ORRRC at 40! A national collection or a national system.

When you look out across the recreation landscape, do you see a system of park and recreation cooperatives, or a collection of institutional silos? Of course, what you see depends on where you sit. What I have found to be true was stated very well 40 years ago:

   Management policies governing public recreation lands vary among agencies
   and change according to public demand, political pressures and economic and
   social imperatives. Agencies have developed their own approaches, criteria,
   and, in some cases, classifications in order to carry out their own
   responsibilities for outdoor recreation development. These policies reflect
   the diverse objectives and statutory responsibilities of the various
   agencies. The result is a diversity of management practices, some
   duplication and gaps, and, in many cases, less than optimum resource
   utilization. This situation, aggravated by the lack of consistent standards
   for recreation management, constitutes a major obstacle to a balanced
   national program. (ORRRC 1962, pg 95).

A fundamental goal of our profession must be the conservation of recreation diversity (Haas 2001). This goal is hard to appreciate if you are standing at a campsite, boat launch or on the 10th fairway of a golf course. But imagine sitting in a small airplane looking out across 50 campgrounds, lakes, or golf courses. At this scale, we begin to see and appreciate recreation diversity.

Then the question is whether we sustain diversity by chance or by design. ORRRC was a strong proponent for the latter, and advanced a system of six classifications in order to help inventory, map, plan and manage recreation resources. In the 1960s and 1970s this tool was popular among state agencies in developing SCORP plans. By the mid 1970s, the scientific community began to develop a more science-based recreation classification system under the leadership of Drs. Bev Driver, Perry Brown, George Stankey and Roger Clark. Their efforts led to the development of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum System (go) which is used today, to varying degrees, by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. While the research and development efforts to advance ROS subsided since the mid-1980s, it remains the only macro or regional recreation inventory, planning and management tool. The other land management agencies have not adopted any parallel tool, although the Bureau of Reclamation is currently developing a water recreation opportunity system (WROS) for its large networks of reservoirs and rivers. Suffice it to say, we don't have a common system of classifying recreation opportunities.

Ecologists have come to realize that the conservation of biodiversity requires the planning and management of ecosystems at a large landscape scale across multiple agencies and jurisdictions. Likewise, wildlife biologists now plan at a scale equivalent to a species' home range and hydrologists at a watershed scale.

I believe park and recreation officials need to plan and manage at a scale commensurate to the recreationist's "visitation range," and one that spans across agencies and jurisdictions. To do so will require park and recreation providers to implement a common recreation inventory system, not for the purpose of constraining agency mission or discretion, but to enhance agency effectiveness and efficiency across a regional scale necessary for the conservation of recreation diversity. Such a system can be integrated into existing agency planning processes in order to help park and recreation officials to think nationally, plan regionally, and manage locally.

It would be politically correct to simply echo ORRRC in saying that the absence of such a system is a major obstacle, but my editorial prerogative allows me to be more provocative. We have refused to see the future after it arrived. We have made little progress in 40 years, and arguably, are more fragmented today than in the 1960s. I believe that the greatest nemesis of our profession is our inability to inventory and measure the supply of recreation opportunities beyond simple proxy measures of facilities and acres of special designations. Diverse park and recreation officials should effectively communicate and efficiently inventory and map the supply of available recreation opportunities beyond their own institutional boundaries, so we do not just accept a collection, but develop a system.

National leadership is needed at a level not witnessed since the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Can NRPA step forward? Will the National Park Service fulfill its recreation leadership mandate set forth in the Outdoor Recreation Act of 1964? Do we need an interdepartmental or presidential-level entity, much like the Council of Environmental Quality or Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, to facilitate a crosswalk among our institutional silos?

I believe a much stronger form of national leadership needs to be enacted in order to build a seamless national system for the conservation of recreation diversity and its profound benefits to the American public.

Outdoor Recreation in America

Part II Recommendations

The opening chapters of this report describe the role of outdoor recreation in American life, the demand, the resources available, the social and economic importance of outdoor recreation, and the most pressing needs in the years ahead. The following chapters are devoted to recommendations for action to satisfy these needs.

The recommendations are based on a conviction that outdoor recreation is essential to the well-being of the American people and should, therefore, continue to be an important part of American life. The language used by the Congress in the Act establishing the Commission reflects this conviction and states certain goals which the Commission believes should be the basis of national policy

   * * * to preserve, develop, and assure accessibility to all American people
   of present and future generations such quality and quantity of outdoor
   recreation resources as will be necessary and desirable for individual
   enjoyment, and to assure the spiritual, cultural, and physical benefits
   that such outdoor recreation provides * * * (1)

The natural heritage of our Nation must be preserved in two senses. We cannot afford, by either unwise action or neglect, to lose or impair resources of outstanding natural, scenic, scientific, or historic importance. These must be protected from misuse so that they may be passed on to future generations as nearly in their original state as possible. Equally important is preservation of the opportunity for a wide variety of recreation uses that do not require the strict preservation of resources in their natural condition.

A second goal is the wise development of our recreation resources. While some of our citizens seek a completely natural environment for outdoor recreation, a larger number prefer activities in less primitive surroundings. Outdoor recreation for this larger group requires basic facilities -- roads, picnic tables, sanitation. Wise development of existing areas can expand use and make recreation more pleasant for all. As our expanding population makes increasing demands on our limited resources, development can help alleviate growing pressures. In some cases this may mean more intensive construction of facilities, in others the use of resources now overlooked.

A third basic goal is accessibility -- an opportunity for all Americans to know and enjoy the outdoors. Providing reasonable access to the out-of-doors for large concentrations of population will be one of the central problems of outdoor recreation over the next 40 years. At the center of concern will be the day and weekend needs of the metropolitan residents--particularly those of moderate and low incomes. To achieve accessibility, existing areas must be further developed, and in many instances new sites must be acquired.

A fourth goal, also identified by the Congress, is to attain an effective balance between the recreation needs of the Nation and the many other uses of our natural resources. Careful planning and coordination of effort will not only reduce conflict between recreation and other resource uses but, in many instances, can open up new recreation opportunities without detriment to other uses.

To secure the benefits of outdoor recreation for the American public, a national policy should encourage shared responsibility, not only between public and private activity but among all levels of government.

The outdoor recreation opportunities available to the public may be thought of as a great national system. Some parts of the system are provided by the Federal Government, some by States, some by local government, and still others by private enterprise. What is done in one part affects the others, and constructive action in one part aids all. This diversity provides a productive flexibility as long as it is within the framework of national goals. Business is readily adaptable to changing tastes. Government can do some things best, and within government, different levels are better equipped for specific tasks. The Federal Government's superior resources equip it for large-scale enterprises. States offer flexibility. The local governments are most sensitive to immediate needs.

The public responsibility for providing some types of opportunities is greater than it is for others. Government has three basic responsibilities: (1) To insure, either directly or in cooperation with the private sector, that Americans have access to the outdoor environment and an opportunity to benefit from such activities as enjoyment of scenery and wildlife, picnicking, and hiking; (2) to recognize the importance of recreation in the management of its own lands; and (3) to preserve certain outstanding resources for future generations.

But the provision of outdoor recreation can never be entirely the responsibility of government if the magnitude and range of needs are to be met. The private sector of the economy can play an important role by allowing the use of private lands, under proper safeguards, for such activities as hunting and fishing, and also by providing recreation facilities of varying degrees of elaborateness from simple picnic grounds to luxury hotels and dude ranches. Our national policy should encourage private enterprise to provide outdoor recreation opportunities and services wherever feasible. Profitmaking enterprises already satisfy a significant part of the total needs, but they could do much more to complement, diversify, and augment government efforts. Within government, there is a large number of suppliers of outdoor recreation. There is a great need for coordination and cooperation. In the Federal Government alone there are a score of agencies whose programs affect outdoor recreation. There is great diversity of organization in the 50 States and in the thousands of local governments. While the roles of each need not be precisely defined, there is need for a general understanding on division of responsibility based on the ability of the respective agencies to serve the public as effectively as possible.

The Federal Government should carry out the roles of protecting natural, scenic, and historic shrines of national importance; managing its own lands to enhance their recreation value; assisting State and local governments; encouraging regional cooperation; sponsoring research; and exercising general leadership.

The States should play the pivotal role in providing outdoor recreation opportunities for their citizens. They are the most logical units to provide the flexible approach required to satisfy varying needs. States can assess their own needs and take action accordingly. They can be particularly effective in stimulating counties and municipalities, which depend upon the States for their govern- mental authority, to take both separate and joint action to meet important problems. Through their regulatory power, the States can also play an effective role in stimulating private enterprise. Finally, they are the most effective avenue through which Federal aid can be channeled to meet varying needs.

Cities and other local governments have traditionally provided a wide range of recreation opportunities for their citizens -- parks, playgrounds, museums, zoos. These opportunities are in some measure alternatives to outdoor recreation activities beyond the city. limits. The current emphasis on open space in and around the cities should be directed toward creating a recreation environment and making our metropolitan areas more livable.

These broad principles are the basis on which the Commission has formulated its recommendations for specific actions in the following chapters.

(1.) Public Law 85-70, 72 Stat. 238 [emphasis supplied].

CHAPTER 6

GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT

NEED FOR MANAGEMENT GUIDES

Over the next 40 years, recreation uses of land and water resources will come into vigorous competition with demands for wood, minerals, agricultural crops, highway development, industry, residential construction, and commercial enterprise of many kinds. To assure present and future generations of Americans outdoor recreation opportunities of adequate quantity and quality, more effective management of land and water resources and more careful planning are urgently needed.

Effective supply can be expanded through more efficient utilization of existing resources, as well as through private and public acquisition and development of additional recreation lands. Both approaches will have to be employed if future needs are to be met.

The management of recreation resources is a basic factor in expanding the supply of future opportunities. The term management is used here to include the over-all policy, planning, and design of recreation development at all levels of government, as well as the operational aspects of administration. Identification of the purposes for which outdoor recreation resources are best suited is essential as a guiding principle in providing a balanced supply.

Outdoor recreation requires the use of a broad range of natural resources in varying combinations, from intensively developed sites providing diversified recreation opportunities for large numbers of people, to undisturbed primitive areas providing enjoyment for limited groups. Between these extremes are areas of various types that have been or may be modified by man. Some are developed solely for recreation, and others are managed for recreation in conjunction with other resource uses.

While the physical and locational aspects of resources strongly influence the types of activities that can be carried out, in the final analysis it is management in the broad sense that determines resource use. Whether a particular resource remains undeveloped and thus appropriate for limited kinds of recreation opportunity, or is modified to sustain a wide range of opportunities for large numbers -- in short, the "carrying capacity" of the area -- depends upon management criteria and decisions.

Management policies governing public recreation lands vary among agencies and change according to public demand, political pressures, and economic and social imperatives. These agencies have developed their own approaches, criteria, and, in some cases, classifications in order to carry out their responsibilities for outdoor recreation development. These policies reflect the diverse objectives and statutory responsibilities of the various agencies. The result is a diversity of management practices, some duplication and gaps, and, in many cases, less than optimum resource utilization. This situation, aggravated by the lack of consistent standards for recreation management, constitutes a major obstacle to a balanced national program.

CLASSIFYING OUTDOOR RECREATION RESOURCES

The Commission recommends a system of classifying outdoor recreation resources in order to provide a common framework and to serve as an effective tool in recreation management. This approach is one of recreation zoning, based upon relationships between physical resource characteristics and public recreation needs. Under this concept, particular types of resources and areas would be managed for definite recreation uses, sometimes in combination with other uses. Because of the wide variety of possible recreation activities on many areas, the purposes for which each area is particularly suited must be carefully determined to assure a desirable variety of opportunities and of values.

The Commission has developed a system encompassing the full range of physical resources needed for all kinds of outdoor recreation activity and specifying the types of management required for optimum recreation uses of each category. There are six broad classes, which include all types of outdoor recreation resources. They constitute a spectrum ranging from areas suitable for high-density use to sparsely used extensive primitive areas. In most cases an administrative unit, such as a park or forest, would include recreation areas of two or more classes. Although the classification is based largely on physical features, economic and social considerations also play an important part in deciding on the class designation of any given area. Lands not suited or available for recreation will, of course, not fall into any of the suggested classes. Roads, including even parkways, do not themselves fall within the classification. However, waysides within rights-of-way would be classified, and the fact that land borders a parkway would be considered in its management.

These guidelines provide a framework for the development of management policies and practices for all types of outdoor recreation situations. While the specific management policies recommended are most applicable to public areas, the underlying concept of recreation zoning has relevance for private areas as well.

The Commission believes that the principles of this system are essential to outdoor recreation management if future needs are to be fully met and the quality of the physical resource base maintained. It is convinced that these principles will become more meaningful, and their application more essential, as pressures increase and as demands become more diversified. It urges adoption of the classification system and application of the policies which it contains by both public and private landowners. It also urges that classifications by different landowners be harmonized to fit into a broad over-all program for a State or region.

Recommendation 6-1: The following system of classifying recreation resources should be adopted and applied to aid in the management of recreation resources, to enhance the quality of recreation opportunities, and to facilitate the orderly development of recreation areas.

Class I -- High-Density Recreation Areas Areas intensively developed and managed for mass use.

Class II -- General Outdoor Recreation Areas Areas subject to substantial development for a wide variety of specific recreation uses.

Class III -- Natural Environment Areas Various types of areas that are suitable for recreation in a natural environment and usually in combination with other uses.

Class IV -- Unique Natural Areas Areas of outstanding scenic splendor, natural wonder, or scientific importance.

Class V -- Primitive Areas Undisturbed roadless areas, characterized by natural, wild conditions, including "wilderness areas."

Class VI -- Historic and Cultural Sites Sites of major historic or cultural significance, either local, regional, or national.

NOTE FROM THE EDITORS: Throughout the year Parks & Recreation is highlighting sections of Outdoor Recreation For America in an effort to bring a valuable spotlight to the history of our profession and our community. We hope you will take to heart what our own history provides us and use its offerings to better yourself, your community, and our parks.

References

Haas, G.E. Conserving Recreation Diversity: Collaborating Across Boundaries. George Wright Society Forum, 18(3):112-123. Fall, 2001. The George Wright Society, Hancock, Michigan.

Dr. Haas welcomes your thoughts and can be reached at [e-mail]. The editors for this year's History section are Dr. Glenn E. Haas and Dr. Marcella Wells. Dr. Haas has particular interests in regional recreation planning, natural resource history and policy, visitor management, and visitor capacity decision-making. He has served on the national boards of the NRPA National Society for Park Resources and the National Parks and Conservation Association. During the past two years, he has chaired the Federal Interagency Task Force on Visitor Capacity on Public Lands and Water. Glenn can be reached at [e-mail] state.edu or [phone]. Dr. Wells has particular interests in visitor studies and evaluation research, interpretive planning and coaching, and environmental education. She is currently working on projects with the National Park Service, American Association of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta, Colorado State Parks, Environmental Education Visitor Studies Association and NRPA. She can be reached at marcellaw [e-mail] or [phone]. This month's installment, "A National Collection or a National System" written by Dr. Haas begins on page 90.