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. LThough 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.