Parks for life: an emotion-based park ethic for everyone.

Science does not create public parks. Science can tell us that parks are good for us, good for our environment, our economy and good for many of the creatures with whom we share the planet. Science can provide us with some useful clues for managing parks to maximize some of these benefits. But if we wait for science to create parks, it will be too late. Emotion creates parks. And, because parks are always at risk, emotion is a powerful tool for protecting existing ones. Parks are continually threatened by competing land interests, by neglect, by mismanagement, by under-funding, by occasional over-use, by massive under-appreciation, and by being taken for granted by the community.

We repeatedly and mistakenly, have seen park establishment as an end, rather titan as a beginning; a demonstration, a model of what could be; a small step toward the land ethic that Aldo Leopold argued for more than half a century ago.

Parks are one of the most popular concepts ever to be adopted and pro-rooted by any society. The rallying cry "Parks are for People" tells only part of that story. The list of benefits provided by parks vastly exceeds that which appears in their annual reports. Healthy, progressive societies have a holistic view of their parks--a view that is fostered by an ethic connecting parks with all aspects of life, health, education, jobs, inspiration, peace and justice. Because parks are the embodiment of a love for land, a park ethic can be built on this emotional foundation.

For nearly 50 years, we have watched the heady growth of science in park management decisions. But in the sterile realm of objective science, park growth has stagnated, park budgets remain embarrassingly inadequate, and park conditions have often plummeted. Even bad science can drive out good emotion. The time has come for the ultimate park partnership to step forward and help reinvent the park movement--the unbeatable team of objective science and subjective emotion.

That parks are massively under-appreciated, despite their worldwide adoption, is evident in the limited ways we report their benefits. Preserved acres, open space and attendance, are but small parts of parks' total contribution to life on the planet.

New legislation with a broader mandate is not the answer, however. Park professionals know that parks must be fully engaged with society, but they remain singularly preoccupied with recreation, and the engagement remains stalled at the flirtation stage. Do we not understand that our parks can be casualties of the widening gap in income, wealth and power? Until we do, we are unlikely to develop a social justice role for parks.

Realizing that feelings of oppression and disenfranchisement can be reduced through corporate underwriting of programs, exposing the masses of urban residents to their parks can be a first step. Knowing that parks can provide meaningful employment, retraining, and rehabilitation, can be another step. Applying the ecosystem model to social system understanding and community health may be the essential step. Solving the problem of homelessness in the parks could be a convincing step.

We fail to recognize the fragility of parks as economic engines in the highly competitive tourism economy wherever we ignore the need for limited development zones around parks. The park as a jewel is less likely to be sustainable if its setting is severely compromised. Sustainability of that engine demands a strong and viable partnership between the setting and the jewel. Parks that draw crowds, while ignoring the impact of those crowds beyond their borders, are not engaged, and they are irresponsible. Gateway communities are park entrances, and the entrance sets the tone for what goes on inside. Could there be a connection between ignoring park prohibitions on feeding the wildlife, with the carnival atmosphere outside of many parks?.

One of the earliest arguments for urban parks was that of providing "lungs for the cities." In the same way that trees purity, polluted air, vistas can clear clouded minds, and rushing waters can flush poisoned spirits. The challenges of strenuous park bikes can be aerobic for more than just the body. Health issues, personal and public, preventive and therapeutic, all have environmental roots and linkages to open space and parks. Stress is a major killer in modern societies, destroying not just its victims, but their families and their support systems, spreading its tentacles into the community. Parks reduce stress on individuals and communities alike. Parks inspire, provoke, challenge and tease us to be creative, to be different, to be fulfilled. Parks build diversity as surely as they preserve it.

When science doesn't have the answers, the appeal of parks for life's ethics is infectious. Not only does it move parks closer to the center of social issues and toward a broader base of funding, it identifies park professionals as valuable problem solvers, networkers, and bridge builders. The major movement toward park partnerships of the past decade seems to herald the emergence of a new park ethic--one of "Parks for Life." But partnerships alone reflect an expedient, not an ethic.

With an ethic of Parks for Life, park job descriptions and performance evaluations would include elements of creative problem solving, advocacy; team and constituency building, stewardship of intangible and tangible assets, and accountability for personal growth. In an age of Parks for Life, annual reports would subdue the statistics, while highlighting the real values of parks, lives changed, communities enhanced and appreciation gained. With the certain knowledge that parks are for life, scarce research dollars now expended on their justification would be redirected toward monitoring park health. With with this kind of mission, people will cherish their parks in greater numbers, for more diverse purposes, providing more support and visibly less impact. With a world--wide Parks for Life ethic, the World Bank and the United Nations would promote parks for peace, and religions would recognize parks as sacred places for the harmony and understanding they foster. And, in an era of Parks for Life, we will, for the first time, have solid assurance that these assets are forever.

Parks for Life is a radical idea. It moves the test of park success beyond park boundaries. It lifts parks out of their traditional and comfortable niche of recreation and preservation, and sets them down squarely in the center of troubled societies. It dares to suggest that all people have a right to live in park-like settings, not just to visit them. And, it requires that parks become all essential element of the democratic dream--a barometer of our progress with democracy's grand experiment. Parks, like museums and libraries, do not have to be justified by science, economics, or by any numbers. It is the absence of parks that has to be justified. And, it is the absence of park involvement in all of life, that is hardest to justify.

Will LaPage is co-chair of Americans for A Maine Woods National Park, and for five decades has been an outspoken advocate for the benefits of public parks. As an award-winning park scientist, distinguished park system administrator, policy analyst; educator and international parks consultant, he uses his experience to take a fresh look at why our public parks are failing to perform at anything close to their potential or close to the vision that created them.