Scientific Values of Public Parks,” the wide variety of water-based recreation. parks are important objects of a great Kimmel also describes a paradoxi- variety of scientific research purely for cal management situation in which an the purpose of expanding our under- area “that is not natural at all” is being standing of the universe. On the other managed as if to keep it in a “pristine hand, the results of such knowledge- ‘natural’ state”: seeking research increasingly con- Soldier’s Delight Natural Environment tribute to the day-to-day and long- Area is a shale barren incapable of sustaining term management of the parks. We the typical deciduous forests of most of the could call such a flow of information rest of [Maryland]. Left to nature’s design, and analysis a by-product of the Soldier’s Delight would become a forest of research. Scientific research conduct- scrub pine and swamp oak, the soil is so poor. ed explicitly on behalf of park manage- However, the state, with volunteer help, rou- ment in the first place, in order to tinely burns off sprouting trees in order to enrich the surety of a wide range of maintain the area as prairie grassland host- management decision-making, is ing flora and fauna that are rare in the state. becoming more frequent. And in so doing, we today continue a practice Of course, very good reasons started in prehistoric times by Native account for the scientific interest in the Americans, who burned the poor forest cover parks. Parks contain “natural or his- in order to drive game and provide clear fields toric objects of significant interest and of fire for hunting. Is Soldier’s Delight truly a value to society” that are attractive “natural environment area?” One could argue objects of research to the scientist. that it is in fact a cultural environment area, Secondly,as Graber points out, “parks because human beings have for centuries are relatively unperturbed by con- artificially maintained it as grassland.... founding variables,” making for clean- He concludes: “A wise society hus- er targets of research. In the third bands its historic and cultural place, many parks provide “invaluable

10 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? reference points for comparison with buy out local frivolities and special interests? the ever more extensive altered land- scapes that have been converted to He goes on to remind us: “It is the human utility.” This is of particular common knowledge of 130 years. At value to long-term studies. their largest, America’s national parks maintain the hope of preserving natu- It is in the relatively new arena of ral systems; as historical parks, they long-term ecological research and remain the nation’s shrines. Parks of monitoring that parks and scientific the people should be owned by the research really come together, accord- people, managed by the people, and ing to Graber. “Traditional research, remain a statement of pride to the in national parks and elsewhere, was world. The national parks are indeed a designed to fit well within a period of national mission, the country acting in a few years—the typical amount of Congress assembled.” time allotted to a graduate student’s Whereas the principal “attackers” research and (not coincidentally) the of the past were motivated virtually usual duration of a funding grant. The exclusively by economic considera- accelerating urgency of understanding tions, Runte identifies more recent the change taking place all over our detractors as including persons of the planet, and an increasing need to place very same intellectual character as the that change in the context of ecological great early advocates and leaders for time scales (decades to millennia) and the parks. He vigorously denies the evolutionary time scales (millennia to charges that the parks fail in terms of millions of years) has moved long- satisfying diversity and multicultural- term research and monitoring to the ism concerns. He focuses so sharply forefront of conservation biology as on the intellectuals that he practically well as to that of parks’ perceived brushes the far right and its needs for scientific information. “Sagebrush Rebellion” off to the side. Alfred Runte, author of the modern Altogether, he provides a powerful classic National Parks: The American answer to the question, “once again, Experience, opens his article “Why why public parks?” National Parks?” with this observa- James Dunmyer, assistant secretary tion: of the Maryland Department of Detailing why there are national parks in Natural Resources, identifies state THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM would seem like parks as the backbone of the system of rehashing what is obvious for those already public lands in the United States convinced. Who better than park profession- (“State Parks: The Backbone”). He als know the evolution of the national parks, recognizes that state parks “have been from cultural pride to biological sanctuary to created by all techniques imaginable, historic preservation and urban redemption? are managed in a variety of innovative More, who believes in these mandates with- ways” and provide a unique service to out question? Who better understands—and the public. Like a backbone, state again accepts—why the size and diversity of parks provide a connection, in the sys- the system requires the federal government, tem of public parks, between the local including the power of the federal purse to and federal parks. Recent events pro-

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 11 Once Again, Why Public Parks? vide additional support for the value argument for the existence of state of these parks. parks as a distinct aspect of the public Having supervised Maryland’s domain. state public lands system during the State park systems learned from the 1990s, Dunmyer concludes that the experience and now operate with period was “not kind to state parks.” numerous partners. This approach The responsibilities of state park sys- forms an important part of their future tems expanded while budgets and as state parks face significant changes staffing declined. Parks simply could in user trends, such as those seeking not compete for scarce public funds more active “flow-through” experi- against schools, hospitals, or prisons. ences on bicycles and kayaks. State As a result, the state parks became parks must meet the challenge of these innovators in the park profession, recreation trends and also develop a developing creative volunteer pro- sense of stewardship ethic in each citi- grams and other new ideas in funding, zen. “What state parks need the most,” revenue generation, and operating says Dunmyer, “are advocates.” The policies. As parks became more busi- citizen–advocate can ensure that gov- ness-like, problems arose because ernment follows the directive of the state parks are not a business. He people. State parks—indeed all public clearly relates the business dilemma parks—are an irreplaceable element of for parks: “it is impossible to delegate society. That, perhaps, is the funda- the public portion of the system’s mental answer to the question posed responsibility.” There rests a powerful in this issue of the FORUM.

Maurice H. Schwartz, P.O. Box 12220, Silver Spring, Maryland 20908; [email protected] ❖

12 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? John W. Henneberger Origins of Fully Funded Public Parks

t is commonly held that Birkenhead Park on the outskirts of Liverpool, Eng- land, was the first fully funded public park. The Birkenhead Park project began in 1841 as a venture initiated by municipal authorities with partici- pation by private developers, and differed from previous efforts to create Iparks for the English general public. Birkenhead embodied a vision of the future in which a large area of land within a town was to be set aside in perpetuity for the specific purpose of affording an amenity site for leisure and recreational activity for use by all the people of the community. Moreover, the people would tax themselves for that purpose. There had been previous “public” events are held today in any modern parks in all of the cultures of the landscaped urban central park. An ancient and medieval worlds, where ancient Babylonian text (ca. 2000 BCE) parks were part of the ambience and indicates the public nature of such public activity of the city.The concept open spaces. People ate splendid food, of the urban landscaped area emerged drank beverages, rejoiced in the court- some 6,000 years ago in the first cities yards, and thronged for celebration; of Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt, monkeys, elephants, water buffalo, China, and a few other parts of the and other exotic animals jostled each world. Landscaped spaces were ini- other in the public squares (Cooper tially located within the inner religious 1983, 50). Cities in this period (4000- and political sanctuaries that were 1000 BCE) were centers for managing reserved for royalty, the priesthood, rural districts, for craft making and and privileged citizenry, though most trading, and for military, administra- had some public aspects. The well- tive, and cultural-ideological activities known “Park in the Center of City” of where religious and political events Mesopotamian Nippur of 1,500 BCE is were important in holding the cohe- a representative example of a religious siveness of society. Such public places landscaped area within the city’s were maintained by a religious and temenos that served as a site for ritual political leadership who ran the affairs (Kramer 1963, 64). It was an irregular- of the city-state. Similar landscaped ly shaped 21-acre area that was most public places existed in ancient Egypt likely connected to nearby temple and China. The great Shang-lin parks complexes, and possibly served as the connected to the ancient Chinese cap- site for the New Year’s Festival, or per- itals provided a garden setting for haps held plants and animals for offer- palace, temple, and tomb, where the ings to the god of the city.Such spaces emperor and nobility undertook hunt- often took on aspects of a public park ing, fasting was performed, and rituals in the lives of the people when used at were held. The “Park as Empire” festival time. Festivals and public played various roles in Chinese life.

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 13 Once Again, Why Public Parks?

Many governmental units were located bly in Philadelphia for around the within the park, such as the royal mint, Pennsylvania Statehouse—later Inde- the headquarters of the tax collector, pendence Hall—for proper walks and even a prison (Schafer 1968). The planted with suitable trees for shade.) modern-day National Capital Parks in The use of undesirable plots and rem- Washington, D.C., have many of the nants of city land for parks was to characteristics and uses of the ancient become common practice. At both Chinese Supreme Imperial Parks, in Birkenhead and New York City’s Cen- that they provide landscaped back- tral Park, undesirable, uneconomical drops for important buildings in Unit- lands were converted to parks. ed States governmental operations, In the ancient cities, emperors, vic- including the Capitol, White House, torious generals and the wealthy creat- and Treasury Department, among oth- ed and financed the construction and ers. operation of parks for the public. The Landscaped backdrops were preva- practice of the elite part of society pro- lent in ancient Greek and Roman viding landscaped open spaces for the cities: around the agora, the temples of public continued on through the the gods and goddesses, the monu- medieval period into the European mental public buildings, and the gym- renaissance. Royalty often used their nasiums. Roman imperial rulers pro- private parks for public purposes. In vided green open spaces for public use the sixteenth century, Queen Eliza- between theaters, baths, temples, gov- beth I opened some of her royal parks ernment buildings, and residences. In in London so the public could watch the Augustan era, a major building the military reviews she held there. program for Rome was concentrated Some English royal parks remained around the centers of Campus Mar- private to the monarchs; others tius, the Forum Romanum, and the became ceremonial points for public Palatine. Spaces around these political receptions on important holidays in structures were landscaped and the same way that ancient Greek kings opened to the public (Van Sickle assembled the public at the Acropolis 1948, 397). Augustus used his friend for ritual and celebration (Lasdun Maecenas, an unassuming Etruscan of 1992, 42). By Queen Victoria’s time equestrian rank, to aid in his rebuild- (mid- to late nineteenth century), ing of Rome. Maecenas bought a plot much of the royal park space had been of ground just outside the city walls opened to the public. Hyde Park, for that was an old city dump and pauper instance, was opened to the public by burying ground. Here he laid out a Charles I about 1635. George IV in splendid park for the general public. 1826 acted on a report on the state of In this summery Mediterranean London’s royal parks by issuing region, people were inclined to stroll instructions that “the whole range and such landscaped areas and enjoy each extent of Parks should be thrown open other’s company. (In similar fashion, for the gratification and enjoyment of many centuries later, landscaped areas the Public” (Lasdun 1992, 13). Public were decreed by the Colonial Assem- monies given by Parliament to the

14 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? Office of the King’s Works maintained the Regent’s Park project with the such parks. The public usage of a Prince of Wales through the Depart- royal park was at first a rather limited, ment of Woods and Forests. They privileged activity, confined by dictate took a roughly circular-shaped prop- of royalty to a select class of socially erty of about 1,000 acres that had acceptable people who held keys to been a royal forest in medieval times the locked park gates. This privileged and a hunting preserve and Mary-le- use was gradually eased. Many of these bone Park in the Tudor era and devel- parks became full public parks about oped it into a residential park (Saun- the time urban development reach ders 1969). Regent’s Park thus went their boundaries. Most have since through virtually all the stages of Eng- become integral parts of the London lish park development: first a medieval scene. royal forest, then a royal hunting pre- The opening of royal parks for serve, then a private park, and finally a public use was one part of a growing public park open to all. Nash and Rep- idea of the park as public venue as ton combined urban architecture with England moved from monarchial con- country landscape elements by setting trol to a democracy. Walking became a terraces around a park that made up national pastime in the Tudor period. about half the total acreage of the The general public in the cities need- development. They combined the ed areas in which to stroll. Church- orderliness of Georgian London with yards provided opportunities for the openness and wildness of the leisure time in many of the provincial countryside. Nash reversed the visual towns of England. Cemeteries were direction of the palace and manor pleasure grounds for the diversion of park, where residences were sur- gentry. The general public for years rounded by parkland. He framed the had the grounds of commons for out- park with handsome terraces of classic door activity. Gradually, however, the design that housed people who then common was made unavailable to had magnificent views across the park. them under enclosure practices. With Nash and Repton wanted to create an the rapid expansion of English cities in-city relationship with nature similar after the Restoration, there began a to that enjoyed by many people in the movement toward parks as integral English countryside who had a Geor- parts of cities for the public at large. gian mansion set in a park of modest Londoners began to see the delights of proportions. Royalty and the wealthy, placing their residences adjacent to of course, had great countryside the inner-city royal parks: St. James’s palaces and mansions surrounded by Park, Green Park, Hyde Park, and expansive parks. Merely well-to-do Kensington Garden. To have a resi- people sought to follow the essayist, dence overlooking one of these parks poet, and politician Joseph Addison’s became the preferred way to live. advice in The Spectator (Essay no. In the early 1830s, the prominent 414, 1712) to make a neat mansion architect John Nash and the landscape pleasantly situated in a park that architect Humphry Repton worked on would show a “pretty landskip of their

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 15 Once Again, Why Public Parks? possessions.” from those created under royal and Such rural landscape values were private initiative to those that were introduced into the English urban fab- fully publicly funded. The transition ric during the cultural transition from occurred within the context of a pub- late feudalism to a full capitalistic lic park movement that sought to meet economy. The park and the public recreational needs and deal with the square were arenas for working out social problems of poverty, disease, major class tensions in the struggles and wretched living conditions of the over public and private rights. With lower classes caught up in the excess- the public square and the park, the es of the Industrial Age. People were English were the first to develop effec- moving to English cities in uncontrol- tive ways of integrating elements of the lable numbers. Unplanned tenement natural landscape into the urban fab- housing quickly ate up open space. ric. The public square was one model Efforts were made in the 1840s to con- that was taken and augmented with vert some commons to public parks in greater amounts of nature so as to form those cities associated with manufac- a large public park. The residential turing and in the towns that had fac- square and the large public park, says toring systems. J.C. Louden, writing in Henry Lawrence, are cultural acts that Gardener’s Magazine in 1829, cam- carry with it some expression of the paigned for public parks as “Breathing social values of class distinction, Places” for towns and cities. Democra- domestic isolation, and private open tic political action toward this goal space that later forms the basis for sub- moved with the issuing of reports on urban living (Lawrence 1993, 60). the problems and the need for open The park portion of Regent’s Park was space to solve the lack of working- gradually opened to the public. Resi- class recreation. In 1841, Parliament dential subscription maintained the voted the sum of £10,000 to promote park for a number of years until it the opening of parks, on the condition became a fully funded public park. that political bodies wishing to benefit Like most of the early large urban from this fund should match such parks, Regent’s Park had a zoo, a band loans with at least an equal amount of kiosk, meeting place structures, an their own money. Applications were open-air concert theatre, and playing immediately made by numerous pub- fields. On a trip to England in 1839, lic entities. Other avenues to create the American painter George Catlin public parks included exchanging sold two grizzly bears he had brought Crown properties in one area to pro- from America to Regent’s Park opera- duce park sites where there were no tors (Catlin 1852, 1:28-33). In time royal parks. Wherever such a residen- the park itself became a historical tial development as Regent’s Park was monument, as have many famous proposed, it became government poli- parks, to be placed on lists of historical cy to require the local municipal body properties worthy of preservation. to purchase the residential strip to be Public parks in early nineteenth- let out as building plots. The income century England made the transition from the plots, and the increased value

16 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? of the property adjacent to the public A Birkenhead Improvement Com- park, would pay for the cost of the mission was set up under an Act of park. Within this general milieu, Parliament that gave them authority to Birkenhead Park came about. implement the zoning they desired. In The city of Birkenhead in the early 1841 the idea for a Birkenhead Park 1820s was one of series of dormitory was raised. Two years later, empow- towns that emerged in Great Britain as ered by a Third Improvement Act, the a suburb of a main city to serve the res- Birkenhead Commissioners were idential needs of the Industrial Revo- allowed to purchase land for a park lution. A steam ferry service in 1820 with a loan of £60,000 made to them provided commuting between Liver- by the central government. Birken- pool and Birkenhead. Prosperous head was the first town to apply to Par- Birkenhead residents commuting to liament for permission to use public Liverpool wanted a small version of funds for the purpose of establishing a what the wealthy possessed in the public park. The money was bor- larger private park estates in the coun- rowed on behalf of the city ratepayers tryside and in the in-city residences of with the proviso that not less than 70 the kind connected to Regent’s Park acres was to be set aside for the “free and to a similar park–residential devel- recreation of the town’s inhabitants” opment in Liverpool itself, Prince’s within a 226-acre area along an estu- Park. This desire was coupled with ary across from the city of Liverpool. recognition by the Birkenhead munic- The resulting Birkenhead Park ipal authorities of the need to control became the world’s first publicly fully and establish municipal power over funded park. community development. In effect, The section of land chosen for the they began to zone the community. A park was an unattractive, swampy,low- park became a prime focal point of lying tract at the foot of a sandy ridge that zoning as well as figuring in the that lay entirely within the town. The economic development of the sub- area of land was a mixture of fields, urbs. Parks were also desired objects marsh, and commons that contained a in a growing Reform movement. small farmhouse, which was a known Robert Owen, the Welsh manufactur- beer den where illegal gambling and er turned reformer, proposed what dog fighting took place. One hundred was later termed the “garden city,” and twenty-five acres of this site was where dwelling units were arranged designated for public use. The around open landscaped spaces with remaining acreage was sold for private community facilities connected to a residential development (Borough of central square. Owens was convinced Wirral Leisure Services and Tourism that environment affected character. Department 2000, 6). The general Improved surroundings, including relationship between the park and parks and gardens, would have a salu- associated housing had its inspiration tary effect upon workers, and this in in John Nash’s work at Regent’s Park. turn would benefit the industry of the At Birkenhead, detached villas were nation (Cole 1925). located on terraces surrounding the

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 17 Once Again, Why Public Parks? park. The proceeds from the sale of struction of the park. He thought it a the building plots were sufficient to credit and an honor to make some- recoup all the public costs incurred by thing handsome and good out of the the purchase of the land and the con- undesirable property. A completed struction of the park. There was a plan was soon presented to the com- mutually beneficial blending of an mittee, which approved it. Preparatory ornamental public park with private work began under an individual who residential estates that seems to have would become the park’s first superin- been the outcome of a self-conscious tendent. Lakes were excavated and the linking of the commercially profitable major planting of trees was carried out with the socially useful. This combina- in the planting seasons of autumn tion of values that early Victorians 1844 and spring 1845. The planting strove to achieve proved influential for of grassy areas followed. A prime fea- subsequent park projects in Great ture was the irregular shape of the park Britain and then in America with the set within a built-up suburban setting creation of New York City’s Central of a grid of straight streets. A circula- Park. Essential to the existence of the tion system provided for carriage park were steady income streams for pleasure traffic around and through park development and maintenance the park. Within the park there was a costs. The park contributed signifi- separate circulation system for pedes- cantly to the town’s tax base. The park trians. There were four small lodges at fostered rising property values. Com- the park’s gates, quaintly named the missioners planned the character of Gothic, Italian, Castellated and Nor- the housing and park as one entity. man lodges. Bridges across sections of Residential styles were confined to the lakes and over roads were Victori- early English, Elizabethan, and Tudor. an in style. The park was completed in Architectural controls were designed 1847. It had a park superintendent to promote messages of authority, dig- and a staff of keepers and maintenance nity, and political power. The park personnel that were paid out of munic- also was to reflect these purposes in ipal funding. It was to be opened to acting as an attractive backdrop for the the public without restrictions. spatial residences abutting it. Howev- Birkenhead was conceived in a pas- er, the pursuit of the park was not toral landscape tradition, which entirely in the public interest. Several resembled grounds surrounding a commissioners were speculative own- country mansion, except there was no ers of the land to be purchased for the central residential structure. The first park and the potential residential public parks were essentially transfers lands surrounding it. of the palace and countryside manor The well-known English landscape park landscapes without that central architect, Joseph Paxton, whose work structure. The residences surrounded on Liverpool’s Prince’s Park had the park, rather than the park sur- brought him to the attention of the rounding the residences. The vision committee, was engaged in August sought by Paxton featured islands in 1843 to design and supervise the con- lakes, winding paths, open glades, and

18 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? wooded areas designed for strolling Edinburgh garden architect, writing and quiet reflection. While some of the on English garden park design in open spaces were suitable for active 1852. Smith’s commentary influenced games, Paxton’s main emphasis for many park designers’ works (Smith Birkenhead was on the passive enjoy- 1852). Frederick Law Olmsted visited ment of pastoral landscaped scenery. Birkenhead in 1850 and 1859. He In time, sport clubs imposed cricket, noted the carriage roads, walks, and archery, quoits, and football ground aquatic ponds. He recorded the conversions of many of the open mounds made natural with trees, spaces. Considerable modification of shrubs, flowering plants, rural lodges, Paxton’s design occurred over the temple pavilion structures, bridges, years as the park went through what bandstand, cricket and archery was to be a typical transformation of grounds, and the verdant valleys. He most urban parks from initial areas of commented that “all this magnificent pastoral quality to busy places for pleasure-ground is entirely, unre- active sports and large-scale public servedly and forever, the people’s events. There were times of deteriora- own” (Olmsted 1859, 62-64). He later tion of the landscaped areas, followed was to incorporate many of the fea- by restoration. Commemorative trees tures he saw at Birkenhead into the were planted. Memorials and sculp- design that he and Calvert Vaux pre- tures were erected. Unemployment pared for New York City’s Central relief schemes were undertaken within Park. Olmsted credited the develop- the park in 1878-1879, 1893, and ment of the American urban public 1947. Two World Wars intruded on park system to the inspiration he the park. Different buildings and received from his Birkenhead visits. structures were erected and then According to the historian George demolished. The Friends of Birken- Chadwick, the general design of head Association was formed in 1970 British public parks has changed little to aid park administrators in control- since Paxton’s day, “although else- ling intrusions and raising monies to where there are now examples of the maintain the park. Corporate sponsors acceptance of twentieth-century aes- provided monies for restoration proj- thetic standards in this field” (Chad- ects. The park was included in the late wick 1961, 253). Olmsted was to set a 1980s in a regional political body’s somewhat different style in his parks “Leisure Strategy” to promote in America: a wilder, more rugged tourism. This pattern of creation, style. He did borrow the Birkenhead intrusion, deterioration, restoration, procedure of placing the park within and then a re-focusing on the heritage an urban residential setting that has and economic value to the community, strong commercial connotations. This was to be repeated in many urban commercial aspect also was applied to parks around the world. the early expansive national parks of “There is more to be gained by a the American West, where tourism study of it [Birkenhead Park] than in played an important role in their cre- any others,” said Charles Smith, the ation. Starting with Regent’s and

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 19 Once Again, Why Public Parks? Birkenhead parks, the idea of a resi- valid proposition for most communi- dential belt around or in association ties. with an interior public park is still a

References Borough of Wirral Leisure Services and Tourism Department. 2000. Birkenhead People’s Park: Historical Survey and Analysis. Birkenhead, Wirral: Leisure Services and Tourism Department. Catlin, George. 1852. Adventures of the Ojibbeway and Ioway Indians in England, France, and Belgium, Being Notes of Eight Years’ Travels and Residence in Europe with His North American Indian Collection. 2 vols. London: Published by the Author at His Indian Collection, No. 6, Waterloo Place. Chadwick, George. 1961. The Works of Sir Joseph Paxton. London: Architectural Press. Cole, G.D.H. 1925. Robert Owen. Boston: Little, Brown. Cooper, Jerrod S. 1983. The Curse of Agade. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Kramer, Samuel Noah. 1963. The Sumerians, Their History, Culture and Character. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lasdun, Susan. 1992. The English Park: Royal, Private and Public. New York: Vendone Press. Lawrence, Henry W.1993. The greening of the public squares of London: Transformations of urban land- scapes and ideals. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 83:1 (March). Olmsted, Frederick Law. 1859. Walks and Talks of an American Farmer in England. Columbus, Oh.: Joseph H. Riley and Co. Saunders, Ann. 1969. Regent’s Park: A Study in the Development of the Area from 1068 to the Present Day. New York: Augustus M. Kelley. Schafer, Edward H. 1968. Hunting parks and animal enclosures in ancient China. Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient 2, 325-341. Smith, Charles. 1852. Parks and Pleasure Grounds. London: Reeve & Co. Van Sickle, C.E. 1948. A Political and Cultural History of the Ancient World: From Prehistoric Times to the Dissolution of the Roman Empire in the West. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

John W.Henneberger, 3256 NW Harrison Boulevard, Corvallis, Oregon 97330; [email protected] ❖

20 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? Robert Manning Thomas More Recreational Values of Public Parks

Introduction: Recreation, Parks and Society hile there may 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 the most obvious to read- ersW of The George Wright Forum is the 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, they are also to “provide for the enjoyment” of the people. This two-fold mission is at the heart of most public parks and related areas. Thus, recreation, in a variety of forms, is vital, even inte- gral, to parks. The etymology of the word “recre- ning and management. And there are ation” is also suggestive of the impor- professional organizations devoted to tance of its role in society. Rooted in recreation, such as the National the Latin “recreatio” and “recreare,” Recreation and Park Association. A “recreation” means, respectively, “to widely accepted definition in the 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 redeeming tinue to grow in importance, and that qualities” (Kraus 1990). Thus, recre- parks will likewise escalate in impor- ation is widely seen as having value at tance for their role in providing public the level of both the individual and recreation. society. The social importance of recre- This view has suggested that recre- ation is further reflected in the profes- ation might best be understood and sional activity and literature that has appreciated not necessarily as the grown up around it. There is a activities in which people engage, but received history of the “recreation as the reasons that motivate it and the movement” in the U.S., a social move- benefits that it produces (Haas et al. ment designed to provide the benefits 1980; Driver et al. 1987; Driver 1990; of recreation to all Americans. Driver 1996). For example, research Students can now earn degrees in suggests that people engage in recre- recreation, parks, and related fields at ation to satisfy a variety of motivations, over 50 colleges and universities. such as appreciating nature, learning There are public- and private-sector about culture and history,and enhanc- jobs and careers in recreation plan- ing family togetherness (Brown and

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 21 Once Again, Why Public Parks?

Haas 1980). Moreover, participation through human preference as opposed in recreation might produce a number to social obligation (e.g., societal of benefits to individuals (e.g., norms that suggest what people advances in physical and mental should value) or physical/biological health, personal growth and develop- function (e.g., the ecological depend- ment), society (e.g., strengthened fam- ence of tree growth on soil nutrients). ily relationships, enhanced communi- Recent commentary suggests that ty pride, reduction of social deviance), preference-based held values are the the economy (e.g., increased produc- appropriate focus of park, forest, and tivity, reduced health costs), and the the public-land values research environment (e.g., reduced pollution, (Bengston 1994; Hetherington et al. protection of endangered species) 1994). As used in this study,values are (Driver 1990; Driver 1996; Stein and specific notions that define “an endur- Lee 1995; Allen 1996). ing concept of the good” as applied to parks. The Primacy of Several classifications of park and Recreation in Parks related environmental values have This special issue of The George been proposed in the literature Wright Forum outlines a diverse range (Rolston 1988; Rolston and Coufal of values that public parks might 1991; Manning 1989; Kellert 1985). serve. How important is recreation Based on this literature, 11 potential among these potential values? This values of parks were identified as question has received recent research shown in Table 1.This set of potential attention in a variety of park and pub- park values was designed to be as lic-land contexts (Manning and comprehensive as possible based on Valliere 1996; Manning et al. 1996; review of the literature. (It is interest- Negra and Manning 1997; Manning et ing to note the papers included in this al. 1999; Minteer and Manning 2000; special issue of The George Wright Morrissey and Manning 2000). As Forum address nearly all of these val- might be expected, human values have ues.) These potential park values were been the subject of considerable atten- incorporated into a study of the tion across a variety of academic disci- Vermont state parks. A representative plines (Rokeach 1973; Andrews and sample of 478 visitors to 37 Vermont Waits 1980; Brown 1984; Bengston state parks was administered a mail- 1994; Kempton et al. 1995). While back questionnaire in the summer of several theoretical dimensions of value 2001. have been identified, the focus of this Two batteries of questions study is on preference-based held val- addressed potential park values. The ues. “Held values” have been defined first asked respondents to rate the as “an enduring conception of the importance of each potential value “as preferable which influences choice a reason for having state parks.” A six- and action” (Brown 1984, 232). The point response scale was used that preference-based component of this ranged from 1 (“extremely impor- concept signifies that value is assigned tant”) to 6 (“not at all important”).

22 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks?

Table 1. Values of state parks. 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.

Findings are shown in Table 1. addressed by other papers included in Two conclusions are evident from this special issue) is being increasingly these data. First, nearly all potential recognized in society. Second, there is park values appear to resonate with a hierarchy of values associated with respondents; ten of the eleven poten- state parks, and recreation is rated as tial values received an average rating of significantly more important than at least “moderately important,” sug- other potential values. The second gesting that the evolving diversity of battery of questions asked visitors to park values included in this study (and allocate their willingness to pay to sup-

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 23 Once Again, Why Public Parks? port the Vermont state park system and reserves that can provide many of among the potential park values. the same values. What differentiates (Prior to this battery of questions, public parks and makes them neces- respondents had been asked to esti- sary? In a society that prides itself on mate their maximum willingness to market-based solutions to problems, contribute to a fund to support the we need to be clear about which of state parks.) For this battery of ques- these values are publicly important tions, the list of potential park values and why. was reduced to ten to simplify burden John Dewey (1954) argued that the on respondents. Findings are shown public interest arises from the conse- in Table 2, and are similar to those in quences of actions. When the conse- Table 1. However, using this question quences of an action or transaction are format, respondents discriminated confined to the individual(s) directly among park values to a greater degree, engaged in it, the action/transaction is and recreation emerged more strongly essentially private. So, if two people as the single most important value of have a discussion or make an the state parks. exchange, their action is private if

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

Recreation and Public Parks nobody else is affected. However, most The spectrum of values described transactions have consequences that above reflects the various purposes or extend beyond the individual partici- functions that parks can serve within pants to affect others, often in non- our society. A further qualification obvious ways. For example, we have a must be applied, however: What does better breakfast because of the princi- it mean for something to be a “public” pally private transactions of farmers, park? There are, after all, private parks grocers, and butchers all acting in

24 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? their own interests than we would if ground movement wanted safe, stimu- we were served in a philanthropic lating, educational spaces that would spirit. Such transactions are social keep children off the streets and they because they affect others beyond the recognized that public action was immediate participants. But Dewey is required to achieve these goals (Cranz careful not to conflate the social with 1982; Taylor 1999). Or we estab- the public: “Many private acts are lished public campgrounds because social, their consequences contribute we believed it was desirable to encour- to the welfare of the community or age citizens to explore America and its affect its status and prospects” (Dewey natural and cultural history. 1954, 13). Rather, the dividing line This view of parks as public goods between public and private comes has sometimes come under attack by when the indirect consequences of those who challenge the idea that actions are recognized as being so recreation is socially necessary and important as to require systematic reg- who argue that the private sector ulation to either enhance positive con- could do a better, more efficient job of sequences or control negative ones. fulfilling public recreation demand if it Thus, the public sector is justified in did not face public-sector “competi- acting when the market fails to pro- tion” (see, for example, Beckwith duce sufficient quantities of something 2002). This argument is bolstered by positive or when the negative effects of the many changes that have occurred market transactions must be mitigated. since the great eras of park construc- The public provision of parks is clear- tion in the United States in the late ly an instance of the former. 19th and early 20th centuries. For So the reason that the public sector example, cities now have many private intervenes is because private markets play spaces, reducing the need for sometimes fail to produce enough of public playgrounds, and the private something that we consider valuable. campground industry is now a very We have public schools, public effective supplier of camping experi- libraries, and public health clinics ences. It becomes imperative, then, because we believe that all children that we ask what today’s public parks should receive at least some educa- do that is different from what the pri- tion, that it is desirable to encourage vate sector does. In other words, why, the distribution of books and other and for whom, do markets fail so that educational material, and that low- the public sector needs to step in to income people should have access to provide systematic enhancement? at least a minimal level of healthcare. Perhaps the most obvious example Almost certainly these goals would not of market failure is with unique be accomplished if we relied solely on resources—there is only one private markets. In the past, public Yellowstone, only one Liberty Bell. If parks and recreation have been cast in we concede that such resources are the same mold (More 2002). For central to our national heritage such example, we have public playgrounds that it is desirable for all Americans to because the mothers of the play- see them, then it would be inappropri-

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 25 Once Again, Why Public Parks? ate to have them in the private sector. many national parks, and for some If they were operated privately (or state parks, the scarcity argument can quasi-privately according to market be cogently made and supported by principles), their rarity would drive up referencing other values such as his- the price, excluding low-income peo- toric/cultural, aesthetic, spiritual, and ple—as may be happening with the the like. That is, parks such as current fee demonstration program in Yosemite or the Grand Canyon offer the national parks (More and Stevens recreational activities and experiences 2000). In standard economics, when in settings that are absolutely unique. the supply of something is scarce and If these areas were privately owned the demand is high, the market will and operated, their rarity would cause signal producers to expand produc- the price to rise so much that they tion, and demand and supply would would be unavailable to much of the eventually reach equilibrium. But general public. Public ownership also Yellowstone and the Liberty Bell are helps to ensure the long-term protec- not widgets—their supply is fixed at tion of these values by regulating com- one, and it is impossible to expand mercial development that could production in any meaningful sense. threaten them. Consequently we ask the public sector Uniqueness or rarity is also a rela- to oversee their allocation, not to allo- tive factor that can be locally impor- cate them efficiently to the highest bid- tant as well. For example, lakeshore is ders (those most willing to pay), but an economically valuable resource in fairly,so that everyone has an opportu- many eastern states where lakes often nity to visit. Private markets are effi- are surrounded by privately owned cient, but they may not treat people property. The wealthy have access in equally (Okun 1975). many different ways; they may own Many parks are set up to protect shoreline property, belong to various unique resources, but the uniqueness clubs and marinas, etc. But as we can be problematic because there are descend the socioeconomic scale, so many ways to describe a place—as a access through private venues landscape, a historic site, a potential becomes increasingly limited, so pub- location for a chemical plant, a vegeta- lic parks along lakes are warranted to tive or soil type, etc.—that virtually preserve lake access for the rest of the any place can be made to sound public. Many urban parks also pre- unique under some description or serve green space that can be consid- another (O’Neil 1993). Consequently, ered unique relative to the immediate we must ask what it is that makes an surrounding environment. individual park valuable in and of In addition to preserving public itself, which returns us to the values access to unique aesthetic and his- discussed above. toric/cultural resources, recreation Recreation is undoubtedly the also serves other ends that traditional- most widespread public value associ- ly have been considered publicly ated with parks, as indicated by the important in Dewey’s sense of requir- state park survey described above. For ing systematic enhancement. For

26 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? example, parks provide family-orient- when asked to apportion their willing- ed experiences as well as opportuni- ness to pay. There may be widespread ties to explore nature and learn about public recognition that this value can the outdoors. In the past, we have con- be important in specific locations, but sidered such activities to be socially that not every park may contain rare desirable and worth encouraging and endangered species. through recreation in public parks. There was also widespread recog- A similar argument can be made for nition of the economic values associat- historical/cultural values, although ed with parks. Unique natural or his- they were not as highly rated as recre- toric parks provide an identifiable des- ation in the Vermont survey. Colonial tination for tourists and are frequently sites or Civil War battlefields, for used by the public to stimulate eco- example, are scarce resources. If we nomic activity and financial invest- want to encourage people to visit these ment in low-income areas. areas to reconnect with their heritage, The other values—educational, then these areas properly belong in the moral, intellectual, scientific, and ther- public sector where visitation can be apeutic—were not as highly rated, or encouraged through subsidization. Of had mixed ratings between the value course, there are many private founda- measures (though nearly all potential tions and not-for-profit organizations values were rated as at least “moder- that operate historic/cultural sites suc- ately” important). This does not nec- cessfully. However, since the public essarily mean that they are not pub- funding for museums and other his- licly important, however; it may sim- toric/cultural nongovernmental organ- ply be that the population surveyed izations is limited, these institutions was not as familiar with them. have needed to rely increasingly on Spiritual experiences, for instance, fees, which again means that low- may not be commonly associated with income people may be excluded. In parks. Similarly, the scientific values addition, some parks were initiated by associated with parks may be particu- the private sector, but were turned larly important to researchers, yet the over to the public sector after it was general public may only be beginning found that they could not be operated to recognize this significance. Often at even a “break-even” level (Saugus these values—moral, intellectual, sci- Iron Works National Historic Site in entific, and therapeutic—involve Massachusetts is an example). For processes that are not yet fully clear such parks, the choice is public-sector either to researchers or to managers, operation or non-existence. or to the public themselves. As Ecological values may occasionally research identifies the processes be justified on the basis of scarcity. involved in each, we may come to a Many parks protect habitat for rare clearer understanding of the role of and endangered plants and animals. each, which may make their public The survey results suggested that peo- importance more readily apparent. ple placed moderate importance on In sum, parks are publicly impor- this value, yet ranked it more highly tant because they provide recreation

Volume19 • Number 2 2002 27 Once Again, Why Public Parks?

(and other) services that the market increasingly important recreational either cannot create or cannot distrib- values to society, how can we ensure ute equitably.The different values rep- these values accrue equitably to all resent combinations of functions that members of society? Minority popu- help us understand the unique role lations are historically underrepre- that public parks can play in contem- sented in the national parks, and this porary society. issue 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 in the well-being of both individuals and public policy (Floyd 1999; Floyd society. Moreover, parks are clearly 2001). Ironically, the popularity of identified with recreation, and, in fact, parks may lead to “capacity” prob- recreation may be their most impor- lems, at least in some places at some tant value as judged by those who visit times (Manning 2001; Haas 2001). them. Finally, a number of arguments For example, the U.S. National Park suggest that much of the recreational System now accommodates nearly value of parks can be realized only 300 million visits annually. While the when they are owned and maintained popularity of parks is a testament to by common action through govern- their success and cause for celebra- ment. History suggests that public use tion, it may lead to unacceptable and appreciation (i.e., public recre- impacts to parks and to the quality of ation) were instrumental in the estab- recreation experiences. How much lishment 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 concerns increasing number of values of parks potential conflicts among the multiple are evolving, recreation remains an values of public parks (Sellars 1997). important, often dominant, public When recreation affects significant value, and should remain a vital part of natural, cultural, historical, scientific, the philosophical and management educational, and other values of public foundation 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 that chal- informed management must balance lenge contemporary park manage- all these increasingly important values. ment. For example, if parks provide References Allen, L. 1996. Benefits-based management of recreation services. Parks and Recreation 31, 64-76. Andrews, R., and M. Waits.1980. Theory and methods of environmental values research. Interdisciplinary Science Review 5, 71-78. Beckwith, J. 2002. Parks, property rights, and the possibilities of the private law. The Cato Journal 1:2 [http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj1n2-6.html].

28 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks?

Bengston, D. 1994. Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources 7, 515-533. Brown, T.1984. The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Economics 60, 231-246. Brown, P., and Haas, G. 1980. Wilderness recreation experiences: The Rawah case. Journal of Leisure Research 12, 229-41. Cranz, G. 1982. The Politics of Park Design. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Dewey, J. 1954. The Public and its Problems. Denver: Alan Swallow. Driver, B. 1990. Focusing research on the benefits of leisure: Special issue introduction. Journal of Leisure Research 22, 93-98. ———. 1996. Benefits-driven management of natural areas. Natural Areas Journal 16, 94-99. Driver, B., R. Nash, and G. Haas. 1987. Wilderness benefits: A state-of-knowledge review.In Proceedings— National Wilderness Research Conference Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions. R.C. Lucas, ed. U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service General Technical Report INT-220. Ogden, Ut.: USDA–Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, 294-319. Edginton, C., D. Jordan, D. DeGraaf, and S. Edginton. 2002. Leisure and Life Satisfaction: Foundational Perspectives. New York: McGraw-Hill. Floyd, M. 1999. Race, ethnicity, and the National Park System. NPS Social Science Review 1:2, 1-24. ———. 2001. Managing parks in a multicultural society: Searching for Common Ground. The George Wright Forum 18:3, 41-51. Haas, G. 2001. Visitor capacity in the National Park System. NPS Social Science Review 2:1, 1-28. Haas, G., B. Driver, and P.Brown. 1980. Measuring wilderness recreation experiences. In Proceedings of the Wilderness Psychology Group. 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 Resources 7, 535-546. Kellert, S. 1985. Historical trends in perceptions and uses of animals in 20th century America. Environmental Review 9:1, 19-33. Kempton, W., J. Boster, and J. Hartley.1995. Environmental Values in American Culture. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press. Kraus, R. 1990. Recreation and Leisure in Modern Society. New York: Harper Collins. Manning, R. 1989. The nature of America: Visions and revisions of wilderness. Natural Resources Journal 29:1, 25-40. ———. 2001. Visitor experience and resource protection: A framework for managing the carrying capacity of national parks. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19:1, 93-108. Manning, R. and W. Valliere. 1996. Environmental values, environmental ethics and wilderness manage- ment: An empirical study. International Journal of Wilderness 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. The George Wright Forum 13:2, 20-31. Manning, R., W. Valliere, and B. Minteer. 1999. Values, ethics, and attitudes toward national forest man- agement. Society and Natural Resources 12:5, 421-436. Minteer, B., and R. Manning. 2000. Convergence in environmental values: An empirical and conceptual defense. Ethics, Place and Environment 3:1, 47-60. More, T. 2002. The marginal user as the justification for public recreation. Journal of Leisure Research 34:1, 103-118. More, T., and T. Stevens. 2000. Do user fees exclude low-income people from resource-based recreation? Journal of Leisure Research 32:3, 341-357. Morrissey, J., and R. Manning. 2000. Race, Residence and Environmental Concern: New Englanders and the White Mountain National Forest. Human Ecology Review 7:1, 12-24. Nash, R. 2001. Wilderness and the American Mind. 4th ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Negra, C., and R. Manning. 1997. Incorporating environmental behavior, ethics, and values into nonformal

Volume19 • Number 2 2002 29 Once Again, Why Public Parks? environmental education programs. Journal of Environmental Education 28:2, 10-21. Okun, A. 1975. Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute. O’Neil, J. 1993. Ecology, Policy and Politics. London: Routledge. Rokeach, M. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press. Rolston, H., III. 1988. Environmental Ethics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Rolston, H., III, and J. Coufal. 1991. A forest ethic and multivalue forest management. Journal of Forestry 89:4, 35-40. Runte, A. 1997. National Parks: The American Experience. 3rd ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Sellars, R. W. 1997. Preserving Nature in the 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-based management. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 13, 52-70. Taylor, D. 1999. Central Park as a model for social control: Urban parks, social class, and leisure behavior in nineteenth century America. Journal of Leisure Research 31:4, 420-447. Robert Manning, School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont, 356 Aiken Center, Burlington, Vermont 05405; [email protected] Thomas More, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, P.O. Box 968, South Burlington, Vermont 05403; [email protected] ❖

30 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? Thomas Michael Power The Economic Foundations of Public Parks

The Human Purposes of Parks rom a historical point of view, America’s public parks, including city, state, and national parks, were not primarily created for what we would now call “ecological” reasons. Human use and benefit were central from the beginning of park creation. For our national parks, for instance, Fhuman visitation and enjoyment (“pleasuring”) were a central part of the legisla- tive purpose (National Park Service Organic Act, 16 U.S. Code 1). Even a cur- sory review of the character of the national parks created during the first 85 years of existence of the National Park Service indicates not an attempt to protect the biologically most fragile and threatened ecosystems, but an attempt to protect the most “charismatic” of our natural landscapes, those that awed and inspired human visitors. The establishment of our first national parks was motivated by a “monumentalism” that aimed at “putting the most extraordinary displays of nature” within public parks (Runte 1982; Smith 2000, 233). At the same time, what we would tinues to be important in the manage- now recognize as environmental or ment of even our “premier” national ecological concerns were also part of parks: Witness the ongoing battles the motivation: “To conserve the over the use of snowmobiles in Yel- scenery and the natural ... objects and lowstone, the use of personal water- the wild life therein and to provide for craft in many national parks, sightsee- the enjoyment of the same in such a ing overflights of Grand Canyon, manner and by such means as will efforts to control visitor congestion by leave them unimpaired for the enjoy- mandatory use of public transporta- ment of future generations” (16 U.S. tion, etc. Code 1). But human “enjoyment” was When “public parks” in general are a central purpose. This emphasis on considered, the focus on human needs human use of public parks clearly con- as opposed to protecting natural sys- flicts with some of our contemporary tems is even clearer. The first urban environmental sensibilities that are parks were created in response to the skeptical of a purely anthropocentric impacts of industrialization on the view of the environment. urban environment. As factories, The conflict between the original crowded working-class tenements, objective, human use and enjoyment, and the accompanying congestion and and the contemporary concern with air and water pollution transformed potential environmental damage con- cities, public health became an impor-

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 31 Once Again, Why Public Parks? tant issue. Public parks were partially a The Economic Purposes of Parks somewhat naïve public health initia- In popular public policy dialogue, tive: to provide access to fresh air, the word “economics” is often equat- uncrowded space, and some contact ed with the worlds of commerce and with the natural world in an otherwise finance. But as a social science, eco- degraded industrialized setting (Ward nomics focuses on improving the ways 2002). Urban parks continue to pro- in which we use scarce resources to vide relief from an urban industrial satisfy human needs and desires. The landscape by introducing a human- objective is either to boost the satisfac- designed “natural” landscape, but tion we can derive from the limited rarely do these urban parks seek to resources at our disposal, or to reduce preserve or recreate indigenous the waste of those scarce resources as ecosystems. Instead, they focus on we satisfy our highest priority needs creating spaces free of dense building, and desires, or both. In that conven- opportunities for recreation, and tional economic setting, the focus is on places of quiet contemplation. all human needs and desires that rely on the use of scarce resources. (It There are other human purposes should be noted that there are areas that public parks served, especially in where economic analysis may not be an urban setting; for instance, the pro- appropriate because the trade-off vision of open public spaces to which analysis that is central to economics is all citizens have a right to access. Such considered ethically or culturally inap- public spaces have important political propriate.) In that context, public and cultural meaning within the Euro- parks, because they seek to serve pean tradition that dates back to important human needs and desires, ancient Greece and Rome. With have an important economic aspect to industrialization and the rise to domi- them. nance of private property and capital- The above discussion of the human ism, such public spaces were lost, objectives of public parks lays the especially in “new” cities and neigh- basis for the discussion of the eco- borhoods. With that “enclosure” of nomic role of public parks. In a vari- “public space” went a loss of social ety of ways public parks improve the and civic vitality that had economic “livability” of neighborhoods, cities, implications as those new or expand- and regions. They do this by provid- ed urban places failed to develop the ing a flow of valuable environmental economic dynamism of earlier urban services: open space, reduced conges- centers (Jacobs 1961). Many contem- tion, contact with nature and wildlife, porary civic organizations (e.g., the recreational opportunities, scenic Project for Public Spaces, Trust for beauty,improved air and water quality, Public Lands, and Partners for Livable quiet, a slowed pace of human activity, Communities) are focused on repair- a relaxed place to meet and interact ing this loss as a way of revitalizing our with fellow citizens, and so on. Just as urban areas. Public parks play a role the well-to-do can pursue such ameni- here too. ties through the purchase of large

32 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? estates or homes in gated park-like set- the economy. The shift away from nat- tings or through membership in pri- ural resource industries and heavy vate clubs, the general public can pur- manufacturing towards light manufac- sue them through a political process turing (including high tech) and serv- that establishes accessible public ices has made economic activity much parks in their neighborhoods or com- less tied to particular places. Econom- munities. In both cases, scarce ic activity is more “footloose.” Higher resources are allocated to the satisfac- levels of income, the difference in the tion of important human needs and cost of housing in larger metropolitan desires. Both types of actions are eco- areas and smaller urban and rural nomic in character, even though one is areas, the rise in the importance of private and relies on markets and the investment and retirement income, other is public and relies on the gov- improvements in transportation and ernment. communication, and the mobility of As a result of changes in the Amer- families during the Great Depression, ican economy, the quality of the living World War II, and the post-war period environment (“livability”) has become have all combined to make for a much increasingly important to people and more mobile population and work- an increasingly important economic force. People are more “footloose” force. This is clear in the near-con- too. sensus nationally that environmental As a result of these changes, per- quality is important and ought to be ceived differences in the attractiveness pursued even if there are economic of different areas as places to live, costs associated with it. This is partly work, and do business can lead to a result of the success of our economy shifts of population and economic in providing a reliable level of afflu- activity. Subjective judgments about ence that has allowed citizens to confi- the site-specific amenities associated dently consider the full range of values with different places have led to signif- they would like to pursue, not just icant in- and out-migration that has their survival needs. It is also tied to transformed the economic geography the negative side of that economic suc- of the United States in the last half of cess: the damage that ongoing eco- the 20th century. These include the nomic growth has caused to natural shifts from center-cities to suburbs; and social environments. Our rising the shift from the frost-belt to the sun- ability to afford higher-quality living belt, especially the Southwest; and the environments has coincided with “resettlement” of both the Deep South degradation of those same environ- and the Mountain West. Tens of mil- ments. Hence the broad-based move- lions of people and a good part of the ment to reverse that degradation. American economy have changed That impetus to protect and location. Often it has been people enhance the environments that we moving and economic activity follow- inhabit has become an economic force ing, rather than the other way around as well as a political force because of (see Power 1996a, 1996b; Power and other changes that have taken place in Barrett 2001; USDA 1999; Shumway

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 33 Once Again, Why Public Parks? and Otterstrom 2001). isolated areas, distant from urban pop- The point is that local environmen- ulation centers, considerable travel is tal quality—natural, social, and cultur- required for their enjoyment. As a al—matters to people, and, because of result, “tourism” is a necessary aspect that, has significant economic impor- of human enjoyment of those parks. tance. It is the contribution of public But when the focus shifts to all public parks to those site-specific local parks, including community, city, amenities that is the basis of their eco- county, and state parks, human use nomic importance. takes on a somewhat different meaning From an economic point of view, since it is largely local residents who the economic importance of public use and enjoy those parks. Tourism parks should be measured by the con- and commercial businesses facilitating tribution they make to individuals’ visitation from distant locations play a overall well-being. It is the direct satis- relatively modest role or no role at all. faction of human needs that is the This, it turns out, is an important eco- basis of economic value. Economists nomic distinction. measure this through the sacrifices The economic impact of public that people are willing to make to gain parks often has been analyzed almost access to such parks. Studies of how exclusively from the point of view of property values vary with distance their ability to attract visitors who from parks and of the travel costs spend money in the local economy. incurred to reach parks, as well as the Although these tourist impacts can be analysis of survey data, are used to significant in some locations, there are quantify the economic value of public two drawbacks to this approach to parks to their direct beneficiaries. measuring the impact of public parks Those estimated values are usually on local economic vitality. First, the quite high in dollar terms. approach tends to emphasize large In addition to the direct value of volumes of temporary visitors—so public parks to those who actively use large a volume that the community and enjoy them, there is the potential may be disrupted and the park dam- that those parks support local eco- aged. Second, it turns out that from a nomic vitality by drawing residents quantitative point of view,the ability of and visitors to the park area, stimulat- public parks to help communities ing local businesses. For those wor- hold on to current residents and ried about declining communities or attract new permanent residents is regions, this type of economic impact usually a more important economic of public parks may also be very force than tourist visitation. This is important. especially the case when the public parks are not nationally or internation- The Impact of Parks on Local ally “charismatic.” Economic Vitality versus the Focusing on the local economic Economic Value of Parks impact of public parks through their Because many of our original impact on making a community a national parks are located in relatively more attractive place to live has the

34 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? additional advantage of going back to above-average growth in average real the primary economic concern: to income. Averaged across all 21 large what extent are human needs and national park areas, population growth desires being satisfied by the park. A was almost four times faster than the focus on residents who value the park, national average. Job growth was rather than on the economic activity almost three times faster. Aggregate stimulated by tourist spending, is clos- real income grew twice as fast as the er to the actual direct economic values national average. at issue. Over this 30-year period, all of the large national park areas showed some National Parks and Local signs of above-average economic Economic Vitality growth. The Isle Royale area in the Analysis of the impact of national Upper Peninsula of Michigan only saw parks on local economic vitality pro- average incomes grow (slightly) more vides some important evidence of the rapidly than the national average. role that public parks can play in sup- That area also saw very little popula- porting local economies. Our analysis tion growth. The Big Bend area also here focuses on all of the large nation- saw below-average population and al parks (including the designations aggregate real income growth, but had “national monument” and “national above average income and job growth. preserve”) in the lower 48 states. Canyonlands saw below-average “Large” was arbitrarily taken to mean growth in aggregate income, but had those covering more than 250,000 above-average growth in jobs and pop- acres, of which there are 21. The eco- ulation. All of the other large national nomic vitality of the 45 counties in park areas had above-average growth which those large national parks are in population, jobs, and aggregate real located was analyzed by looking at income. growth in population, employment, During the most recent decade and real income. Two time periods (1989-1998) the results were similar: were used: the 30-year period 1969- 91% of the 21 large national park areas 1998, and the 10-year period 1989- had above-average population and job 1998. For summary purposes, we growth. Two-thirds saw aggregate real combine all of the counties adjacent to income grow at above the average. a particular national park in a “nation- Averaged across all of the 21 areas, al park area” and report on them during the period the population grew together. 2.5 times faster than the national aver- For the longer period of analysis age. Jobs grew twice as fast as in the (1969-1998), almost all the areas sur- nation as a whole, and aggregate real rounding the large national parks income expanded 65% faster. showed above-average economic vital- During the 1989-1998 period, all ity.Ninety-one percent showed above- of the large national park areas showed average population and job growth; signs of above-average economic vital- 86% saw aggregate real income rise at ity. One, the Death Valley area, above-average rates. A third had showed above-average growth only in

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 35 Once Again, Why Public Parks? population while experiencing below- growth was higher. In addition, there average growth in the other three eco- was no negative impact of wilderness nomic indicators. None of the large designation on employment or income national park areas showed a decline (Duffy-Deno 1998). in population in the 1990s, although Analysis of the economic develop- two, Big Bend and Isle Royale, had ment of rural counties near large very slow population growth com- wilderness areas found that popula- pared with the national average. Only tion growth in those counties was one area, that around Death Valley, somewhat higher than the growth rate saw employment contract during this for either the state as a whole or the period. The Everglades area saw major urban area in the state. During employment grow at only 90% of the the 1990s, the advantage of the rural national rate. All of the other large wilderness counties over the state and national park areas had above-average urban averages expanded (Booth job growth. None of the national park 1996). Another researcher found sim- areas saw aggregate real income ilar results for the Rocky Mountain decline. West even when he focused on truly Public Parks, Amenities, and rural counties—those that had no Local Economic Vitality cities with a population greater than The relatively high rates of popula- 2,500. That study included not only tion, job, and real income growth in federal wilderness as protected areas counties adjacent to national parks but also national parks and national reported here are not new findings. monuments. Relatively high correla- Economic research has repeatedly tions (r = .5) were found between demonstrated that areas with high- measures of the relative importance of quality natural environments that are these federal protected lands as a per- protected by official park or similar centage of total county land and sever- status have been able to attract higher al measures of economic vitality: levels of economic activity and, as a employment, average income, total result, show signs of superior econom- aggregate income, and population ic vitality. growth (Lorah 2000). A study of the impact of the pres- Rudzitis has also shown that feder- ence of state parks on employment al protection of landscapes through and population growth in 250 rural national park and wilderness designa- Western counties found that state tions not only did not appear to slow parks served as an amenity, attracting local economic growth, but was asso- population to those counties with ciated with growth rates two to six more state park lands while also sup- times those for other non-metropoli- porting employment growth (Duffy- tan areas and two to three times those Deno 1997). A similar analysis of the of metropolitan areas over the period impact of federal wilderness areas and 1960-1990. He showed that this was national parks in the Mountain West also true for National Park lands. His found that when a rural county was research clearly indicated that the pro- adjacent to a national park, population tected lands drew new residents who

36 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? were willing to sacrifice a certain communities. Public parks have a amount of income in order to live in large role to play in the effort. the higher-quality natural environ- The discussion throughout this ments that they perceive federal pro- paper should help clearly answer the tected landscapes provide (Rudzitis question this particular issue of the 1996, Table 7.1, 112-116). FORUM poses. From the very begin- Of course, most urban and commu- ning of Western European urban set- nity public parks are very far removed tlement, open spaces to which all citi- from these large national and state zens had a right of access were central parks in terms of size. But the eco- to urban political and social life. With nomic vitality in the areas adjacent to industrialization and the growth of national parks, state parks, wilderness very densely settled urban areas, pub- and roadless areas, etc., demonstrates lic health considerations led to an the very real economic importance to expansion of that urban open space people and communities of higher- ideal: Citizens needed access to some quality living environments. In that bit of the natural world or our urban sense, these unusual (in terms of their areas would become increasingly size) public parks dramatize the eco- unlivable. Public parks could provide nomic importance of parks in general. that. Public parks helped maintain All public parks provides some of the crucial connections between citizens same environmental qualities that and the natural world and among fel- large national parks do: open space, low citizens by providing a shared scenic vistas, some natural systems common area. Our state and national and wildlife, quiet spaces, a partial parks simply extended those concepts escape from the industrial or post- as we became an increasingly mobile industrial world, recreational opportu- population. Community and citizen- nities, and so forth. Access to these is ship centers on the sharing of a broad important to people both in urban and range of values and commitments. ex-urban settings. Communities that Public parks have played an important can provide them for their residents role in that civic sharing. That role will be stronger because their citizens has not diminished in this 21st centu- will have a stronger commitment to ry. The “new” urbanism that seeks to place, their civic involvement will be revitalize our cities has come full circle greater, and their economies will be to see the importance of shared, open, more vital. That is the reason that common spaces in making our cities there has been an increased emphasis attractive, livable places where eco- on creating new public spaces or reha- nomic vitality can blossom. bilitating old ones in revitalizing our References Booth, Douglas E. 1996. Economic development near big wilderness in the western U.S. Unpublished working paper, Economics Department, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisc. Duffy-Deno, Kevin T.1997. The effect of state parks on county economies of the West. Journal of Leisure Research 29:2, 201-224. ———. 1998. The effect of federal wilderness on county growth in the Intermountain Western United

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 37 Once Again, Why Public Parks?

States. Journal of Regional Science 38:1, 109-136. Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. Lorah, Paul A. 2000. Population growth, economic security,and cultural change in wilderness counties. Pp. 230-237 in Wilderness Science in a Time of Change—Volume 2: Wilderness within the Context of Larger Systems. Stephen F. McCool, David N. Cole, William T. Borrie, and Jennifer O’Laughlin, comps. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Nash, Roderick. 1970. The American invention of national parks. American Quarterly 22, 726-735. Power, Thomas M. 1996a. Environmental Protection and Economic Well-Being: The Economic Pursuit of Quality. Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe. ———. 1996b. Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies: The Search for a Value of Place. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Power, Thomas M., and Richard Barrett. 2001. Post-Cowboy Economics: Pay and Prosperity in the New American West. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Rudzitis, Gundars. 1996. Wilderness and the Changing American West. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Runte, Alfred. 1982. National Parks: The American Experience. Rev. ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Shumway,J. Matthew,and Samuel M. Otterstrom. 2001. Spatial patterns of migration and income change in the Mountain West: The dominance of service-based, amenity-rich counties. The Professional Geographer 53:4, 492-502. Smith, Richard B. 2000. Saving all the parts. Pp. 231-241 in National Parks and Rural Development: Practice and Policy in the United States. Gary E. Machlis and Donald R. Field, eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. USDA [U. S. Department of Agriculture], Economic Research Service. 1999. The rural West: Population and migration, income and employment. Special issue of Rural Development Perspectives 14:2 (August). Ward, Colin S. 2002. The changing function of Victorian public parks in England, 1840-1860. Web site: http://www.gober.net/victorian/reports/parks.html.

Thomas Michael Power, Economics Department, University of Montana, Mis- soula, Montana 59812; [email protected] ❖

38 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? Heath Schenker Why Urban Parks: A Matter of Equity?

Equity: justice according to natural law or right; specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism (antonym: inequity).

n a normal Sunday afternoon, Chapultepec Park in Mexico City (Fig- ure 1) is filled to capacity with throngs of people—so many, in fact, that no grass survives beneath the trees of the park, except in areas fenced off from human use. The activities in Chapultepec Park are Osimilar to the activities in Central Park in New York or the Bois de Boulogne in Paris on a Sunday afternoon. People of all ages and various walks of life are strolling, chatting, eating, playing games, boating, and generally enjoying them- selves. Although not exactly free of congestion, the park does offer a strong con- trast to the surrounding city in many ways. It is primarily a pedestrian zone, in contrast to the automobile-clogged city streets nearby. Its canopy of trees, curv- ing paths, fountains, and lakes all serve to encourage a different pace, a Sunday pace. That is to say, it is a landscape dedicated to leisure, as opposed to work. It is also a landscape dedicated to the aesthetic of “nature.”It is soft, absorbent, and green in contrast to the paved, walled, hard surfaces of the rest of the urban envi- ronment. Representing “nature” in the heart of the city, the public park is the other landscape, by which the city defines itself. Chapultepec Park is Mexico City’s public pleasure garden, clearly much loved and much used by residents of this thriving metropolis. It is easy to take public parks like meanings, but the most common defi- Chapultepec Park at face value, simply nition is: justice according to natural as pleasurable places to spend a Sun- law or right; specifically,freedom from day afternoon. But it is important to bias or favoritism. This meaning of remember that public parks are a equity is a product of the eighteenth- potent symbol of certain principles century Age of Enlightenment, with its that should never really be taken at emphasis on the natural rights pos- face value. For one thing, they symbol- sessed by individuals. The public ize the principle of equity. The notion park, as a civic institution, was con- of equity has been intrinsic to public ceived to correct certain injustices, or parks since they first began to prolifer- inequities, that were perceived to be in ate around the world in the nineteenth violation of natural law. The concept century. The first public parks were a of natural law guarantees certain basic potent symbol, in the nineteenth cen- or universal rights, across the social tury, of an increasing emphasis on spectrum, rights that transcend politi- equity as a governing principle in pub- cal, social, or economic status; for lic affairs. Equity is a term with several example, the right to the pursuit of

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 39 Once Again, Why Public Parks?

Figure 1. Like many urban parks, Chapultepec Park in Mexico City offers people a contrast to the “hardscape” of the city. Photo by the author. happiness. formed completely into public parks. People enjoying themselves in a That century was a period of major public park on a Sunday afternoon are transition throughout the world from certainly exercising their right to pur- autocratic systems of government to sue happiness. It is amazing to realize government by a broader-based pub- that two hundred years ago most peo- lic. In Europe and in many former ple would not have had access to this European colonies throughout the particular method of pursuing happi- world, monarchies were being trans- ness. In the eighteenth century, parks formed into republics, sometimes were the exclusive property of aristo- through violent conflict, sometimes crats; ordinary people were not through more gradual, peaceful allowed to enjoy them. The first parks processes. Public parks were a potent in Europe were actually former aristo- symbol of this transformation. An cratic properties: in the eighteenth example can be seen in the famous century,hunting parks and private gar- parks of London, such as Hyde Park, dens were gradually opened to the Kensington Gardens, and Saint James public for special events and on festi- Park. These parks evolved from royal val days. In the nineteenth century, parks into public pleasure grounds in these private properties were trans- the nineteenth century, and their

40 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? transformation represented the leisure that occurred in the nineteenth increasing democratization of govern- century. Olmsted often linked happi- ment as the British Parliament gained ness and leisure in his writings and power and influence. The example of public addresses. For example, in an the London parks was widely emulat- important address entitled “Public ed in other cities throughout Europe Parks and the Enlargement of Towns,” and European colonies as public parks he argued that the urban park should and gardens in the “English style” be a place “to which people may easi- proliferated in the nineteenth century. ly go after their day’s work is done ... The first public parks in the United where they may stroll for an hour, see- States were heavily influenced by Eng- ing, hearing, and feeling nothing of the lish parks, and were also firmly bustle and jar of the streets, where they grounded in natural law and the prin- shall, in effect, find the city put far ciple of equity. Frederick Law Olmst- away from them.” Olmsted designed ed, one of the most eloquent nine- the urban park as an antidote to the teenth-century spokesmen for public stresses and pressures of urban life. He parks, left a voluminous body of work, felt that the constant demands of work including many written justifications in modern cities inhibited the pursuit of the idea of public parks. These doc- of happiness. uments reveal that he was a firm Olmsted linked the aesthetic enjoy- believer in the basic principles of nat- ment of nature to the pursuit of happi- ural law.Olmsted argued that “it is the ness. He wrote that “the occasional main duty of government, if not the contemplation of natural scenes of an sole duty of government, to provide impressive character ... not only gives means of protection for all its citizens pleasure for the time being but in the pursuit of happiness.” An increases the subsequent capacity for important ingredient of happiness, happiness.”Public parks in the United according to Olmsted, was the ability States were intended to make the aes- to rest from work, or, in other words, thetic enjoyment of nature available to the right to leisure. Throughout much a broader public, i.e., to distribute of history,leisure was a luxury enjoyed more equitably the pleasure that Olm- by the aristocracy. But in the nine- sted, and those of his class, believed teenth century, workers throughout could be derived from contemplating the world gained increasing political natural scenery. Designing urban power and pressured governments for parks, such as Central Park in New a limited work week and a guarantee of York, Olmsted took “nature” as his leisure, protected by law. As public model, creating a landscape of woods parks proliferated in cities throughout and meadows that recalled the coun- the nineteenth century,they represent- tryside beyond the city limits. His goal ed this newly guaranteed right to was to make the experience of nature leisure for a much broader public, available to ordinary, working people including working men and women. living in modern, industrial cities. The Public parks were a potent symbol of increasing industrialism of the nine- the more equitable distribution of teenth century separated people from

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 41 Once Again, Why Public Parks? the experience of nature, forcing large cy. He worked in a time when democ- migrations, especially in the working racy was far from secure in the United class, from farms to factories. Olmst- States; its democratic ideals and ed, and other proponents of public national sovereignty were being parks in the United States, argued that severely tested, both during and after this was not only detrimental to the the American Civil War. Olmsted pursuit of happiness, but also believed that it was the duty of mem- inequitable, because people of means bers of the “new aristocracy” in the could still enjoy natural scenery, while United States (by which he meant the working class did not possess the educated, powerful, self-made men of means to do so. means) to bring a certain level of “civ- Olmsted emphasized that the aes- ilization” to the masses, thereby thetic appreciation of nature should strengthening the whole political sys- not be restricted to “heads of govern- tem. ment” and “the wealthy classes,” that It must be noted, however, that it should not be “a monopoly,in a very public parks were not exclusively cre- peculiar manner, of a very few, very ated by democratic republics in the rich people.” However, while Olmsted nineteenth century. Public parks were may have believed that the aesthetic also created by monarchies. Napoleon enjoyment of nature was a basic III, of France, for example, construct- human right, he also believed that it ed an impressive network of parks in was an acquired taste. He noted that Paris during the Second Empire. In “the power of scenery to affect men is, his effort to characterize the Second in a large way, proportionate to the Empire as the “peoples’ empire,” degree of their civilization and the Napoleon III anchored key Parisian degree in which their taste has been neighborhoods with public parks. cultivated. Among a thousand savages These neighborhoods represented there will be a much smaller number key political constituencies that who will show the least sign of being Napoleon III depended on for his so affected than among a thousand political power. The public parks of persons taken from a civilized commu- the Second Empire were intended as a nity. This is only one of the many potent political symbol of the emper- channels in which a similar distinction or’s commitment to equity.By creating between civilized and savage men is to a series of public parks throughout be generally observed.” This passage Paris, he aimed to demonstrate to his is a potent reminder that public parks political supporters that the monarchy served powerful political ideologies in was paying attention to certain basic the nineteenth century. rights, such as health, leisure, and the For people like Olmsted, public pursuit of happiness. The public parks were a symbol of democracy, as parks of New York may have symbol- opposed to traditional, hereditary sys- ized American democratic ideals, but tems of government. Olmsted viewed the public parks of Paris symbolized public parks as a means to educate and Napoleon III’s vision of monarchy in elevate the political base in a democra- France. Both were rooted in notions

42 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? about basic rights and equity. grounds. Regent’s Park was intended Equity: (a) a right, claim, or inter- to simulate a country estate in the city, est existing or valid in equity; (b) the with row houses surrounding it on the money value of a property or of an periphery and detached villas located interest in a property in excess of claims throughout the interior. Although or liens against it; (c) a risk interest or originally intended as a private park, it ownership right in property. was opened to the general public in The foregoing examples have illus- 1838, as the other royal parks in Lon- trated how one definition of equity, don were also opening to public use. signifying social justice and based in Another English example of the natural law, was an intrinsic principle link between public parks and real underpinning the public park in the estate was Birkenhead Park in Liver- nineteenth century. But another defi- pool, also developed as a setting for nition of equity also applies to the housing, although aimed at the more public park, as a product of the nine- modest, “middling” class. Birkenhead teenth century.The term “equity” also Park was open to the public from its signifies monetary value, and in that inception, and its houses proved high- century,public parks represented con- ly popular. Olmsted was much siderable equity of this kind. The idea impressed by Birkenhead Park when of public parks took hold around the he visited Liverpool as a young man, world not only because they served long before he became involved with certain political agendas and repre- Central Park in New York. Real estate sented certain ideals of social justice, speculators were also instrumental in but also, in large part, because of real developing the parks in Paris during estate speculators who began to view the Second Empire; in fact, scandals them as a marketable amenity.As pub- that emerged in that regard eventually lic parks proliferated in cities around forced the resignation of Baron Hauss- the world, they were linked to an inter- man, the Prefect of the Seine, who was national wave of real estate specula- in charge of rebuilding Paris under tion. Napoleon III. In New York, the selec- An early example was Regent’s tion of a site for Central Park was held Park in London, which was developed up for years due to competition among in 1811 as the setting for a series of landowners and speculators who expensive villas, marketed to members stood to gain, or lose, from one site or of the English upper class, including another. That scenario was repeated in both the landed aristocracy and the innumerable cities across the United wealthy, industrial bourgeoisie. The States, as public parks were proposed developers of Regent’s Park recog- by prominent citizens from San Fran- nized that many members of this class cisco to Buffalo. wanted a house in the city for the The public park, as a new public social season, but missed some of the institution, received vital support from comforts of their country manors a powerful and influential bourgeoisie when they moved to the city, particu- with increasing international ties who larly their private parks and pleasure recognized the potential equity of

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 43 Once Again, Why Public Parks? public parks, not only in terms of Today these public parks are a political and social capital, but as ubiquitous element in the urban fab- financial capital. The members of this ric, offering green relief from the glare, bourgeoisie were educated, well trav- noise, and pollution produced by eled, interconnected, and politically industry and commerce. They are influential. They advocated public cherished oases amidst the hardscape parks because they believed that they of modern cities. Most are heavily would improve the image of a city,and used and meticulously maintained. therefore make it more attractive to The equity values that were embed- new business investors. What kind of ded in these parks in the nineteenth businessman would want to bring his century are still intrinsic to them family to live in a city with no public today, although obscured by nearly park?! This class of citizens supported two centuries of habit and imitation. It public parks around the world, under is important, once in a while, to brush various political systems, with varying off the layers of historic dust that have degrees of risk and varying amounts of accumulated on these parks, obscur- altruism, but always with an eye ing their social, political, and ethical towards this other meaning of equity. meanings. Doing so not only reminds Some realized direct returns on their us of the historic period that produced investments in terms of rising real- them, but also stimulates us to recon- estate values or other financial gains sider the values that public parks directly linked to public parks. Others embody in cities today. Do they repre- only gained symbolic capital. But sent time-honored or outdated ideas regardless of the financial equations in about equity? Does the notion of equi- individual cases, the overall result was ty enter into the picture at all any that public parks proliferated in cities more? If so, have ideas about parks around the world, from Beijing to and equity changed? These are Cape Town, from New York to important questions to be asking as we Havana, from Saint Petersburg to begin not only a new century, but a Mexico City. new millennium of park design.

References Conway, Hazel. 1991. People’s Parks: The Design and Development of Victorian Parks in Britain. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Cranz, Galen. 1982. The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in America. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Olmsted, Frederick Law. 1990. The Papers of Frederick Law Olmsted, Volume 5: The California Frontier, 1863-1865. Victoria Post Ranney, Gerald J. Rauluk, and Carolyn F. Hoffman, eds. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press. ———. 1997. Civilizing American Cities: Writings on City Landscapes. S.B. Sutton, ed. New York: Da Capo Press. Schenker, Heath. 1994. Parks and politics in Paris under the Second Empire. Landscape Journal 14:2, 201-219. ———. In press. Theme parks, pleasure gardens and the picturesque. In The Landscape of Theme Parks: Antecedents and Variations. Robert Riley and Terrence Young, eds. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

44 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks?

Heath Schenker, University of California–Davis, Department of Environmental Design/Landscape Architecture, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616; [email protected] ❖

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 45 Once Again, Why Public Parks?

James A. Pritchard The Meaning of Nature: Wilderness, Wildlife, and Ecological Values in the National Parks

uthor Judith Meyer (1996) suggests that tourists writing postcards home from Yellowstone added layers of cultural meaning to the park. In a similar way, Americans layered wilderness, wildlife, and ecological values on top of the original meanings assigned to national parks. Of considerableA interest is how these values became tied together in a cultural bun- dle, with wildlife taking the starring role. Yellowstone provides an example of how scientists and the public came to see wilderness, wildlife, and ecological sig- nificance linked together in the national parks. As historians Aubrey Haines mals. In 1919, Yellowstone’s first (1977) and Alfred Runte (1979) point National Park Service (NPS) superin- out, Congress established Yellowstone tendent, Horace Albright, worried National Park for protecting scenic that elk might become extinct if they wonders and wilderness landscapes of were not protected in Yellowstone. unique beauty against tawdry Wilderness, as environmental his- exploitation and industrial incursion. torians remind us, is partly a place and Yet animals did not receive effective partly human conceptions of a place protection for some time, and various (Worster 1997). Around 1900, a animals were valued very differently. nature study movement helped alter Two useful milestones indicating the views of the wilderness from an intim- addition of wildlife values to park pur- idating force toward a landscape that poses occurred in 1886, when the challenged people (Nash 1967). U.S. Army protected the park, and in When Theodore Roosevelt visited 1894, when the Yellowstone Park Pro- Yellowstone with nature writer John tection Act made poaching in the park Burroughs and Yosemite with John a federal offense. While this ended the Muir, he brought along his concep- local slaughter of wildlife for market, tions of the virtues of a strenuous life. federal assumption of authority over Although he shared cultural preju- wildlife in the parks also ended tradi- dices against wolves and coyotes, Roo- tional hunting practices by Native sevelt moderated his view, partly Americans and transformed hunting because of his experiences in Yellow- by rural folk into an illicit activity stone (Johnston 1998). (Spence 1996; Jacoby 2001). Motivat- The founders of animal ecology ed by the near-extinction of the plains first added ecological values to the bison, conservationists looked to Yel- meanings of wilderness and wildlife in lowstone as a refuge for big game ani- the national parks. From 1908 into the

46 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks?

Figure 1. Ranger Sam Woodring nurturing “good” animals in Yellowstone National Park. Common wisdom of the 1910s vilified the “bad” predators. Woodring wrote the rationale for predator control in the park. Courtesy National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park. 1920s, scientists came to believe that landscapes, as much as watching the places where naturalists might study development of tourism, agriculture, nature at work were disappearing and timber and mining industries in quickly. Despite the warnings of western states, drove botanists, zoolo- botanist Ada Hayden from 1919 to gists, and ecologists to argue for land- 1947, Midwestern prairies continued scape preservation throughout North to disappear under the plow. Plant America. The words “landscape ecologists became concerned that no preservation” are used here because prairie larger than a few acres would scientists from 1908 to 1920 didn’t remain. On the Mississippi River, sci- start with the term “wilderness”; entists propagating mussels for the rather, they began by arguing for the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries (ca. 1914-30) preservation of “natural,” “primeval,” witnessed pollution and power dam or “primitive” conditions in particular construction that profoundly altered places. riverine habitats and species composi- From 1916 well into the 1920s, tion. Observing the profound changes Joseph Grinnell, director of the Muse- in prairies and rivers in Midwestern um of Vertebrate Zoology at the Uni-

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 47 Once Again, Why Public Parks? versity of California at Berkeley, pro- Turner 2000). Yet a substantial part of vided leadership in countering intense their thinking also was shaped by development pressures in Yosemite practical concerns. The hunting meth- (Runte 1990). Charles C. Adams, who ods employed by native peoples, for wrote Guide to the Study of Animal example, worried scientists. Seal pop- Ecology in 1913, and Victor Shelford, ulations historically had done well in like Adams an organizer of the Ecolog- Glacier Bay, they reasoned in 1920, ical Society of America (ESA), provid- but now that native peoples used high- ed enduring enthusiasm for landscape powered rifles, and would surely begin preservation. They formed a Commit- to use motorized boats, in hunting, tee on the Preservation of Natural what would prevent the decimation of Conditions under the auspices of the the seals? ESA. The national parks were promi- Some conservationists may have nent in the committee’s 1926 wish-list conceived of a “pristine” wilderness of places worthy of preservation, The untouched by human hand, but most Naturalist’s Guide to the Americas scientists thought of landscape modifi- (Shelford 1926; Shelford 1943). cation and preservation as conditions Beginning in 1919, Adams had sent on a relative scale. For example, while scientific teams from the Roosevelt the metaphor of “the balance of Wild Life Experiment Station (at New nature” was used frequently,ecologists York State University’s School of of the early twentieth century knew Forestry) to Yellowstone, where Mil- this was a relative balance, not an ideal ton P. Skinner, the park’s first natural- condition. The term “natural condi- ist and associate of the station, exam- tions” signified that scientists thought ined the life history of grizzly bears in humans had not substantially altered a ecological detail not replicated until landscape. Informed by the contem- the 1970s. Animal ecologists’ first porary context of modern landscape- concern—vanishing animals such as scale development, Victor Shelford the mountain lion and wolf—con- believed that indigenous people had a tributed to their worry over transfor- relatively limited effect on the environ- mations of natural landscapes. ment. In terms of preservation, Landscape preservation did not Shelford discussed first-, second-, and come without a cost. In the 1920s, third-class nature sanctuaries, when Congress considered establish- research reserves, natural and buffer ing Glacier Bay National Monument, areas, and experimental, primitive, scientists lobbied for its creation. This and wilderness areas. All these desig- group, including plant ecologist nations depended on relative degrees William S. Cooper, made efforts to of disturbance and differing agency exclude native hunters from the new purposes (Shelford 1933; Sloan monument. Conservationists’ views of 2002). Similarly,around 1926 Charles the landscape as “pristine” led them to Adams wrote on “the varying degrees see humans as apart from nature and of the wilderness,” making distinc- shaped their conclusions regarding tions among human influences on a policy (Catton 1997; Cronon 1996; landscape. Areas to preserve “natural”

48 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks?

Figure 2. Horace Albright shows tourists how to feed the bears, ca. 1923. Property damage and many injuries, as well as views on a more natural presentation of wildlife, prompted NPS to discourage this activity in the early 1940s. Courtesy National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park. or “wilderness” conditions would be work” of civilization had “reasonable places where “nature is allowed to take bounds” (Adams 1929). her course with the minimum of Placing those reasonable bounds human interference.” Adams felt that on remaining undeveloped landscapes even the “excellent and necessary became an obsession for Shelford and

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 49 Once Again, Why Public Parks? Adams. By 1932, the ESA’s Commit- Yellowstone Park Naturalist C. Max tee on the Preservation of Natural Bauer defended the coyote when Conditions had written a detailed plan ranchers on the Absaroka Conserva- for nature sanctuaries and the ESA tion Committee desired deadly baits had unanimously adopted it. By this placed close to the park’s northern time, their language emphasized “the border. preservation of natural biotic commu- Author Jennifer Price (1999) iden- nities.” The National Parks Associa- tified public protest over women’s tion helped publicize the plan for feathered hat fashions (ca. 1890s) as a nature sanctuaries and pushed the turning point in valuing wildlife. Birds Park Service to help carry it out. By were also central to Yellowstone’s new 1933, NPS established twenty-eight valuation of wildlife, at the same research reserves in ten parks. moment that ecologists were urging Development of the NPS educa- the NPS to protect coyotes and tional division, beginning in 1920 wolves, as parks had traditionally pro- when Harold C. Bryant organized the tected big game animals. Partly in NPS Yosemite Free Nature Guide Ser- response to mammalogists’ protests vice, provided an institutional home against the Bureau of Biological Sur- for college-trained naturalists. While vey’s predator control program, the the ranger division provided the per- National Park Service declared in sonnel for managing wildlife, the natu- 1931 that all animals would find ralist division housed most wildlife refuge in the national parks (Dunlap research until 1964. Referred to as 1985). Yet for some time pelicans “posie pickers,” the naturalists provid- feeding on native trout stocks had ed leadership in adopting ecological been surreptitiously killed on Yellow- values. During the 1940s, for example, stone Lake, in theory to enhance fish-

Figure 3. Scientists banding pelicans on Molly Island on Yellowstone Lake, ca. 1932. With a nudge from Rosalie Edge and ecological knowledge from the NPS wildlife division, all predators in the park received protection. Photo by Chief Ranger George Baggley, courtesy National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park.

50 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? ing and reduce losses from the Bureau activities (e.g., artificial feeding), of Fisheries’ trout propagation pro- reducing the herd size, and ending the gram. Ardent conservationist Rosalie bison stampede for visiting digni- Edge called public attention to the taries. Similarly,Drury advocated end- slaughter of pelicans and bird lovers ing the roadside feeding of bears and objected, causing embarrassment for the popular “bear shows” at NPS Director Horace Albright. The amphitheaters. Horace Albright final crux over the role of predators in protested ending the bear shows, the parks had been reached over claiming visitors should have every nature’s feathered friends. In 1932, chance to see wildlife. Reflecting the Yellowstone Superintendent Roger goals of the NPS wildlife division, Toll declared that pelicans also would Drury argued that “our aim ... should be protected. In doing so, he redefined be to place each wild species ... on its the park’s valuation of wildlife and put own, without dependence upon man, nature’s purposes ahead of human and occupying its natural niche in the designs. biota of the park.” Drury received During the 1930s, ecological and strong support from ecologists nation- wildlife values became firmly inter- wide, such as S. Charles Kendeigh, twined in the national parks, repre- chairman of the ESA Committee for sented by the establishment of the the Study of Plant and Animal Com- NPS wildlife division, led by George munities, who suggested that the bear Melendez Wright. The division insti- shows were “not in harmony with the tuted the Fauna series of publications purpose of the national parks as repre- on national park wildlife, recommend- senting natural communities of plants ed extensive biological research in the and animals in an undisturbed condi- national parks, and proposed guide- tion, where each species is leading its lines for wildlife management that normal existence” (Pritchard 1999). departed from single-species manage- Although Drury solicited scientific ment to emphasize an ecosystem-ori- opinion, from the 1940s into the ented approach and the restoration of 1960s scientific research within the wildlife to natural conditions. At the NPS took a backseat to its traditional same time that the division con- emphasis on tourism (Sellars 1997, tributed ecological knowledge, it Wright 1992). brought a confidence that human The National Park Service did not intervention could restore natural bal- embrace the wilderness preservation ances disturbed by humans, for exam- movement that culminated in the ple by controlling “abnormally large” Wilderness Act of 1964. The roots of ungulate populations (Wright 1992; that reluctance dated from the early Sellars 1997). days of the NPS. At a fundamental During the early 1940s, ecological level, NPS founding fathers Stephen values pushed park management away Mather and Horace Albright did not from overly artificial wildlife manage- see a serious conflict between preser- ment. NPS Director Newton Drury vation and development. As Ethan proposed discontinuing bison rearing Carr (1998) points out, they believed

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 51 Once Again, Why Public Parks?

Figure 4. The Bison Ranch, where Yellowstone’s herd was nurtured back from the brink of extirpation, was closed in the early 1940s as part of an effort towards a more naturalistic presentation of wildlife to the public. Courtesy National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park. that preservation of scenic landscapes Undoubtedly aware of the 1946 reso- would be effected best through devel- lution by the American Society of opment creating a wide base of sup- Mammalogists endorsing the preser- port for the national parks. Road vation of natural areas “against which building in the parks, however, elicited the practices in game production on resistance. The modern wilderness lands under management can be meas- movement, argues Paul Sutter (2002), ured,” their use of the term “wilder- began with opposition to road build- ness” incorporated both new mean- ing projects such as the Skyline Drive ings and implications previously in Shenandoah National Park. During attached to “primeval conditions.” the early 1930s, Benton MacKaye, Both brothers had studied coyotes in Harvey Broome, Bob Marshall, Yellowstone, and Adolph scrutinized Howard Zahniser, Olaus Murie, Aldo wolves in Mount McKinley National Leopold and others created The Park. They lobbied against coyote Wilderness Society.During the 1950s, control along Yellowstone’s northern conservationists successfully opposed border, and Adolph tried to moderate a Bureau of Reclamation plan for a wolf control in Mount McKinley dur- dam at Echo Park, inside Dinosaur ing the 1940s (Rawson 2001). To National Monument (Harvey 1994). Olaus Murie, wilderness advocate, Like writer Freeman Tilden Yellowstone and Grand Teton nation- (1951), wildlife biologists Olaus and al parks appeared largely unaffected Adolph Murie looked to large natural by the managing human hand when parks as they considered wilderness. compared with the industrial forestry

52 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? just to the west on the Targhee Nation- Leopold agreed with the common wis- al Forest, an example of the maximum- dom that the elk herd should be yield approach to forest management. reduced to the carrying capacity of the Concerned about the press of tourists, range. Today, the Leopold Report is Murie wanted the NPS to protect the remembered for suggesting that the feeling of wilderness by limiting facili- parks should represent a “vignette of ty development. The Muries remained primitive America.” This vision made uncomfortable with needless manipu- the Leopold Report an enduring icon lation of park landscapes, appreciating for park management. The committee a friend’s comment to a tourist, “This did not advocate any particular land- ain’t no zoo, lady.” scape condition, but rather spoke to The wilderness movement did not the purposes of the parks as a manage- attract enthusiastic commitment from ment guide. The Robbins Report, the NPS. Park Service Directors New- released shortly thereafter by the ton Drury (1940-1951) and Conrad National Academy of Science, called Wirth (1951-1964), a landscape archi- for more biological research in the tect by training, supported the view Park Service. Science was briefly ele- that large parks such as Yellowstone, vated to a high priority, yet a reassign- Glacier, and Grand Canyon, as entire ment of biologists to regional offices units, possessed the essential qualities again reduced the profile of park sci- of wilderness. Declaring any particular ence (Sellars 1997). part of the park as wilderness was sim- During the 1960s and 1970s, ply redundant, and so the NPS wildlife and ecological values found advanced conservative proposals for new focus in Yellowstone with the park wilderness areas. In Yellowstone, work of John and Frank Craighead. only remote parts of Yellowstone Lake The Craigheads’ work on elk and bear were zoned as wilderness in 1958. In movements provided proof positive 1980, however, Congress designated that wildlife were not just park 32.4 million acres of Alaskan parks as denizens, but animals of a significantly wilderness, and thus the Park Service larger ecosystem (Craighead et al. came to manage more wilderness than 1995). Conservationists began to see any other agency (Sellars 1997). problems that transcended boundary Beginning in the 1960s, controversies lines, and, beginning in 1983, the over the construction of visitor facili- Greater Yellowstone Coalition advo- ties in Yellowstone got as hot as the cated conservationists’ viewpoints on wilderness debate in surrounding regional issues and conveyed to the states. public the conception of a larger The 1963 Leopold Report accen- ecosystem centering on Yellowstone tuated wilderness and ecological val- National Park. ues for the park system (Rydell 1998). During the 1960s and especially Originally convened in response to the the 1970s, scientists began to incorpo- controversy over direct reductions of rate new concepts into ecological val- elk in Yellowstone, the special adviso- ues for the parks. By the time of the ry committee chaired by A. Starker 1976 Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Con-

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 53 Once Again, Why Public Parks?

Figure 5. Frank and John Craighead with radiotelemetry gear, 1966. Their work on elk migra- tion and bear movements shaped modern perceptions of a Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Courtesy National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park. ference, for example, Yellowstone was replaced during the early 1970s staff, including plant ecologist Don by a new paradigm of flux, character- Despain, created a plan allocating nat- ized by change and unpredictability ural fire zones encompassing thou- (Pickett 1995). Instead of “natural sands of hectares. Scientists’ argu- conditions” or “wilderness,” scientists ments for restoring this natural began to refer to “natural processes.” process to Yellowstone’s landscape Since 1967, the Park Service view that were related to wider interests of the direct manipulation of elk herd num- scientific and land management com- bers was not necessarily warranted munity, including restoration ecolo- within large parks was facilitated by gists. Landscape ecology contributed new understandings of ecosystems in notions of patches, mosaic patterns, dynamic flux, disturbance as the rule, flux, and disturbance. Indeed, the and multiple states of equilibrium. entire classical equilibrium paradigm The subject of “natural regulation” (known as “the balance of nature”) remains a matter of vigorous debate

54 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks?

(Boyce 1998; Wagner et al.1995). Sig- glades National Park). Scientists echo nificantly, 1988 NPS management the call of Victor Shelford and Charles guidelines calling for working with C. Adams when they suggest that pro- natural processes leave room for inter- tected areas where managers use a pretation. This flexibility is desirable, light hand “have become baselines for because no policy could cover all con- measuring ecological change” else- tingencies. In Isle Royale National where (Sinclair 1998). Ultimately, Park, for example, there is a recent understanding the parks as continual- concern that wolves could be extirpat- ly evolving landscapes, rather than as ed. Preserving the wolf in the park places where managers select for might require highly manipulative desired conditions, has proven a sig- techniques (Wright 1992). Judging nificant transition in valuing wilder- how much to intervene to re-establish ness and ecological qualities of the natural processes, or when to watch parks. nature at work, has been a complex Since the parks were established, judgment call since the NPS wildlife each generation has assigned its own division came to Yellowstone in 1930. significance to the national parks, It is hard to overstate the enduring adding meaning and cultural depth. significance of ecological, wildlife, and As author Paul Schullery (1997) sug- wilderness values associated with the gests, “the search for Yellowstone is as national parks, even while we conceive much a search for ourselves as it is a of new models for national parks or search for biological understanding.” wildlife refuges to be established in Successive understandings of nature places where existing land uses make have redefined the meanings of wilder- any traditional archetype unworkable. ness, wildlife, and ecological relation- Aboriginal land use and hunting, for ships. While parks of the late nine- example, remain central issues for teenth century originally provided species preservation efforts in third- scenic landscapes envisioned as world countries (Rettie 1995). Today, wilderness, these landscapes also pro- we wonder how to establish wildlife vided physical habitats and resident corridors to link existing refuges with- wildlife, a grand focal point for adding in a larger matrix of developed land- layers of ecological meaning to the sig- scapes, and worry over external nificance of our national parks. threats to existing parks (e.g., at Ever- References Adams, Charles C. 1929. The importance of preserving wilderness conditions. New York State Museum Bulletin 279. Boyce, Mark S. 1998. Ecological-process management and ungulates: Yellowstone’s conservation para- digm. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:3, 391-398. Carr, Ethan. 1998. Wilderness by Design: Landscape Architecture and the National Park Service. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Catton, Theodore. 1997. Inhabited Wilderness. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Craighead, John J., Jay S. Sumner, and John A. Mitchell. 1995. The Grizzly Bears of Yellowstone: Their Ecology in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1959-1992. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Cronon, William. 1996. The trouble with wilderness, or, getting back to the wrong nature. Environmental History 1, 7-28. Dunlap, Thomas R. 1988. Saving America’s Wildlife: Ecology and the American Mind, 1850-1990. Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 55 Once Again, Why Public Parks?

Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Haines, Aubrey. 1977. The Yellowstone Story. Yellowstone National Park, Wyo.: Yellowstone Library and Museum Association. Harvey, Mark W.T. 1994. A Symbol of Wilderness: Echo Park and the American Conservation Movement. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Jacoby, Karl. 2001. Crimes Against Nature: Squatters, Poachers, Thieves, and the Hidden History of American Conservation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Johnston, Jeremy. 1998. Preserving the beasts of waste and desolation: Theodore Roosevelt and predator control in Yellowstone National Park. The George Wright Forum 15:4, 19-26. Meyer, Judith L. 1996. The Spirit of Yellowstone: The Cultural Evolution of a National Park. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Nash, Roderick. 1967 [1982] Wilderness and the American Mind. 3rd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press. Pickett, S.T.A., and Richard S. Ostfeld. 1995. The shifting paradigm in ecology. Pp. 261-278 in A New Century for Natural Resources Management. Richard L. Knight and Sarah F. Bates, eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1995. Price, Jennifer. 1999. Flight Maps: Adventures with Nature in Modern America. New York: Basic Books. Pritchard, James A. 1999. Preserving Yellowstone’s Natural Conditions: Science and the Perception of Nature. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Rawson, Timothy. 2001. Changing Tracks: Predators and Politics in Mt. McKinley National Park. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Rettie, Dwight F. 1995. Our National Park System: Caring for America’s Greatest Natural and Historic Treasures. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Runte, Alfred. 1979 [1987]. National Parks: The American Experience. 2nd ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ———. 1990. Yosemite: The Embattled Wilderness. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Rydell, Kiki Leigh. 1998. A public face for science: A. Starker Leopold and the Leopold Report. The George Wright Forum 15:4, 50-63. Schullery, Paul. 1997. Searching for Yellowstone: Ecology and Wonder in the Last Wilderness. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Sellars, Richard West. 1997. Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Shelford, V.E., ed. 1926. Naturalist’s Guide to the Americas. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. Shelford, V.E. 1933. The preservation of natural biotic communities. Ecology 14:2, 240-245. ———. 1943. Twenty-five-year effort at saving nature for scientific purposes. Science 98:2543, 280-281. Sinclair, A.R.E. 1998. Natural regulation of ecosystems in protected areas as ecological baselines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:3, 399-409. Sloan, N.A. 2002. History and application of the wilderness concept in marine conservation. Conservation Biology 16:2, 294-305. Spence, Mark David. 1999. Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks. New York: Oxford University Press. Sutter, Paul S. 2002. Driven Wild: How the Fight against Automobiles Launched the Modern Wilderness Movement. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Tilden, Freeman. 1951. The National Parks: What They Mean to You and Me. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Turner, James Morton. 2000. Charting American environmentalism’s early (intellectual) geography, 1890- 1920. Wild Earth 10, 18-25. Wagner, Frederic H., Ronald Foresta, R. Bruce Gill, Dale R. McCullough, Michael R. Pelton, William F. Porter, and Hal Salwasser. 1995. Wildlife Policies in the U.S. National Parks. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Worster, Donald. 1997. The wilderness of history. Wild Earth 7, 9-13. Wright, R. Gerald. 1992. Wildlife Research and Management in the National Parks. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. James A. Pritchard, Department of Animal Ecology,Iowa State University,Ames, Iowa 50011; [email protected] ❖

56 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? Ross M. Kimmel The Value of Historic and Cultural Resources in Public Parks

sk a person to describe a “national park” or a “state park” and likely you will hear about some sort of a natural preserve where people can enjoy passive recreation amidst the unspoiled beauty of nature. Such a description indeed encompasses the purpose and forms of our early Anational and state parks. The federal government set aside Yosemite and Yellow- stone as very early national parks in the 19th century in order to protect them from degradation and despoliation. It wasn’t long, however, before sites significance to Maryland history, Fort of historic significance were added to a Frederick—a large, but ruined, stone growing universe of public parks. This relic of the French and Indian War process of nature conservation first, (1756-1763)—was purchased and followed by historic preservation sec- designated a “forest reserve,” though it ond, can be seen in the development was informally referred to as Fort of Maryland’s state forests and parks. Frederick Park. The main purpose of The first state forest in Maryland designating the fort a “forest reserve” was a bequest of 2,000 acres of largely was for the state to acquire and pre- despoiled forest lands. Brothers serve an important historic resource. Robert and John Garrett, heirs to the Acres of trees were planted near the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad fortune, fort to justify its official status as a for- made this bequest in 1906. Moreover, est reserve. The influential individuals the Garretts made their largesse con- who had lobbied for the fort’s acquisi- tingent upon Maryland’s instituting a tion really had preservation of the fort state-managed scientific forestry pro- as their motive, however, and designat- gram. Maryland’s first state forester, ing it a forest reserve seemed the best Fred W. Besley, seized upon this task way to accomplish that mission. with gusto. As early as 1910, another Indeed, during the Great Depression, state forest reserve along the Patapsco a company of the Civilian Conserva- River was informally being referred to tion Corps assigned to the as “Patapsco Park.” By 1912, a part of reserve/park devoted its main energies the reserve had been developed specif- to partially restoring the fort, and sec- ically for public recreational use. ondarily to reclaiming associated natu- Besley realized that one way to sell the ral resources. public on the value of wise forest man- Today, Maryland’s system of state agement was by inviting people to use forests and parks encompass a daunt- and enjoy forests, not by keeping them ing array of historically or culturally out. significant resources. Some were A decade later, a site of immense acquired on purpose, as was Fort

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 57 Once Again, Why Public Parks? Frederick, in order to save an impor- have a good example of a park (we call tant historic site. Many parks, howev- this one a “natural environment area”) er, were acquired for recreational or that is kept in a pristine “natural” state nature conservation purposes with no that is not natural at all. thought given to historic resources Soldier’s Delight Natural Environ- that might come along with the pack- ment Area is a shale barren incapable age. of sustaining the typical deciduous A good example of this phenome- forests of most of the rest of the state. non is Point Lookout State Park. Left to nature’s design, Soldier’s Located on the tip of the peninsula Delight would become a forest of formed by the confluence of the scrub pine and swamp oak, the soil is Potomac River and the Chesapeake so poor. However, the state, with vol- Bay,Point Lookout offers unparalleled unteer help, routinely burns off opportunities for water-related recre- sprouting trees in order to maintain ation. Boating, fishing, swimming, the area as prairie grassland hosting camping, and nature study, with flora and fauna that are rare in the appropriate facilities for public state. And in so doing, we today con- accommodation, make Point Lookout tinue a practice started in prehistoric one of the most popular parks in times by Native Americans, who Maryland. However, aside from all that burned the poor forest cover in order is an immensely important historical to drive game and provide clear fields fact that, at the time of the park’s of fire for hunting. acquisition and master planning, was Is Soldier’s Delight truly a “natural given no thought. Point Lookout was environment area?” One could argue the site of the largest prison camp of that it is in fact a cultural environment the Civil War. Between 1863 and area, because human beings have for 1865, Union authorities interned centuries artificially maintained it as 52,000 Confederate prisoners at the grassland. (Or, one could concede that Point. Four thousand of them died and human beings are part of the environ- are buried nearby in a federal ceme- mental equation, rather than intruders tery. Fortunately, through the efforts of upon it, and have their impacts on a succession of several dedicated park other species the same way plants and managers and staff, and a very dedicat- other non-human animals do.) ed corps of volunteers, the story of the Thus nature and culture (or histo- prison is memorialized and interpret- ry) are inextricably intertwined in our ed for the public at Point Lookout. nation’s system of national, state, and Today, Maryland’s state forests and local parks. To compartmentalize the parks, as with parks in other states and two is to do a disservice to the diversi- on the national and local levels, con- ty of park resources. Management of tain a myriad of resources reflective of natural and cultural resources should not only the hand of God, but also the be viewed as two sides of the same hands of humans. In fact there are coin, and therefore as a common cur- few—if any—parks that do not show rency, a currency that is very valuable human influences. In Maryland we to the park-visiting public.

58 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? The philosopher George San- yearn for a sense of both place and a tayana remarked that those who don’t place in time—a sense of who they are, know their history are condemned to where they came from, and confidence repeat it. In other words, a society about where they are headed. History, without knowledge of its past is like a the collective memory of humankind, person without a memory. If someone supplies these needs. While history can’t remember what happens when can well be studied from the written he sticks his hand in a fire, history will page, it can also be studied from expe- repeat itself and he will find out again riencing the places where it happened soon enough. and by examining things that have Historical and cultural resources, come down to us from the past. His- tangible or not, serve to remind a soci- toric places and things are anchors ety of its past, the same way familiar both in place and time. It is one thing faces, places, and things can put a per- to read about the Declaration of Inde- son in mind of his life, successes and pendence or the Constitution. It is failures alike. Without these signposts, quite another to stand in Indepen- a society, like a person, can easily lose dence Hall where those documents track of where it has been, probably were debated and adopted; it is quite does not understand where it is now, another thing to stand at the National and has no frame of reference to antic- Archives and behold the actual docu- ipate the future. History gives us a ments themselves. Experiencing these sense of place, and a sense of place in places and things, if they are properly time. Without knowledge of history, managed and interpreted, inspire a we are abysmally ignorant. certain awe and wonderment that While most people remember his- nourish the human soul. tory classes in school as boring, and A wise society husbands its historic while history receives less attention in and cultural resources, saves and pro- schools today than formerly, the tects them, and lets the people, whose American public nevertheless has an heritage those resources constitute, insatiable desire to experience history, experience and learn from the if not from books then from getting out resources. Public parks are among the and living it. Historic sites are among largest repositories of historical and the most popular tourist destinations cultural resources. It is therefore across the country. Living history morally and profoundly incumbent reenacting and crafting grow ever upon public parks to protect, enhance, more popular. History themes are and interpret those resources for the once again fashionable in motion pic- benefit of humanity. tures. Antique collecting grows. The Cultural resources management is a desire for “colonial” style houses relatively new discipline in park man- shows no sign of abating. What, then, agement. Though parks have cared for is going on? historic resources for many years, over What is going on is that modern the past 20 years or so cultural life, with its temporal, situational, and resources management has emerged as societal dislocations, makes people a discrete professional discipline with-

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 59 Once Again, Why Public Parks? in overall park administration. Cultur- lows. A new inventory about to be al resources managers usually have undertaken is projected to find 1,000 academic backgrounds in history, qualified structures, with many having archeology, anthropology, architectur- been acquired since the last count, and al history, historic preservation, and the 50-year rule of thumb having allied fields. And many institutions of advanced from 1929 to 1952. Clearly, higher learning now offer professional in strategizing for the preservation of degrees in cultural resources manage- these structures, some sort of triage ment, which is a cross-disciplinary protocol will have to be adopted. curriculum that includes coursework What must be saved in the public in public administration, something interest, what would be nice to save, your traditional academic historians and what must, unhappily, be written know little about. off? Cultural resources management We have no way of inventorying all may be broken down into two major of our archeological sites. Hundreds components. The first is inventory are known, but thousands are yet to be and curation; the second is public discovered. Because geographical benefit. Inventory and curation mean areas that are now attractive for public knowing what cultural resources a parks were attractive to prehistoric park has and taking proper care of and historic peoples for settlement, we them. Public benefit means providing assume the number is astronomical. the public the opportunity to experi- Methodology for predictive modeling ence those resources in a way that is contemplated, with actual excava- does not endanger them but does tion reserved for areas undergoing nat- encourage the public to enjoy and ural degradation (shore erosion for learn from them. example) or slated for new construc- Many, but by no means all, cultural tion. resources are tangible. Structures or We know the Maryland Archeolog- other historic landmarks, historic ical Conservation Laboratory has in landscapes, archeological sites, arti- storage an inventory of over 300,000 facts, and historical records make up artifacts that have come from archeo- the bulk of tangible cultural resources logical projects in our parks and on to be found in public parks. The other public lands. Additionally we extent of tangible cultural resources in know of about 8,000 artifacts and most park systems can be overwhelm- pieces of archival material that are in ing. Such is the case in Maryland. the possession of 22 field units, either A survey of historic structures on on public display or, in many Maryland’s natural resources public instances, in storage. These range in lands, undertaken in the late 1970s, importance from 18th- and 19th-cen- revealed a total of 403 separate his- tury furnishings, original Audubon toric structures distributed over 173 prints, and a rifle used by a Confeder- sites across the state. These ranged in ate soldier at the Battle of South importance from National Register- Mountain, to amusement park bus eligible properties to 1920s bunga- tokens from the 1950s. When budgets

60 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? permit, we hope to digitize this inven- in Maryland. tory as a first step toward a compre- Other park cultural resources are hensive plan of conservation and dis- intangible. Folklore is one example, play of these artifacts for public bene- and the systematic collection of folk fit. traditions associated with certain For years we have been depositing parks should be part of a comprehen- with the Maryland State Archives all sive inventory of cultural resources. sorts of archival materials relating to Once collected, this material can easi- the history of our agency. Many linear ly be incorporated into park educa- feet of shelf space are occupied with tional programs for public benefit. traditional manuscript and printed And in many cases, tangible park materials, some artifacts that were resources can be used to illustrate larg- donated with the archival materials, er, intangible resources. and thousands of photographs taken For example, Fort Frederick, previ- in our state forests and parks as early ously mentioned, is the centerpiece of as the 1910s. Among the later is an a Maryland state park of the same inventory of 1,100 glass lantern slides name. The fort itself is an impressive dating up through the 1940s. These, 17-foot-high stone wall, with four dia- we feel sure, were used by early state mond-shaped bastions, encompassing foresters for public presentations on two acres of land, with two major wise forest management. While aca- reconstructed buildings inside. As a demic historians routinely mine this tangible resource, the fort can be archival material for papers meant to viewed, touched, and marveled at. We be read by other academic historians, can interpret to the public its physical we are systematically inventorying and attributes, such as the bastions, and scanning the more interesting photo- explain what function those attributes graphs and hope, for our agency’s cen- served. But to fully educate the public tennial in 2006, to have a Web site and about the importance of Fort Freder- perhaps a table-top picture book on ick, we have to be conversant in the the development of natural and cultur- more esoteric story of the French and al conservation in Maryland. This, we Indian War, during which the fort was think, will have broad appeal to the built. Most visitors to Fort Frederick general public. have, at best, heard of the French and Complementing these archival Indian War (also called Seven Years materials, we have a collection of 50 War), but remember virtually nothing taped oral history interviews conduct- about it. Therefore we must be able to ed in 1980 by a summer intern with set the fort in its historic context, veterans of the Civilian Conservation which is imperial rivalry between the Corps. The tapes are on deposit with English and the French in the 18th the Maryland Historical Society’s century, and, more importantly, the Oral History Project. They too repre- effect that particular conflict had upon sent a treasure-trove of first-hand the shaping of modern North Ameri- information about the history of natu- ca. ral and cultural resources conservation Similarly,the inextricably entwined

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 61 Once Again, Why Public Parks? story of natural and cultural history those parks serve. Conserving and needs to be brought down from the interpreting those resources not only arcane level to the concrete for the serve the altruistic purpose of preserv- public’s educational benefit. For ing them and informing the public example, at Herrington Manor State about resources important to them, Park, the stately hemlocks found but have practical results as well. First, around the lake grow in straight rows. an informed public is an interested That’s not how God plants trees, but it public, and an interested public pro- is how humans plant them. The fact is, vides a powerful constituency in help- while Herrington Manor presents to ing park professionals manage and the public a beautiful natural setting enhance their park resources. Second- with, besides the lake and forest, rustic ly, parks with enhanced cultural (and log cabins for public accommodation, natural) resources are a boon to local all three of these resources are the economies because they attract visi- product of human artifice, having been tors with disposable incomes. Nature developed by the Civilian Conserva- and heritage tourism are now both rec- tion Corps in the 1930s. The park is a ognized as important initiatives in the humanly landscaped “natural” economic development of areas sup- resource. The interplay of humans porting natural and cultural attrac- and nature is the intangible story here, tions. The management trick for park though tangible evidence remains to professionals, of course, is how to help tell that story. Moreover, this is a maximize public benefit from the story that should be told in the context resources, without the public’s “loving of our agency’s tradition of reclaiming them to death” through overuse. This and managing natural resources that issue is of growing importance with otherwise would be irretrievably lost the growth of population and afflu- and doing so in the public interest. ence and the growth in appreciation of Public parks are stewards of cultur- the nation’s parks and their natural al, as well as natural, resources that are and cultural resources. important to the heritage of the public

Ross M. Kimmel, Cultural Resource Management, Maryland State Forest and Park Service, Annapolis, Maryland 21401; [email protected] ❖

62 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks?

David Graber Scientific Values of Public Parks

he fit between public parks and scientific research is in some ways an obvious one. Many national, state, and regional parks were set aside, at least in part, to protect natural or historic objects of significant interest and value to society. Those same objects, whether they be a prehis- toricT kitchen midden or a vast natural ecosystem, are likewise attractive to the sci- entific community. Secondly, compared with other potential sites for field research, parks are relatively unperturbed by confounding variables. That is, those “objects of interest” have likely been less modified by intervening human activity: A tree in the forest probably got there through the actions of the local biotic community, and not because some helpful human planted it. Or if it was intentionally planted—say as part of an orchard during an earlier point in its his- tory—the particulars of that plantation are likely recorded somewhere. This fac- tor also makes parks invaluable reference points for comparison with the ever more extensive altered landscapes that have been converted to human utility. The tacit promise that the elements that parks seek to preserve will persist, or at least evolve through the ordinary processes of nature, makes parks and preserves especially attractive to the increasing numbers of scientists interested in long- term research. And lastly, parks are designated for public use: Scientists as part of that public may have a reasonable expectation of accommodation so long as their activities do not compromise park values. Equally obvious on its face is the until the 1940s. Those outcomes notion that a thorough knowledge and included such activities as reductions understanding of a park’s resources of predators and other “vermin” to are essential to its long-term preserva- increase herds of ungulates; manipula- tion and welfare. The primary mecha- tions of forest structure through nism for the generation of such knowl- removals and plantings, and vigilant edge is scientific research. Moreover, fire suppression to increase vigor (in the principles of science likewise the forestry sense); “scene manage- inform park management, so that the ment” to mold parks toward accepted outcomes of management actions are norms of landscape beauty; and provi- predicted in advance with some asso- sion of what were thought to be more ciated measure of reliability, and unin- entertaining experiences for visitors tended consequences are minimized. through such devices as wildlife feed- As Sellars (1997, Chapter 3) docu- ing shows. By the 1960s, however, an mented so cogently, management for increasing appreciation for untram- perceived publicly desirable or useful meled nature, warts and all, and outcomes was the order of the day in greater scientific understanding of the American National Park System ecology and the important roles of

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 63 Once Again, Why Public Parks? predators, tree snags and logs, and fires, volcanic eruptions, as well as even native pathogens, for example, long-term cycles, such as climate— led to a growing “hands-off” respect play in periodically toppling the for the work of natural processes and ecosystem applecart and even point- humility regarding the ability of ing it in new directions. Thirdly, the humans to improve upon nature’s timely maturation of the natural sci- handiwork. This was particularly ences—ecology in particular—to the notable in passage of the Wilderness point where they have predictive Act in 1964, and the subsequent addi- power has radically increased their tion of many American national parks importance to park management dur- to the National Wilderness System. ing this time of accelerating planetary Neither the sentiment for intervention, change. To a great extent, of course, nor the subsequent belief that nature scientific principles and knowledge of knew best, was particularly well the biology of particular organisms or informed by formal research or moni- their ecosystems can be generated by toring to see if the system was behav- research conducted outside parks. ing as predicted. However, this ability to generalize It is ironic, and in some ways quite remains quite limited, unfortunately, sad, that the belief that parks could be so that to a great extent predictive preserved intact for future generations power is achieved only from informa- simply by “letting nature take its tion collected on site. Consequently, course” survived only about one gen- on-site research is more important to eration’s tenure in the park manage- parks than it has ever been, and has ment business. Its inevitable demise not infrequently been directly con- was occasioned by the convergence of nected to their preservation (Davis several factors. Among them are the and Halvorson 1996). juggernauts of population growth and It is increasingly true that parks and development that have increasingly equivalent reserves provide the best— turned parks and preserves into isolat- and not uncommonly the only—exam- ed fragments of once-ubiquitous ples of unimpaired ecosystem ele- ecosystems, and the increasingly per- ments such as wild rivers, uncut vasive influence of anthropogenic forests, untilled lowlands, and unroad- stressors such as air pollution, climate ed uplands. Although parks have change, and the global transport of become greatly altered nearly every- pests, pathogens, and weeds. Concur- where, natural catastrophic events rently has come the unraveling of the such as fire and flood more frequently ecological paradigm of “the balance of are permitted to play out there than nature” and the traditional assumption elsewhere; hence the increasingly that intact ecosystems are fundamen- important research on how ecosys- tally homeostatic. Within the halls of tems reset after such events may academe this has been replaced with a require parks. Although examples of new appreciation for the dynamism of rare plant and animal populations are ecosystems and the powerful role that now protected through a myriad vari- catastrophic events—droughts, floods, ety of government and private manage-

64 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? ment arrangements, parks typically and not yet published—may be pro- offer the critical wild ecosystem con- vided to park educators by enthusias- text for rare species so important for tic investigators. Sometimes scientists many scientific studies, especially or their technicians make themselves those involving ecology, that may be available for public presentations, or necessary to restore and sustain these may be persuaded to translate what species elsewhere in the wild. they’ve been doing into understand- A scientific objection to the use of able vernacular accounts. Also of great parks for scientific research has occa- value is the presence of the scientific sionally been the intervening effects of activity itself. Encountering wildlife park visitors. Without doubt, there are fitted with ear tags or radio transmit- popular sites, such as Yellowstone’s ters, discovering tagged trees, stream Old Faithful or Yosemite Valley,where gauges, soil lysimeters, or remote the crush of humanity itself, as well as weather stations with satellite uplinks, the infrastructure created to support or perhaps meeting a scientific team it, are pervasive ecosystem influences. itself engaged in excavating an ancient For the most part, however, and espe- village site or coring trees to determine cially in the larger natural parks, visi- their age, is generally a highly positive, tors are highly localized and seasonal. stimulating, and educational experi- Because they are generally forbidden ence for park visitors. It renders the to harass or hunt wildlife (with, in the abstractions of science real to a public U.S., the notable and bizarre excep- that has little direct experience with tion of fish) or remove native materials either the practice of science or its (with the equally notable and bizarre practitioners, and helps make the con- exception of many plant foods for nection between research and the con- local personal consumption), in fact servation of a well-loved place. park visitors do not generally repre- The fit between parks and scientif- sent a perturbing influence on studies ic research may be greatest in the rela- of wild ecosystems. As a consequence, tively new arena of long-term ecologi- closing park areas while scientific cal research and monitoring. Tradi- studies are underway is generally tional research, in national parks and unnecessary. elsewhere, was designed to fit well Parks with interpretive educational within a period of a few years—the programs benefit greatly from park- typical amount of time allotted to a based scientific research. Park visitors, graduate student’s research and (not finding themselves in unfamiliar sur- coincidentally) the usual duration of a roundings, are themselves on voyages funding grant. The accelerating of discovery: They are open to new urgency of understanding the change possibilities. There is a freshness and taking place all over our planet, and an immediacy to communicating the lat- increasing need to place that change in est findings about this place in which the context of ecological time scales they find themselves directly to park (decades to millennia) and evolution- visitors. New discoveries—perhaps ary time scales (millennia to millions fresh from the previous field season of years) has moved long-term

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 65 Once Again, Why Public Parks? research and monitoring to the fore- cataloguing the earth’s biological front of conservation biology as well as diversity before much more of it is lost to that of parks’ perceived needs for (e.g., Wilson 2002). A so-called all- scientific information. The National taxa inventory has been initiated in the Park Service has developed, and is Great Smoky Mountains National now funding, an ambitious monitoring Park by a large consortium of public program intended to provide not only and private, scientific and lay organi- a more rational basis for park manage- zations. In 2000, the All Species Foun- ment, but to inform the larger society dation was established and dedicated how and how quickly its world is to enlarging this effort to the entire changing (Davis 1993). Closely allied planet. No doubt, many of their first to this interest in long-term research is efforts will occur in parks and pre- a newly rediscovered enthusiasm for serves.

References Davis, G.E. 1993. Design elements of monitoring programs: The necessary ingredients of success. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 26, 99-105. Davis, G.E., and W.L.Halvorson. 1996. Resource issues addressed by case studies of sustained research in national parks. Pp. 321-333 in Science and Ecosystem Management in the National Parks. W.L. Halvorson and G.E. Davis, eds. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Sellars, R.W.1997. Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,. Wilson, E.O. 2002. The Future of Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

David Graber, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, 47050 Generals Highway, Three Rivers, California 93271-9651; [email protected] ❖

66 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks?

Alfred Runte Why National Parks?

etailing why there are national parks in THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM would seem like rehashing what is obvious for those already con- vinced. Who better than park professionals know the evolution of the national parks, from cultural pride to biological sanctuary to historic Dpreservation and urban redemption? More, who believes in these mandates without question? Who better understands—and again accepts—why the size and diversity of the system requires the federal government, including the power of the federal purse to buy out local frivolities and special interests? It is the common knowledge of 130 served too much. years. At their largest, America’s Today the opposition is as likely to national parks maintain the hope of come from anywhere, and indeed, preserving natural systems; as histori- dares ask why the nation should have cal parks, they remain the nation’s parks at all. To re-emphasize, in the shrines. Parks of the people should be past that was mostly a subliminal owned by the people, managed by the question, and largely from those per- people, and remain a statement of ceiving some economic loss. Conse- pride to the world. The national parks quently, it remained possible to write are indeed a national mission, the off the worst attacks on the national country acting in Congress assem- parks as principally a regional out- bled. burst. By itself, the West did not speak So again, why do we need the for American culture, in whose heart reminder? Simply, we need it because affection for the national parks was others do. Always ready to honor an secure. open dialogue, we have let every The difference today is that the detractor into the tent. Now some public lands are everywhere under want to own the tent, and us to give it attack—all of them, including parks. up. Our openness is their opening “The time has come to rethink wilder- wedge. Certainly throughout the ness,” writes the historian William twentieth century the principal threats Cronon, for example. “This will seem were the traditional ones—economic a heretical claim to many environmen- instead of intellectual. Even then, the talists, since the idea of wilderness has controversy was whether parks were for decades been a fundamental too large, not whether the parks ought tenet—indeed, a passion—of the envi- to exist. People in the West (still with ronmental movement, especially in the the vast majority of public lands) were United States. For many Americans themselves not so much against the wilderness stands as the last remaining idea of having parks as they were place where civilization, that all too against the few that allegedly pre- human disease, has not fully infected

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 67 Once Again, Why Public Parks? the earth.” Think again, he further international relations and goodwill? insists. If civilization is “contaminat- Is it not possible the tensions of the ed,” so must be the wilderness. Cold War and European colonialism “Wilderness hides its unnaturalness were eased by the spread of parks? Is behind a mask that is all the more any country poorer for having estab- beguiling because it seems so natural. lished them, either culturally or eco- As we gaze into the mirror it holds up nomically? Would any country— for us, we too easily imagine that what would the world—be better off with- we behold is Nature when in fact we out the natural wonders and wildlife see the reflection of our own unexam- populations the national parks have ined longings and desires.” undoubtedly saved? Arguing with Cronon is not the Where does it say the national point here; rather, it is why anyone in parks reject humanity just because his position would make this argu- they demand of civilization a bit of sac- ment. Historically, people of letters rifice? What do diversity and multicul- were the preservation movement, just turalism mean—the right to forget pos- as people in extractive industries were terity? Yes,parks are always a depriva- its antithesis. As Roderick Nash put it tion to those who wanted something in Wilderness and the American Mind: else, and to anyone who wants it now. “The literary gentleman wielding a They fall hardest on the local popu- pen, not the pioneer with his axe, lace whose extractive traditions may made the first gestures of resistance be disrupted. The point is whether against the strong currents of antipa- they should be disrupted, as in what thy.” Now it would appear that antipa- would happen to those resources in thy to the national parks has spread the future were they not. Do we per- even to America’s universities. Cer- sonally go on a diet just for today, or tainly William Cronon’s, the Universi- because we hope to live more tomor- ty of Wisconsin, is a major institution. rows? As it stands, technology far So is the University of California at more than parks has forced people to Santa Barbara, which has not replaced give up one livelihood and accept Roderick Nash since he retired. another. Blaming parks is but another For the question, why national convenient scapegoat for changes that parks? both examples are troubling would have come to the world regard- portents. There is more going on here less. than free speech or a predictable The worry is when citizen educa- Devil’s advocacy. Increasingly, schol- tors cannot see the difference. After ars are serious about the argument that all, it is in universities that we prepare the national parks are out of date. It the future to resolve the issues without begins by chastising anything Ameri- choosing scapegoats. If the parks must can that allegedly fails diversity and give way to anyone, whether led by the multiculturalism. Fine, start over with Sagebrush Rebellion or New Left—or that history; how does it follow the others—what is it we have really parks have failed? Is there another saved? Besides, the vast majority of institution that has done more for parks are marginal lands, both in the

68 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? United States and abroad. If they had a professor at Stanford University, ever been more than marginal the vast declaring the national parks “the best majority would not have been parks in idea we ever had.” Consider Joseph the first place. In truth, the straw man Grinnell, A. Starker Leopold, and of wilderness is so easily blown over Roderick Nash at the University of there is practically no straw there. California, urging—indeed inspiring— Meanwhile, the voice of history their students to pursue careers on the reminds us that the critics are wrong. public lands. Parks have always been more than sen- What happened to the tradition of a timental. As early as 1870, the Berke- national faculty pursuing criticism ley geologist Joseph LeConte took his without being cynical? It is the cyni- students to Yosemite Valley to study cism that is new—and dangerous. science. That was two years even Suddenly, as another example, the before the establishment of Yellow- national parks are “unfriendly” to stone National Park, and only six after women and minorities. But again, is it Congress granted Yosemite Valley to true? As early as 1967, I was told in California. True, the general public the Washington,D.C., headquarters of was drawn to Yosemite and Yellow- the National Park Service that slots in stone as repositories of cultural the agency were being “banked” for nationalism—waterfalls, mountains, women and minorities. I should not canyons, and geysers that could be expect an easy time of it being hired waved under the nose of Europe. Sci- right out of college. When in 1980 I entists, on the other hand, were did put on a Park Service uniform as a already looking behind the scenery.As seasonal in Yosemite, my colleagues America’s “outdoor laboratories” the indeed represented every ethnic group parks filled a critical, practical need. with a claim to the nation’s past. As When William Cronon describes interpreters we were Native American affection for wilderness as “unexam- and Hispanic and European and ined longings and desires,” he most African American. We were equally certainly does not speak for geologists divided between women and men. and biologists who believed in parks What kind of “unfriendliness” to for the study of creation. women and minorities is that? It is a relationship that has only If the point is really to suggest that grown, flourishing today in cooperat- the interpretation is flawed, again, ing arrangements between the Nation- where is the evidence? In Yosemite, al Park Service and a number of uni- the tragedy of the Miwok was boldly versities—many institutions if the list interpreted, and no less than the con- includes individuals pursuing con- tributions of John Muir. Just because tracts. But again, beyond that, history our emphases were often different, no by the term “tradition” means some- one would have dreamed of saying the thing larger. It is rather the vitality park was illegitimate. The Miwok had given conservation by intellectuals been dispossessed, and that was trag- who made no apologies for believing ic, but so would be the tragedy of dis- in parks. Consider Wallace Stegner, as possessing the future of the right to

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 69 Once Again, Why Public Parks? have national parks. See here what I hope to see. As poor Now that the teaching of parks has as my mother was she could have such turned either my way or no way, it is dreams. She could dream beyond her no wonder the question why parks has limitations to the hope of one day get- regressed, as well. Fashionably, revi- ting out of Bedford Falls (in her case, sionists second-guess the past rather Binghamton, New York). than admit its events can never be When finally her opportunity came changed. Then would we change back it was because my father had left her a the national parks into other than pro- small life insurance policy. Well might tected lands? Again, it would be a stu- she have spent it on many other things pid question were it not for the fact we needed. Instead, she gathered her that many have proposed just that. courage to realize her dream: It was Fortunately, it is not a proposition more important that she and her fami- likely to get very far because history ly see the country. It was time to live has answered it boldly. The very fact her dream and see the national parks. we have parks says loudly we wanted It was not a new car we drove west them, and yes, the royal “we” is here (she drove, my brother and I navigat- inclusive. Minorities do not need to be ed) but rather a station wagon five patronized to fall in love with parks. years old. All four tires were retreads. All we need protect is the existence But it was all we needed to feel the of parks and the dream will catch up magic of a country as magnificent as it with everyone. For me the year was was healing. Although at the time we 1959. My father had died the previous knew little about who had established year, leaving my mother, my brother, the national parks, we needed nothing and me without our primary means of more than being there to convince us support. We were that very family now they were special. Nor did mother feel allegedly denied the parks, living just intimated, or uneasy, coming as a above the poverty level first identified woman to the national parks. Her only by the federal government in 1964. confrontation was with three bears in Worse, my mother had only a ninth- the Tetons she believed had gotten too grade education, having been forced close to our tent. Mother prevailed, as out of school during the Great she always did, believing that the bears Depression to help save the family themselves had done nothing wrong. farm. She returned from that trip deter- Cynically, what had the national mined to obtain her high school parks ever done for her? Just this— equivalency (which she did) and that they had inspired her. Rural Ameri- her sons would finish college (which cans, no less than urban Americans, we did). If, at the opening of the twen- could at least subscribe to national ty-first century,that is such a troubling magazines. Life and the Saturday result of wilderness, I thank my good Evening Post were among her fortune that I was born in the twenti- favorites. In the movie It’s a Wonderful eth century before the world had Life, as we recall, George Bailey waves turned so selfish. at Mary a copy a National Geographic. It would seem that being against

70 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? everything has replaced being for any- double again. thing; institutions need only be The time is past for arguing who attacked rather than be explained. has been dispossessed of what used to Critics know how to drag everything be the privileges of the public lands. down. It is not a matter of proving We have all been dispossessed of the whether a charge is warranted, but freedom to choose the future as indi- rather making as many charges as can viduals. Buying more time, we could be imagined. sacrifice the national parks, but it Fortunately, an honest debate can would be a huge sacrifice and not very always be won, and the national parks much time. Every ending would be the need only be defended simply. “I am same. Now added to a more crowded glad I shall never be young without world without natural resources, we wild country to be young in,” wrote would have bought only a future with- Aldo Leopold. “Of what avail are forty out national parks. freedoms without a blank spot on the As for the charge that wilderness is map?” Is the blank spot artificial, in artificial, remember that the forces cre- that maintaining it takes constant ating the national parks are abundant- effort? Of course. Does it mean that ly real. Yellowstone National Park some people are denied access could blow at any time; Mount Lassen because they never wanted it to be did blow, and will again. Crater Lake blank? Of course again. But does that exists because Mount Mazama mean the idea is bogus? No, it simply exploded with the force of a million means that the idea of preservation in bombs. The Tetons still are rising and any form is controversial. Jackson Hole falling, and there is no Those who dreamed the national stopping the earthquakes that rattle parks said all that is needed about why Yosemite. they should exist. They knew the Only we can allow these experi- world to be changing destructively, ences to be cheapened; they are hard- and they were right. They knew that ly that in themselves. I think what my beginning with indigenous peoples life would have been without the everyone would get swept up in those national parks, and I would not want changes, and they were right again. that for posterity. I concede all that is There would be no turning back the imperfect about civilization and the clock on technology and population. expenses so many pay for others’ pref- On that point their foresight was erences. The national parks may downright sobering. The country that indeed be a preference, but they are invented the national parks had a pop- hardly a frivolity. The real debate here ulation of 30 million. When my family is not about extravagance. It is rather and I visited the parks the population about believing that some things are was six times that. Within what larger than we are, and that such remains of my lifetime it promises to things are always so good to have.

Alfred Runte, 7716 34th Avenue NE, Seattle, Washington 98115-4805; [email protected]

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 71 Once Again, Why Public Parks? James Dunmyer State Parks: The Backbone

tate park systems in the United States are the backbone of the park net- work that exists from the national level to the tiniest unincorporated township in America. State park systems have been created by all tech- niques imaginable, are managed in a variety of innovative ways, and are Susually unique when compared with their counterparts. These state systems underlie and support the body of public lands that provides the diverse recre- ation for our diverse society. We love our national parks. We plan our vacations around them, when we can—but some of us never get the opportunity to visit them. We love our local parks, using them for softball and soccer leagues, pick- up basketball games and a variety of active recreational opportunities—but they are not always the quietest places in our neighborhood. State parks are close, solid, safe, and dependable ... essential to our inner health, and often overlooked until a problem surfaces. The decade of the 1990s was not park managers ignored all these reali- kind to state parks. Looking back, it ties. They’re pretty proud of how was a constant struggle for survival for innovative they became. Early in the state parks in a system that continued decade, some parks were closed in an to expand with new public lands while attempt to deal with shrinking budg- operating and maintenance dollars for ets. That action caused a huge outcry existing facilities declined. State parks from the surrounding communities. just can’t compete against schools, The neighbors were upset, and they hospitals, or prisons in a tight econo- were vocal about it. They realized that my. Their failure to compete is under- their state park had been a dependable standable, but it doesn’t mean that friend who brought peace and safety they are not important. During that to their neighborhood. In retrospect, same period of the nineties, twice as that action of closing a state park put many visitors came to use the coun- the first spotlight on the system and try’s state park systems. Part of the rea- can be credited for the dramatic son for the increased attendance was increase in volunteers. Those volun- that the economy kept folks closer to teers have grown into a series of home. We also have more people now, “Friends of” groups that provide per- a problem that will never go away. So, petual care to their neighbor. Today, the system will continue to increase in the system could not operate without size, the visitors will continue to them. As parks were re-opened with increase in number, and the backbone volunteer assistance, individual parks will be expected to carry these chal- were clustered so that they could pool lenges. their diminishing resources and prior- You should not think that state itize their efforts. Programs followed

72 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? to reduce commitments of scarce state parks in order to deal with the fis- resources. “Grow, Don’t Mow” and cal crisis. Parks became more busi- “Trash-Free Parks” not only helped ness-like, orienting towards making on the expense side of the ledger, but money as a necessary requirement for they also allowed park professionals to survival. Although the system was suc- highlight key concepts to visitors, cessful in increasing revenues to offset such as the importance of natural the decreasing taxpayer dollars, prob- resource management and the need for lems arose because state parks are not recycling. Both the state park system a business. They are part of state gov- and individual parks within that sys- ernment and can have an unfair advan- tem were examined under a micro- tage over the private sector when it scope; that examination was the first comes to competing for the almighty step in the development of a health dollar. So, entrepreneurial efforts had plan for the backbone. to be tempered to avoid direct compe- The health plan required the sys- tition with the private sector. More- tem to define its purpose, its place in over, just like a business would do, the body of national public lands. techniques to reduce costs were State parks have a distinct niche explored while attempts were made to between the national park system and bring in more revenues. Once again, the local park system. Even though the system could not operate exactly examples from each of those systems like a business, since parks are unable are resident in any state park system, to “close profit centers” that are oper- emphasis on the management of natu- ating in the red. Managers had already ral resources and on “passive” recre- learned that closure was not really an ation became the dual focus of the option. In addition, park customers state system. (More on the term “pas- are not “always right” and can be sive” later.) Diversity exists across the downright dangerous at times, requir- entire system, both in what a state park ing a different customer-service is and in who comes to visit it. State approach than one would expect from parks seem to epitomize the idea of a business. uniqueness. They come in all shapes Privatization became fashionable in and sizes, were bought or donated for government in the nineties, and state myriad reasons, have passionate sup- parks tiptoed into that arena. In Mary- porters and detractors, have a local fla- land, a complete park was leased to a vor with state-wide or regional appeal, non-profit group that had a special provide the perfect setting for user interest in keeping it operational. After conflicts (no two of which seem to be long negotiations, the lease was initiat- alike), and are the product of the phys- ed with a two-year trial period that ical environment that defines their would allow the non-profit to empha- individual identities. size that group’s special interest while As the 1990s continued, state parks the group agreed to keep the park were positioned to take advantage of open for the general public. Public these identities. Concurrently, differ- land management learned a lot in that ent techniques were tried in individual process. They learned that well-mean-

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 73 Once Again, Why Public Parks? ing people with a special interest economic benefit that will affect could not provide the public services directly the region where the state that the state park system is charged to park is located. Nature tourism is the perform. In other words, it is impossi- trend for the future, underscored by ble to delegate the “public” portion of the fact that society is moving towards the system’s responsibility. Based on shorter work weeks, more leisure time, that experience, the system now “part- and much more emphasis on healthy ners” with special-interest groups so lifestyles. That trend brings with it the that a state park presence is main- potential for significant impacts on tained at the facility. Major mainte- natural resources, the very essence of nance repairs are paid for by the state the state park system; and that trend park system while the non-profit becomes the major threat to the health group emphasizes its special interest, of the public land backbone. welcomes everyone to use the facili- We cannot allow those impacts to ties, and covers the expenses of the run rampant. Much like picnic sites day-to-day operations. Time will tell if are rotated to minimize impacts to the this new approach is successful. immediate area, we now need to rotate Toward the end of this past decade, and adjust trail usage so that we don’t significant changes occurred in the use wear out the trails. We need a better patterns of state park visitors. “Pas- understanding of “carrying capacity,” sive” recreators weren’t just coming to an inexact science that should provide picnic or swim or hike the trail sys- us with an early warning system so tems as they had in the past. Now,they that we can re-route visitors before are becoming “flow through” recre- they cause irreparable damage to the ators, moving through a series of state ecosystems that create a state park’s parks by backpacking, riding moun- identity. That re-routing is easier said tain bikes, paddling kayaks, or a com- than done. When a trail system in a bination of techniques. These recre- state park is studied, some user group ators are looking for more challenges, will invariably object to a trail closing, more risks, such as rock climbing or even though it is obvious that the trail rappelling, in a system that prides has had severe impacts on it. Trying to itself on providing a safe environment close a trail before the impacts are for all visitors. Now, many of these apparent is a real challenge and hits at same visitors are demanding the right the core of educating visitors in a man- to take more personal risks. The ner that will generate a stewardship requests for these forms of recreation ethic in all of them. will continue to increase, far outstrip- Inculcating a stewardship ethic in ping the ability of a state park to pro- each citizen is the ultimate solution for vide the service. A new role for state the long-term health of natural parks is emerging, one that requires resources in our country, and, similar- them to be facilitators or links between ly, is the ultimate solution for the con- the “public” and the adventure tinued health of the backbone, the providers. Once again, the system is state park systems. Creation of the involved in business development and stewardship ethic in all of us begins in

74 The George Wright FORUM Once Again, Why Public Parks? the educational system. We can’t focus can offer a wide array of experiences on just the young student at this point that are nature-based with increasing because everyone needs to hear the levels of difficulty and risk, either free message. We need a place to “spread of charge or at a reasonable cost. They the word.” State parks have long been are the daily hosts and educators for the outdoor laboratory for the entire school groups of all ages, for adults educational system, from pre-school from all walks of life, and for the resi- through doctoral dissertations. You dents of nursing homes. They are the can study nature macroscopically or open space that is so desperately need- microscopically within their bound- ed as the population continues to aries. You can be rigorous or casual, grow and continues to require more serious or lighthearted. On any given homes, more schools, more recre- day, you can observe both levels of ation, more everything. They continue study occurring side-by-side as a to improve accessibility for the dis- recreator passes by in some mode of abled communities throughout the travel. You have just discovered the system, be they fishermen or hunters, state parks’ secret. They are flexible, campers or bathers, bird watchers or much like a healthy backbone that trail users. The ultimate goal of every allows the body to accomplish the full state park system in America is a barri- range of motion needed to meet the er-free recreational experience for all. diverse requirements placed on it. The backbone must be ready to And, they are the perfect place to meet the demands of millions of visi- spread the word. State park systems tors annually. The backbone must be probably come the closest to meeting flexible to fill its essential role in the that famous cliché, “You can’t be all system of parks that exists in America. things to all people.” They are the What state parks need the most are places that blend conservation with advocates. Unlike their federal or local preservation, a balancing of needs, of counterparts, state park systems nor- demands, of wishes. They are the mally do not have an organized con- dependable friend that will be there stituency. The decade of the nineties when you need help, regardless of the placed stress on the backbone—but problem you face. They represent the the decade also brought a host of history of the region where they friends to help a neighbor in distress. reside, both from the landscapes they Those friends need to ensure that protect to the activities they support. their state government recognizes the State parks must be healthy to stand value of its state park system and com- the rigors of those diverse demands. mits resources to keep that system State parks are perfectly aligned to healthy and growing. State parks can deal with the recreational needs for the help themselves, and they do; howev- new millennium. They can provide a er, they cannot do it alone. They are nearby escape, an opportunity to take not a business. They are not a profit deep breaths, to think, to relax when center. They are the future of recre- you can’t afford the time or the money ation for you and your family,and they to go far away. Simultaneously, they need your support and your voice at

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 75 Once Again, Why Public Parks? the state government level. That need and, the system will continue to have for support will continue to increase as its fair share of aches and pains. We the population continues to increase, must not let those stresses cause a fail- placing more demands and more ure requiring major surgery or, even stress on the constantly expanding worse, place the entire body into seri- system of public lands. As we all real- ous decline. How that body functions ize, stress brings out the worst in our in the new millennium depends on all own backbones. The backbone sys- of us. Get involved. You’ll love it, and tem of our national public lands has you will feel much healthier. felt stress. It will survive, of course;

James Dunmyer, Public Lands, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland 21401; [email protected] ❖

76 The George Wright FORUM Ikuko Fujisaki Management of Resources-Based Tourism at Tikal National Park in Northern Guatemala

Introduction esources-based tourism is often an economic necessity in natural resources-dependent communities. Tikal National Park, located in the Petén region of northern Guatemala (Figure 1), contains an ancient Mayan urban center and was declared a mixed cultural–natural World RHeritage Site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1979 (National Geographic Book Service 1987). Since then, the number of visitors has been growing and the park has become an important tourist attraction in Guatemala (Matola and Platt 1998). Currently the Guatemalan government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are mak- ing efforts to develop resources-based sustainable ecotourism in the Petén (Norris and Wilber 1998). This study investigates the economic contribution of Tikal to the economy of Guatemala and the Petén region, and examined visitors’ satisfaction level, attitudes toward conservation, and demographics to identify the future possibilities of ecotourism promotion in the region.

Mexico

Tikal Peten N.P. Region Belize

Mexico GUATEMALA

Nicaragua

Guatemala City

El Salvador Figure 1. Map of Guatemala showing location of Tikal National Park.

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 77 Environmental and Ecotourism, Conservation and Development Aspects of Regional Development Tourism in Guatemala Ecotourism is a growing segment of The land area of Guatemala is the world tourism industry. The term 108,000 sq km, of which 35% is cov- “ecotourism” is a variant of “alterna- ered with forest (World Bank 1999). tive tourism,” in contrast to “mass The Guatemalan government’s efforts tourism” (Cater and Lowman 1994). to protect historically and naturally Ecotourism is defined as tourism to valuable areas increased the number of protected natural areas and stresses protected areas from 13 in 1989 to 17 ecological and sociocultural integrity, in 1994. From 1989 to 1996 the responsibility,local participation, edu- extent of the protected area estate cation, and sustainability (France nearly doubled, reaching 18,200 sq 1997; Wight 1994). km, or 17% of the total land area (Fig- In the past, it was perceived that an ure 2). International tourism is an environmental program could not contribute to local econom- ic development, and vice 20 versa. Currently, it is recog- 18.2 nized that ecotourism could promote sustainable devel- 15 opment that addresses both economic development and 13.3 10 environmental conservation Areas (Theophile 1995). Advan- 8.3 tages of ecotourism include (Thousand sq. km) 5 diversifying local economies and achieving independ- 0.99 0 ence from the donations 1989 1991 1993 1995 upon which environmental programs often depend. Year New employment opportu- Figure 2. Nationally protected areas in Guatemala. nities in tourism-related The data are based on World Development services are the most direct Indicators (World Bank 1991-1999). local benefit. Other possible economic benefits include important source of economic growth income from locally produced goods in Guatemala. During the period and fees collected from tourism (Sher- 1995-1999, tourism generated man and Dixon 1997). These benefits US$394 million in economic benefits motivate local communities’ awareness and created 63,291 jobs nationwide of environmental and resource protec- (Global InfoGroup 1999), and the tion. number of international tourists Central America is one of the increased 46% (Figure 3). world’s major nature tourism destina- tions; at the same time, its nations are

78 The George Wright FORUM facing economic and social difficulties negative side effects. (Weaver 1994). Tourism’s contribu- tion to the cumulative regional Gross Methods National Product is 2%. The host-to- Study site. The Petén, which cov- guest ratio ranges from 0.8:1 to 52:1. ers 33% of the nation’s land area, is a In Guatemala, the estimated host-to- culturally and ecologically significant guest ratio was 21:1, ranking in the region in Guatemala. According to the middle among the 10 Central Ameri- Consejo Nacional de Áreas Protegidas can nations. These countries are pro- (CONAP), the national council for moting resources-based development protected areas, all of Guatemala’s bio- approaches that aim to integrate sus- logical reserves, 99% of its cultural tainable ecological and economic monuments, and 96% of its national development (Ashuvud 1991). parks (56% of all protected areas, However, ecotourism in these excluding “special protected areas”) countries continues to constitute only are located in the Petén. Within the past few decades, rapid modernization and growth have occurred in the Petén (Reining and Soza 1998). The region’s population has increased from roughly 20,000 in 1960 (Schwartz 1990) to more than 300,000 in the mid-1990s. Despite this, a study revealed that the region’s income had decreased substan- Figure 3. Number of International Tourists in Guatemala tially (Ashuvud 1991). 1995-1999. The data were provided by the Seción de The Guatemala govern- Estadistica (Section of Statistics) of Institute ment explains that this is Guatemalteco de Tourismo (INGUAT), Guatemala’s tourism agency. the result of a lack of effi- cient natural resources a small fraction of tourist revenues. A management and strategic planning of lack of local participation in planning the region’s resources use. It request- and implementation, and small local ed the assistance of IUCN–The World economic absorption of benefits gen- Conservation Union to formulate a erated by ecotourism projects, are still national conservation strategy to problems (Whelan 1991). Additional- improve resources management for ly,over-dependence on tourism indus- long-term development. Local and tries (Lea 1999; Cater 1997) and international conservation groups also increased retail prices, land and prop- have been facilitating multilateral proj- erty values, and taxes are potential ects to develop community-based eco-

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 79 tourism and encourage visitors to istics, expenditures in the Petén, satis- explore attractions of the Petén. faction level, opinions, and demo- According to the Ecotravel Center graphics. The original English-lan- (www.ecotour.org), because visitors guage questionnaire was translated typically spend only one or two days into Spanish, French, German, and in the region, the local communities Japanese. A park visitor survey was have received few benefits from conducted during May 2000. All tourism, although tourism is one of the households who were spending time Petén’s primary industries. in the parks’ two main sites (Gran Annual visitation to Tikal National Plaza and Temple IV) were asked to Park has grown considerably since participate in a short on-site interview. World Heritage Site declaration (Fig- An 87% response rate yielded 341 ure 4). From 1981 to 1999, the num- completed interviews, including those ber of non-resident park visitors of 45 residents and 296 non-residents. increased eight times to 110,494, and Questionable answers were excluded. resident visitors increased 35 times to 27,400. This was 17% of visitors to Results Guatemala in 1999. Trip tendency. The non-residents’ Data collection. Between 1990 number of days stayed in Guatemala and 1999, the average annual incre- varied from 1 to more than 100. The

160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 National 80,000 International 60,000 40,000

Number of visitors 20,000 0 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Year Figure 4. Number of visitors to Tikal National Park, 1981-1999. The data were provided by the Seción de Estadistica of INGUAT. ments of resident and non-resident average was 17 days, while 58% of vis- visitation were 6.6% and 6.9%, itors spent fewer than 10 days in respectively. Using past data as a Guatemala. The proportion of resi- guide, the 2000 visitation was estimat- dents staying overnight in the Petén ed to be 117,787 for residents and region (78%) was slightly higher than 29,291 for non-residents, or 147,078 those of non-residents (72%). Sixty- in total. three percent of the non-residents The survey instrument included spent one or two days in the region, five types of questions: trip character- while 62% of the residents spent more

80 The George Wright FORUM than three days. On average, residents visitors, $12.6 million by non-resident stayed longer (3.8 days) than non-res- visitors, and $14.2 million in total idents (2.8 days). (Table 2). While 13% of non-residents trav- Satisfaction level and opinions. eled alone, all the residents traveled Overall, the survey participants indi- with other people. The average num- cated high satisfaction levels with the ber of household members in a party service, facilities, and environment in of resident visitors (3.2) was larger the Petén (Figure 5). than that of non-resident visitors For both groups, safety and hotels (1.8). Only 30% of the non-resident in the Petén received high ratings. For visitors were using package tours. the residents, information availability Estimating visitor expenditures. and price level received the lowest rat- The mean expenditures per house- ings. Those who were dissatisfied with hold per trip within the Petén were the price level pointed out the high $176.21 for residents and $192.62 for prices in the region. For non-resi- non-residents (Table 1). Dividing the dents, information availability and average total household expenditures transportation were the two issues by the average number of accompany- with the lowest ratings. Levels of ing household members, the average agreement with described statements expenditure per trip per person was were also converted to numerical val- $55.07 for residents and $107.01 for ues (Table 3). Chi-square test showed non-residents. On average, non-resi- different levels of agreement between dent visitors spent nearly twice as residents and non-residents. much as did residents. Transporta- More than 80% of the respondents tion, lodging, and food composed answered that they were willing to pay about 60% of total expenditures for higher entrance fees to support park both groups. The “other expendi- conservation. Compared with the tures” in Table 1 included Internet, non-resident answer, the resident telephone, and facsimile services, and answer was skewed to “strongly agree” laundry. (Figure 6). The mean value was slight- Using the predicted number of vis- ly higher for resident visitors (3.3) itors to the park, the total annual than for non-resident visitors (3.1). expenditures were estimated as fol- More than half of the respondents lows: thought that the restrictions imposed En Nn + Er Nr for conservation purposes in the park were enough, while nearly 30% of the where “En” and “Er”are average non-resident visitors did not think so household expenditures of non-resi- (X2 = 16.91, df = 2, significance = dent and resident visitors, respectively, 0.0005). A majority of both resident and “Nn” and “Nr “ are the estimated (66%) and non-resident (53%) visitors number of days of non-resident and answered that the number of the days resident visitation in 2000, respective- they spent in the Petén was not ly. The estimated direct annual expen- enough (X2 = 18.16, df = 2, signifi- diture was $1.6 million by resident cance = 0.0005).

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 81 Table 1. Itemized average household expenditures of resident and non-resident visitors.

Demographics. The respondents equal for residents, while 72% of the were from 32 countries. The five high- non-residents were singles. Seventy- est proportions were from the United seven percent of residents had less States (26%), Guatemala (14%), Eng- than $20,000 in annual income. For land (11%), Germany (6%), and the non-residents, 43% answered that Netherlands (5%). The mean ages of they had less than $20,000, and 78% resident and non-resident visitors answered less than $60,000. were similar (Table 4). The largest proportion of visitors was in the age Discussion class 21 to 30 for both residents (44%) The results of this survey showed and non-residents (53%). The pro- that despite the park’s inconvenient portion of non-residents that were location, people did not stay long in between 11 and 30 was 63%. The pro- the region. However, more than half of portion of males (69%) was more than the survey participants answered that twice of that of females (31%) for resi- the number of days they spent in the dents, while the female proportion Petén was not enough. A previous sur- (57%) was larger than the male pro- vey found that ecotourists were older portion (43%) for non-residents. The than mass tourists, and the age group ratio of single to married was exactly 45-64 was likely to have more holidays Table 2. Estimated annual expenditures by park visitors.

82 The George Wright FORUM 3.0 Information availability 2.8 Price level in Peten 3.1 2.9 2.8 Transportation within Peten 3.2

Issues 3.2 Hotels in Peten 3.2 3.5 Safety in Peten 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Level of Satisfaction Non-resident Resident

Figure 5. Level of satisfaction. Mean is based on the scale: 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatis- fied, 3 = satisfied, 4 = very satisfied. annually (Boo 1990). However, this Despite residents having longer study showed a relatively young mean stays and a larger average number of age for visitors, and a majority of non- household members traveling with resident visitors were singles. The rel- them, the average household expendi- atively low average household income ture of non-residents ($192.62) was of non-resident visitors was probably higher than that of residents because of variability in their national- ($176.21). The estimated annual ities, their youth, and the large propor- expenditure in the Petén during 2000 tion of single visitors. Nearly even gen- was $14.2 million. All visitors’ expen- der proportions for non-resident visi- ditures may not be locally absorbed. tors indicated that the park attracts However, these direct expenditures both males and females. Seasonality should generate an indirect and may influence these visitors’ demo- induced economic impact, including a graphics. general rise in income level, creation of

Table 3. Level of agreement. Mean is based on the scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree.

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 83 Table 4. Demographics of visitors.

employment, and increases in govern- visitors will bring a larger gain to the mental tax revenue. region’s economy. Both groups were highly satisfied There are possibilities for attract- with the facilities, services, and envi- ing visitors who would stay longer in ronment in the Petén. Tourism-related the region. The wide range of ages, facilities, infrastructure, and services even male and female gender propor- in the region are probably well devel- tions for non-resident visitors, and rel- oped to host various types of tourists atively lower average income indicate from abroad. The majority of respon- variability of visitor types. More than dents answered that they were willing half of the non-resident survey partici- to pay more entrance fees for the pants were in the age bracket of park’s conservation. This indicates the between 11 and 30. These people may high environmental awareness of the have the flexibility to participate in visitors. locally designed ecotourism pro-

Figure 6. Level of agreement with Statement 1 (X2 = 9.51, df = 3, significance = 0.025). Recommendations grams. Improvement of facilities and Based on the rising popularity of services is an issue managers should ecotourism and increased visits to address. The issues that showed a Tikal National Park during the past 20 lower satisfaction level, including years, use of the park will likely information availability, price level, increase in the future. Having more and transportation, should be

84 The George Wright FORUM addressed first when planning future answered that visitor restrictions in programs. For example, prior informa- the park were not enough for environ- tion about ecotourism programs and mental protection. More than 80% of other national parks in the Petén the respondents answered that they region could influence the length of were willing to pay a higher entrance stays of visitors. Since more than half fee for improvement of environmental of the survey participants answered conservation of the park. To be envi- that the number of days they spent in ronmentally sound and to promote the the Petén were not enough, there is a moral and ethical responsibilities of all potential to extend visitors’ stay in the players are basic premises of eco- region. tourism development (Wight 1994). Reassessment of the park’s conser- These efforts facilitate achievement of vation measures and entrance fees will long-term local and national benefits help future management planning. from resource-based tourism, as well Nearly 30% of the non-residents as sustainable resource management.

Acknowledgments I wish to thank the interviewers, Sergio, Hector, Chie, the members of the Association of Guides Tourism in Petén, José Luis Montúfar of CONAP,and the Seción de Estadistica of INGUAT for offering information resources. Special thanks go to Jon Moris, Dale Blahna, Akiko Ogawa, and Paul Hogue for their invaluable advice.

References Ashuvud, J. 1991. Environmental conservation for development in Central America. In Linking the Natural Environment and the Economy. C. Folke and T. Kaberger, eds. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boo, E. 1990. Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls. Volume 1. Washington,D.C.: World Wildlife Fund. Cater, E. 1997. Ecotourism in the Third World: Problems and prospects for sustainability. In Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism. L. France, ed. London: Earthscan. Cater, E., and G. Lowman, eds. 1994. Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons. France, L., ed. 1997. Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism. London: Earthscan. Global InfoGroup. 1999. En Cifras: Guatemala. Volumen 1, Numero 1 [in Spanish]. Antigua, Guatemala: Global InfoGroup. Lea, J. 1997. Tourism’s economic impacts. In Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism. L. France, ed. London: Earthscan. Matola, S., and E. Platt. 1998. One forest, two nations: The Chiquibut Forest of Belize and Guatemala. In Timber, Tourists, and Temples. R.B. Primack et al. eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. National Geographic Book Service. 1987. Our World’s Heritage. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Association. Norris, R., and J.S. Wilber. 1998. Community-based ecotourism in the Maya Forest: Problems and poten- tials. In Timber, Tourists, and Temples. R.B. Primack et al. eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Reining, C., and C. Soza. 1998. Illuminating the Petén’s throne of gold: The ProPetén experiment in con- servation-based development. In Timber, Tourists, and Temples. R.B. Primack et al. eds. Washington,

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 85 D.C.: Island Press. Schwartz, N. 1990. Forest society: A social history of the Petén, Guatemala. Paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting. 17 February, Atlanta, Ga. Sherman, P.B., and J.A. Dixon. 1997. The economics of nature tourism: Determining if it pays. In Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism. L. France, ed. London: Earthscan. Theophile, K. 1995. The forest as a business: Is ecotourism the answer? Journal of Forestry 93:3, 25-27. Weaver, D. 1994. Ecotourism in the Caribbean Basin. In Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? E. Cater and G. Lowman, eds. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons. Whelan, T. 1991. Ecotourism and its role in sustainable development. In Nature Tourism: Managing for Environment. T. Whelan, ed. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Wight, P. 1994. Environmentally responsible marketing of tourism. In Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? E. Cater and G. Lowman, eds. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons. World Bank. 1991-1999. World Development Indicators. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Ikuko Fujisaki, Spatial Information Technologies Laboratory, Department of Forest Resources, Mississippi State University, Box 9681, Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762; [email protected] ❖

86 The George Wright FORUM About the GWS . . . The George Wright Society was founded in 1980 to serve as a profes­ sional association for people who work in protected areas and on public lands. Unlike other organizations, the GWS is not limited to a single discipline or one type of protected area. Our integrative approach cuts across academic fields, agency jurisdictions, and political boundaries.

The SWS organizes and co-sponsors a major U.S. conference on research and management of protected areas, held every two years. We offer the FORUM, a quarterly publication, as a venue for discussion of timely issues related to protected areas, including thinkpieces that have a hard time find­ ing a home in subject-oriented, peer-reviewed journals. The SWS also helps sponsor outside symposia and takes part in international initiatives, such as IUCN's Commission on National Parks & Protected Areas. Who was George Wright? George Melendez Wright (1904-1936) was one of the first protected area professionals to argue for a holistic approach to solving research and man­ agement problems. In 1929 he founded (and funded out of his own pocket) the Wildlife Division of the U.S. National Park Service—the precursor to to­ day's science and resource management programs in the agency. Although just a young man, he quickly became associated with the conservation lumi­ naries of the day and, along with them, influenced planning for public parks and recreation areas nationwide. Even then, Wright realized that protected areas cannot be managed as if they are untouched by events outside their boundaries. Please Join Us! Following the spirit of George Wright, members of the GWS come from all kinds of professional backgrounds. Our ranks include terrestrial and ma­ rine scientists, historians, archaeologists, sociologists, geographers, natural and cultural resource managers, planners, data analysts, and more. Some work in agencies, some for private groups, some in academia. And some are simply supporters of better research and management in protected areas.

Won't you help us as we work toward this goal? Membership for individ­ uals and institutions is US$35 per calendar year, and includes subscription to the Forum, discounts on GWS publications, reduced registration fees for the GWS biennial conference, and participation in annual board member elections. New members who join between 1 October and 31 December are enrolled for the balance of the year and all of the next. A sign-up form is on the next page.

Volume 19 • Number 2 2002 87 The George Wright Society Application for Membership Name: Affiliation:

Address:

ZIP/Postal Code: Workplace phone (work):

Fax:

E-mail:

Please ^ the type of membership you desire: • Patron $500/year G Life Member $350/life G Supporting Member $ 100/year G Regular Member $35/year G Student Member $25/year G Institutional Member $35/year G Here's an additional contribution of$_ Dues and contributions arc tax-deductible in the USA. S10.00 of your membership goes to a subscription to THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM.

Note: Except for Life Memberships, all dues are good for the calendar year in which they are paid. New members who join between 1 October and 31 December will be enrolled for the balance of the year and the entire year following (this applies to new members only). Special Note to Canadian Applicants: If paying in Canadian funds, please add 25% to cover our bank fees.

Optional: Please name your profession or occupation and any specialty or expertise:

Mail payment to: The George Wright Society, P.O. Box 65, Hancock, MI 49930- 0065 USA. Would you rather be billed? Just fax this form to 1-906-487-9405 or e- mail us at [email protected] and we'll invoice you. Thank you!

88 The George Wright FORUM Submitting Materials to THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM The Society welcomes articles that bear importantly on our objectives: promoting the application of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom to policy-making, planning, management, and interpretation of the resources of protected areas around the world. THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM is distributed internationally; submissions should minimize provincialism, avoid aca­ demic or agency jargon and acronyms, and aim to broaden international aspects and applica­ tions. We actively seek manuscripts which represent a variety of protected area perspectives. Length and Language of Submission. Manuscripts should run no more than 3,000 words unless prior arrangements with the editor have been made. Articles are published in English; we welcome translations into English of articles that were originally prepared in another language. In such cases we also publish a lengthy abstract of the article in the original language. Form of Submission. We now accept articles in two formats: in manuscript (double- spaced) accompanied by computer disk, or by e-mail. We operate on Macs, and can translate most files from their original format (except for PageMaker files); please indicate the version of the software. If submitting by e-mail, use the e-mail text as a cover letter. Do not embed the doc­ ument—send it as an attachment. Again, note the version of the software used to create the attachment. For all submissions, give complete contact details (including e-mails) for each author. Citations. Citations should be given using the author-date method (preferably following the format laid out in The Chicago Manual of Style). Editorial Matters; Permissions. Generally, manuscripts that have been accepted are edit­ ed only for clarity, grammar, and so on. We contact authors before publishing if major revisions to content are needed. THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM is copyrighted by the Society; written per­ mission for additional publication is required but freely given as long as the article is attributed as having been first published here. We do consider certain previously published articles for republication in THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM. Authors proposing such articles should ensure all needed copyright permissions are in place before submitting the article for consideration. Illustrations Submitted in Hard-Copy. Submit original (not photocopied) line drawings, charts, and graphs as nearly "camera-ready" as possible. If submitted in a size that exceeds THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM'S page dimensions (6x9 inches), please make sure the reduction will still be legible. Avoid the use of dark shading in graphics. The preferable form for photographs is black-and-white (matte or glossy) prints. Medium contrast makes for better reproduction. Color prints and slides are also acceptable; half-tones and photocopies are not. We particularly welcome good vertical photos for use on the cover, either in black-and-white or, preferably, in color. Please provide captions and credits and secure copyright permissions as needed, and indicate whether you wish materials to be returned. Illustrations Submitted Electronically. We accept illustrations on floppy or Zip disk, on CD-ROM, or as e-mail attachments. All graphics must be in TIFF or EPS format (HOCJPG, GIF, or PICT). Scans must be at 300 dpi or higher. If in doubt, please ask for complete guidelines. Send all correspondence and submissions to: The George Wright Society ATTN: Editor, THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM P.O. Box 65 Hancock, Ml 49930-0065 • USA w 1-906-487-9722. Fax: 1-906-487-9405. E-mail: [email protected]