3

Our

We

commitment to zero cost or nearly free outdoor recreation? purpose in this paper is to examine several historical and contemporary ideas about the benefits of outdoor recreation. will focus on the benefits to the individual and the society from intrinsically motivated activity and the sense of community involved in outdoor recreation. While we realize there are other arguments favoring the subsidy of outdoor recreation e.g. existence value to non-users, development of an ecological conscience, recognition of Our historical roots we will focus on arguments that relate

directly or indirectly to the enhancement of our democratic form of government.

Economic Theory and Outdoor Recreation

The basic mechanism for resource allocation in the United States is the private marketplace. Government has intervened in the private market economy for a number of reasons, one of which is the provision of merit goods. Merit goods could, at least in theory, be

provided by private entrepreneurs, but they are considered so worthwhile that a public decision is made to override or supplement the private sector (Musgrave 1959). In essence, the existence of merit good decisions indicates that economic efficiency isn't everything. The classic example is public education. Education could be and often is supplied by private businessmen, but historically it has been considered so valuable that we provide for it through public action. The idea of merit goods runs against the basic economic doctrine of consumer sovereignty in deciding what to buy, since taxes are compulsory. However, the doctrine of consumer sovereignty assumes complete market knowledge and rational

appraisal, two assumptions which may not hold in a complex world with powerful methods of mass persuasion. With such distortions

possible, a collective judgment may be reached that reliance on the private market will result in socially non-optional production and consumption of valuable goods and services. As determined by social judgments based on learning and leadership, then, we have decided that education, public health, libraries, museums, drug control and certain other goods and services are meritorious enough to warrant violating consumer sovereignty and providing them at general public expense.

as

Outdoor recreation has, we believe, attributes that justify it a merit good worthy of public support. In what follows we review these attributes as they have been put forth by the fountainhead theoretician of the American parks movement and several contemporary

thinkers.

VALUES OF OUTDOOR RECREATION

Frederick Law Olmsted:

Park Theoretician

Olmsted is best known for his collaboration with Calvert Vaux

in the design of Central Park, and for his many other urban nature-oriented parks that grace our cities. Less well recognized is the part he played in the establishment of what became Yosemite. National Park; his 1965 plan for Yosemite provided the first systematic rationale for governmental leadership to provide parks for the people. Far more than aesthetic concerns lay behind his work on these parks, as recent scholarship makes clear (Roper 1973; Sax 1980). Olmsted was a park theoretician whose designs grew out

5

of his powerful beliefs about American democracy.

Olmsted's democratic idealism was of religious proportions,

and it guided his professional life. He had seen many private parks in England, worth millions of dollars and requiring upkeep expenditures greater than that given the national schools. The scenic benefits of these parks were the monopoly of the wealthy. In a democracy, he believed, amenities like these should be available to all the people. He did not agree with the apologists of aristrocacy that working men and women were incapable of

appreciating natural scenery and being improved by its influences. Therefore, in the United States it was the right and the duty of government to protect natural areas and to make them readily available to all the citizens.

Olmsted believed that parks were far more than luxuries. He felt they could make a vital contribution to the success of American democracy. The benefits to our collective life could be realized both through individual and social experiences in parks.

In Olmsted's view, individual benefits from park experiences derived largely from their contrast to people's everyday lives. Не felt that nature, brought to urbanities through carefully designed parks like Central Park, could provide a permanent standard of value against which daily tasks could be measured. Olmsted sought to present nature in his parks in a way that would encourage visitors to set their own agendas and experience the park at their own pace with their own thoughts. His goal was to encourage individual freedom from societal pressures in a way often denied in the workplace. He believed that nature was intrinsically interesting, allowing the exercise of what he called the contemplative faculty,

6

an inherent human capacity for absorbed attention frequently ignored on the job. Contemplative recreation offered all citizens in a democracy a chance for restoration, and an opportunity to gain the perspective necessary for them to play their part in the survival of democracy.

Olmsted attributed social as well as individual benefits to parks. He was very concerned about the development in America of clearly defined social classes such as existed in Europe. Large numbers of poor immigrants on the one hand, and the conspicuous display of great wealth on the other, fueled his concern with the breakdown of democracy. All his professional life he worked toward

the general goal of what he called "communicativeness"; "an all-embracing relationship based on the confidence, respect and interest of each citizen in all and all in each." This criterion was important to his park plans. Some have looked at the luxurious facilities of Central Park and concluded that Olmsted's park was another example of elites using public funds to advance their own interests. Nothing could be further from the truth. Olmsted incorporated luxurious facilities in his parks in a deliberate attempt to draw the wealthy and educated to the park, in the hopes that they would mix with the lower classes. His model was Birkenhead Park in Liverpool, England, In this quiet little park, which served people from all social strata, he saw a powerful engine of democracy.

Thus, one hundred and twenty years ago the foundation of a philosophical justification for public outdoor recreation was developed. By attracting people from all social classes, parks would combat a tendency for social stratification and promote a

healthy sense of community.

By providing workers with a natural

setting that encouraged their individual response and provided

contrast to their daily lives, parks would help America's people develop their ability to govern themselves.

7

Leisure Perceived Freedom and Leisure Subcultures

The benefits of outdoor recreation espoused by Olmsted have now evolved into well-developed bodies of leisure theory. Of course, the roots of these theories were developed long before Olmsted. DeGrazia (1963) translates the Greek definition of leisure as "freedom from the necessity of being occupied". Freedom to do what one wants is seen as the key mental state in leisure, and leisure is independent of time and behavior. In fact, no "occupation" is admissible in leisure for Aristotle, not even recreation, which is necessary as restoration for work. Music and contemplation are the exemplary classical leisure experiences.

Perhaps we should elaborate briefly the Aristotelian idea of contemplation during leisure, as it is a key element in Olmsted's rationale for park preservation. For DeGrazia and Aristotle, contemplation is a state of passive receptivity to the environment. The contemplator has no manipulative design on the environment and is thus detached and free from it. Because of his receptivity and rapt attention, however, the contemplator is also, paradoxically, at one with the environment in an ego-less state of heightened

awareness and reduced needs.

In spite of many current trends to the contrary, the classical vision is still potent. Csikszentmihalyi's (1975) "flow"

experiences emphasize similar psychological dimensions: a