Studies in environment

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

EPA-600/5-73-012e
FEBRUARY 1974 Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series
Coastal Zone
Information
Center

Studies In Environment Vol.'V'
Outdoor Recreation and
the Environment

PROI

GF
503 Office of Research and Development
S8
1973 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
V. 5
Washington, D.C. 20460

RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and appli-
cation of environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum inter-
face in related fields. The five series are:

1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

This report has been assigned to the SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
series. This series includes research on environmental management, compre-
hensive planning and forecasting and analysis methodologies. Included are
tools for determining varying impacts of alternative policies, analyses of
environmental planning techniques at the regional, state and local levels,
and approaches to measuring environmental quality perceptions. Such topics
as urban form, industrial mix, growth policies, control and organizational
structure are discussed in terms of optimal environmental performance.
These interdisciplinary studies and systems analyses are presented in forms
varying from quantitative relational analyses to management and policy-
oriented reports.

EPA REVIEW NOTICE

This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and Development,
EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.40
Stock Number 055-001-00811-2
catalog Number EP 1.23/3:600/5-73-012 E

EPA-600/5-73-012e
February 1974

0 - S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
@4@'HARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

STUDIES IN ENVIRONMENT

Volume V

t
outdoor Recreation and the Environmen

Benno Kimmelman
Keith Bildstein
Paul Bujak
William Horton
Mary Savina

Property of CSC Library

Grant No. 801473
Program Element 1HA098
AY"
Project officers

Samuel Ratick
John Gerba
gj Environmental Studies Division
Washington Environmental Research Center
C"

Prepared for
office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460

ABSTRACT

Increases in discretionary time .(time free from 'learninga
living") over the past number of years have dramatically in-
creased the pursuit of leisure activities. Reductions in the
length of the work week, increases in paid holidays, longer
vacations, and early retirement all foster increases in leisure
activities, as do the rise in personal disposable income and
higher levels of educational attainment. Add to these factors
the increase in mobility, and the resulting boom in recreation
is almost obvious.

The increasing tendency toward recreational activity has notably
placed a heavy demand on existing facilities and has also
created a shortage of recreational facilities during peak
vacation periods. This potential strain on the ecological
carrying capacity of recreational areas is an ever-increasing
environmental concern. This study focuses on the problems
and potentials between outdoor recreation and the environment.
The areas studied include recreation on private land, along
coastal areas, national parks and urban areas. All of the fac-
tors contributing to recreational demand--leisure time, education,
disposable income, population growth and mobility---are forecasted
to increase and will result in increased participation in recrea-
tional activities.

CONTENTS

Page

Abstract

List of Tables iv

Acknowl edgments

Sections

I Work and Leisure Time

II Outdoor Recreation on Private Lands 14
III Outdoor Recreation In Coastal Areas 38 V/

IV Outdoor Recreation In Urban Areas 49

V Future Recreation Trends 83

TABLES

No. Page

1 Total Sales for Recreation Equipment 3

2- Visitor Statistics 4

3 Population Age Percent Distribution 6

4 Average Hours Completed by Full-Time Employees 6

5 Personal Disposable Income 8

6 Occupation and Weekend Trips and Vactions 8

7 Industrial Forest Land Open for Public Recreation 16

8 Major Theme Parks In the United States 28

9 Shoreline Use (Excluding Alaska) 40

10 National Assessment of Shore Erosion 42

11 Summary of City-Related Index Values 50

12 Federally Owned Land in the United States by Selected
Agenci-es, 1970 52

13 Population Distribution by Metropolitan-Nonmetropolitan 55
Residence: 1970 and 1960

14 Nonmetropolitan Residence: 1970 and 1960 57

15 Census Distribution of Family Income - by Percentage 58

16 Participation In Outdoor Recreation Activities by Place
of Residence - 1965 59

17 Selected Findings From California Urban Impact Areas 63

18 Population Distribution by Age 84

19 Possible Weekly 4-Day Working Arrangements 87

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Pro= bqaN@]NT

for Environmental Protection Agency:
Samuel Ratick, Physical Scientist, ESD, Fellows Counselor
John Gerba, Chief, Special Projects, ESD, Report Production
for Homer Hoyt Institute:
I Maury Seldin, President
for National Bureau of Standards:
Lynn G. Llewellyn, Research Psychologist, TAD

HOMER HOYT INSTITUTE

John Kokus, Jr., Deputy Director

John Hanyaaker, Research Director

Ira Bechoefer, Sr. Research & Administrative Assistant

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Marilyn Westfall, Operations Research Analyst, TAD

Gail Hare, Research Psychologist, TAD

Donald Corrigan, Legislative Research Analyst, TAD

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Stanley M. Greenfield, Assistant Administrator for Research and
Developrent
Leland Attaway, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research
Peter House, Director, Environmental Studies Division
Robert Livingston, Research Analyst, ESD
Alan Neuschatz, Chief, Environmental Management Research Branch,
ESD
Philip D. Patterson, Assistant to the Director, ESD
Albert Pines, operations Research Analyst, ESD
Martin Redding, Chief, Comprehensive Environmental Planning Branch,
ESD

SECTION I
WORK AND LEISURE TIME

Time free from the necessity of work has traditionally
been of secondary importance in a society based upon the
Protestant ethic. The Calvinist tradition in America
equated continuous labor and accomplishment with divine
calling and salvation. In 1968, the National Advisory
commission on Civil Disorders recognized that "the capacity
to obtain and hold a 'good job' is the traditional test of
participation in American society."l Leisure time has had
meaning only in contrast to work itself, as a period of time
not devoted to constructive labor.2
While the prescription to work,remains strong, changing
values and conditions are challenging the work ethic.
Americans increasingly look to their nonwork lives to
fulfill needs not met by their jobs.

I.A The Changing Work Ethic

The growing emphasis upon leisure time reflects the
disenchantment with work in an industrialized society.
Automation and the division of labor have created a
multitude of boring tasks.
For a significant number of blue-collar,-unskilled
laborers, work yields only extrinsic benefits. A study of
491 low-skilled industrial workers revealed that "for-almost
three out of every four ... work and the workplace [were]
not central life interests." These persons looked for a
sense of "enjoyment, happiness, and worth" outside their
jobs.3 Within a national sample of blue-collar worker's, 74%
expressed some commitment to socially acceptable jobs, but
were "primarily concerned about the income from work.-4
Even sufficient pay cannot avert the contempt generated
by monotonous and,meaningless jobs. Reporters Johnson and
Kotz of The Washington Post found current attitudes toward
work the 'Tgreatest challenge for the unions and for American
society." Especially among the 22 million workers under age
30 (over 25% of the labor force) was there the "most
striking evidence of frustration, anger, rebellion, and
disenchantment. " 5
For professionals and other skilled personnel, work
yields intrinsic as well-as extrinsic benefits. Feelings of
capability, accomplishment, and public service often
accompany such jobs. The educational training necessary
provides substantial income, security, and status. Measures
of job satisfaction are extremely high in this group: one
study found that 93% of the urban university professors, 91%
of the mathematicians, 85% of the firm lawyers, and 82% of
the journalists interviewed would select similar work again.
These jobs provide an individual with a sense of identity
and purpose while satisfying monetary needs.6
Yet even those with challenging occupations have
reacted against the excesses of the work ethic. People who

devote their lives solely to work are regarded by their peers
as "one-sided, possibly sick, and certainly unfortunate."7
The resentment of mechanical tasks and reaction to a
pervasive emphasis upon work have already affected the youth.
Among a highly educated, young population accustomed to
economic stability, work has "fallen into disrepute." A
study of Stanford and Berkeley undergraduates revealed that
they viewed a choice of careers "as a threat instead of an
opportunity." Some have turned away from hard work and
success to socially-oriented activities. An estimated 20,000
students a year, many of whom may be expressing theiraliena-
tion from established work patterns, fail to complete their
educations. Rather than choose jobs or careers, young people
have increasingly turned to arts and crafts and accepted a
subsistence living. 8Many are seeking satisfaction outside
the labor structure.

I.B Leisure Spending

Americans escape the frustrations and inadequacies of
work through their leisure pursuits. At the end of a day's
work, on weekends, during vacations, and after retirement,
people spend money and time engaging in pleasurable activi-
ties. In April, 1972, U.S. News & World Report presented
an analysis of what it termed the "leisure boom" in America.
Leisure spending has risen steadily from $58.3 billion in
1965 to approximately $105 billion in 1972. The rate of
increase in leisure expenditure has in fact exceeded that
of total personal spending, as shown below.

1965-67 1967-69* 1969-72 1965-72
% Change in Leisure 21.7 16.3 27.1 80.1
Spending (estimated)
% Change in Total 13.6 17.7 24.4 66.6
Personal Expenditure (estimated)

*The economic slowdown beginning in 1968 reduces
the value of these figures in assessing broad
trends over the decade.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Statistics
in "Leisure Boom: Biggest Ever and Still
Growing," U.S. News & World Report, LXXII
(April 17, 1972), p. 42.

Yet these aggregate figures obscure the true boom which has
occurred in the distribution of leisure dollars. In terms
of participation and spendin , outdoor recreation has become
a major use of leisure time.@
This mo 'vement to the outdoors is documented by the U.S.
News & World Report analysis. In 1967 Americans spent

TABLE 1

TOTAL SALES FOR RECREATION EQUIPMENT

(Millions of Dollars)

Sleeping Winter Recrea- Snow- Motor- All-terrain Dune
Year Bags Tents Sports Bicycles tional mobiles cycles Vehicles Buggie
Equipment Vehicles*
1960 1.5 33.6
1961 87
1962 33.5 51.7 20.0 197.9 112
1963 37.3 55.1 25.0 204.6 156.5
1964 41.2 60.5 30.0 209.1 198.5
1965 46.2 66.3 34.6 216.0 308.2
1966 45.0 65.0 41.7 228.9 370.8
1967 47.3 67.0 50.9 244.2 446.4
1968 51.2 73.7 61.1 265.9 791.8
1969 55.6 83.4 73.9 290.7 1077
1970 58.2 86.5 87.4 318.3 1149.9 187.5 277.4 9.5 5
1971 69.2 104.5 96.7 384.3 1629.5
1972 2150 (estimated)

*Recreational Vehicles include Travel Trailers, Truck Campers, Camping Trailers,
Motor Homes and Pickup Covers.

Source: National Sporting Goods Association, 1972 - Continued Growth for Sporting
Goods, (Chicago: 1972), pp. 23-24; National Sporting Goods Association,.The
Market for Athletic and Recreational Goodst' Consumer Attitudes Versus
industry Adaptations, A Study of Trends and Subsequent Predictions icago:
N.D.); "Fun Cars'--A Boom That's Running Into Trouble," U.S. News and World
Report, LXXII (January 3, 1972), p. 32..

$9.6 billion on recreation-sports equipment, the most
exclusively outdoor-oriented category presented in the
article. For 1972, the autho3Fs projected a total spending
of $18 billion. This approximate doubling in expenditure
within one category is reflected in the percentage it
represented of total leisure spending for the two years.
In 1967 recreation-sports equipment accounted for 13.5% of
that year's leisure expenditure, while in 1972 it was
expected to equal 17.1%. The dimensions of this increase
are most clearly evident in sales for various types of
outdoor equipment and vehicles (see Table 1 ). Sales for
all but one of these have increased more than 100% over the
specified intervals. All such items have become popular
means of enjoying the outdoors.10

I.C Participation in Outdoor Recreation

A complementary rise in outdoor recreation participation
is also well documented. When the Outdoor Recreation
Resource Review Commission published its findings in 1962, it
estimated that in 1960 there had been approximately four
billion occasions of summer outdoor activity. By 1965 this
number had grown to over six billion and the anticipated
figure for 1980 was over,ten billion,occasions. Attendance
records shown in Table 2... for state and national parks
illustrate the same growth in participation:

TABLE 2

Visitor Statistics
(Thousands)

1960 1967 1970
National Park System (total) 79,229 139,675.6 172,004.6
State Parks (total reporting) 259,001 391,062.7 @82,536.3

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Park Service, Public Use of the National
Parks; A Statigt-ical Report, 1960-70
(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
office, 1971), p. 5; Barry S. Tindall,
ed., State Park Statistics, 1970
(WashTngton, D.C.: The National
Conference on State Parks, 1971), p. 9.

These indicators confirm an observation already evident in
19.62, that the demand for outdoor recreation is "surging."
The rise in participation has far exceeded previous
forecasts.11 All measures of involvement point to a
tremendous movement outdoors.

I.D Participation Factors

I.D.1 Population Growth

The rapid increase in outdoor recreational activities
can be partially explained by-changes in various factors
related to participation.12 Population growth contributes
to recreational.demands.and use. During the decade 1960-701
the American population increased at a rate of 13.4% from
178.7 million to 202.5 million persons. Such rowth-alone
would lead to greater numbers of participants.Y3

1,D.2 Age

Age also affects involvement in certain outdoor activi-
ties. People under 30 are usually the most active partici-
pants. From 1960 to 1970 the median age of the population
dropped from 29.9 to 28.2 years. This decrease in age is
reflected in the shift toward younger age brackets. While
57% of the 1960 population was 34 years old or younger,
59.4% of the 1970 population fell within this category. of
Tarticular importance are the changes in the 16 to 19 and 20
to 24 yearage groups, periods of great outdoor activity
(see Table- 3 Both in terms of growth and age distribu-
tion, the population dynamics oi the last decade insured the
rise in outdoor participation.1

I.D.3 Available Leisure Time

Another major factor affecting recreational involvement
is the amount of leisure time available to, the population.
Leisure in this context refers to time free from the obliga-
tion of work, time to be used as an individual desires. The
increase in free time for American workers has.principally
taken the form of shorter working hours per week, more paid
holidays, longer vacations, and earlier retirement. In the
past, average working hours have declined significantly, yet
recent alterations in the length of the workweek are diffi-
cult to detect. -The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates
shown in Table 4' of average hours completed by full-time
employees show minimal change.15 Although these figures
obscure significant differences between industries and types
of work, they do indicate that sizable amounts of leisure
time have not appeared through reductions in the workweek.
However, increased vacations and holidays have recently
provided workers with substantial blocks of.leisure time.
In 1968, two-thirds of all employees in the private non-farm
economy received paid vacations. From 1960 to 1969 the
number of vacation weeks rose nearly 50% from 87 to 129
million weeks. The average length of a worker's vacation
increased from 1.3 to 1.7 weeks, while that of full-time
employees rose from 1.8 to 2.2 weeks. There has also been
a gradual increase in paid holidays. Office workers gained
0.3 days on the average between 1960 and 1968 while plant
workers attained an additional .0. 7 days. This brought the

TABLE 3

Population Age
Percent Distribution

1960 1970
Under 5 years 11.3 8.8
5 to 13 years 18.4 18.4
14 and 15 years 3.1. 4.0
16 to 19 years 5.8 7.2
20 to 24 years 5.9 7.7
2'5 to 34 years 12.5 12.3
35 to 44 years 13.6 11.4
45 to, 64 years 20.3 20.6
65 years and over 9.0 9.7

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current
@Population Reports, Series p. 23, No. 37,
"Social and Economic Characteristics of
the Population in Metropolitan and
Nonmetropolitan Areas: 1970 and 1960@,"
(Washingto ,n. D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1971) .

TABLE 4

Average Hours Completed
Py Full-Time Employees

Year Average Hours
Per Week
1955 46.0
1960 45.8
1965 46.2
1966 45.7
1967 45.3
1968 45.2
1969 45.3
1970 45.1

Source: Geoffrey H. Moore and Janice Neipert
Hedges, "Trends in Labor and Leisure,"
Monthly Labor Review, LXXXIV (February,
1961)f 5.

average total paid holidays for office workers to 8.0 days
and for plant workers to 7,5 in 1968. Longer vacations and
additional holidays, which usually precede or follow
weekends, provide units of time that facilitate participation
in outdoor activities.16
Earlier retirement is also becoming mote common. From
1947 to 1969, the proportion of men age 65 or over who were
working dropped from 48% to 27%. Although older people may
participate less frequently in certain activities,
convenience-oriented facilities and vehicles encourage this
groupto remain active participants in outdoor recreation.
As retirement becomes common at age 60 or even earlier, more
years will be available.for outdoor pursuits.17
I.D.4 Personal Disposable Income

The rapid rise in personal disposable income has also
spurred leisure activities. Many outdoor pursuits require
large expenditures for equipment or vehicles. As shown in
Table @ Americans achieved substantial increments in
disposable income.on a yearly basis. This money has
stimulated the boom in recreation related industries and
enabled'people to engage more frequently in desired
activities.

I.D.5 Educational Levels

Higher levels of educational attainment also appear to
result in greater outdoor participation. Between 1960 and
1970, the educational level of persons within the 25 to 29
age group increased significantly. While 64.4% of the
population in 1960 had completed four years of high school
or more, 78.2% did in 1970. Persons with at least four
years of college increased from 13.1% to 18.7% of the
population during the same time interval. Exposure to a
spectrum of ideas and life styles may stimulate an interest
in nature and various outdoor activities.18

I.D.6 Transportation

Improvements in transportation have made the task of
reaching the parks,. forests, seashore, and resort areas much
easier. Americans are increasingly mobile as a result of
massive highway construction. Since 1960, the interstate..
highway system expanded 300%, from 10,440 miles to 32,988
miles at the end of 1971. These routes have granted
automobiles and large vehicles access to recreation areas
throughout the country. More frequent and longer trips in
less developed regions are now possible.19
A larger and younger population with more leisure time,
disposable income, education, and mobility has greater
oppor.tunity and capability of participating in outdoor
activities. While these factors have provided opportunities
for outdoor recreation, Americans have expressed a preference
for this use of their leisure time. Frustration with
metropolitan living, concern for the environment, and a

TABLE 5

Personal Disposable Income
(Billions of Current Dollars)

1960 350.0
1961 364.4
1962 385.3
1963 404.6
1964 438.1
1965 473.2
1966 511.9
1967 546.3
1968 591.0
1 969 634.2
1970 687.8

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Statistics

TABLE 6

Occupation and Weekend Trips and Vacations

Occupation % of Respondents Who % of Respondents Who
Took Weekend Trips Took Vacations
Professional 5-4 67
Managerial 55 63
Clerical 40 48
Sales 44 60
Craftsmen & Foremen 38 50
@Operatives 33 44
Service Workers 27 38
Laborers 15 38

Source: Rabel J. Burdge, "Outdoor Recreation Studies
in Vacation and Weekend Trips," Department
of Agricultural Economics and Rural
Sociology, A.E. & R.S. #65, Vniversity Park,
Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State
University, August, 1967), pp. 9, 19.

.yearning for naturalism have all influenced the movement
outdoors.

I.D.7 Occupation

All segments'of society have not been affected equally
by these developments. Studies conclude that the most
outdoor-oriented groups are those with rewarding work,
advanced education and financial security. Responses from a.
random, stratified sample of persons in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania,established a relationship between occupational
prestige and use of leisure time. Those persons with the.
most prestigeous jobs (professionals, high level management,
and other white-collar workers) "were the most active in the
listed sixteen forins of outdoor recreation." For nearly all
the activities included in the survey, the probability .
favored high middle and upper class involvement. Although
many in this group worked long hours, the@ had ample income.
to pursue activities in their free time.2
Further investigation correlating.participation in
weekend and vacation trips with occupation yielded similar
@conclusions. While 37% of the random sample reported taking
weekend excursions, participation varied considerably within
occupational categories (see Table@ 6).- Those groups with
long weekly hours, the professional and managerial class,
'were the most active users of their leisure time.21
Although a larger percentage of the sample took
vacations (51%), similar differences existed between
occupational levels. A greater proportion of persons with
professional and managerial jobs took vacations,than did
members of any other occupational category. These persons
are financially able to engage in their diverse interests
after fulfilling professional demands.22

I.E Recreational Activities: Supply and EnvironmentaL@Mac`tt

I.E,l Facilities

The rapid growth in outdoor participation has occurred
upon a supply of recreational land and facilities 'which has
increased only slightly. This contrast is most vivid in the
graphic representation of Federal recreation visitations and
acreage from 1965 to 1970. While supply is
expandable, there are ultimate limits to the number of
beaches, parks, and resort developments that can be
established since recreation will be competing with a host
of other land uses for increasingly scarce open space. Thus
existing lands and facilities must be preserved as a
reusable resource.23

I. E.. 2Impact

Outdoor recreational activities can cause environmental
damage by impairing the reusability of an area. maintaining
a recreational facility requires balancing the intensity and
.types of use with the tolerance of the resource. When a
facility's ecological carrying capacity--its ability to
support.certain numbers of people, kinds of activities, and
frequency of use--is exceeded, the facility is endangered.
Outdoor activities can significantly harm the ecosystem and
.thereby'reduce the limited supply of recrea 'tion facilities.
. Recreational use has potential psychological as well as
ecological effects. Certain outdoor experiences require low
intensity land use." This precludes large numbers of people
engaging in the same or conflicting activities simultaneously.
Congestion caused by too many participants can decrease the
quality of the recreational experience. Similarlyr opposing
uses of the same land can destroy the enjoyment of one or
both activities. How intensely a recreational area is used
and the types of recreation permitted significantly affect
the natural and social environment.

I.F Focus of Study

The relationship between outdoor recreation and the
environment is the focus of this study. Recreation at
privately developed facilities, coastal areas, and in the
cities will be explored with regard to supply, demand, and
environmental consequences. In term *s'of dollars and partici-
pation, Americans are expressing their desire for the out-
doors. However, use must be viewed in terms of ecological
and,psychological tolerance, or natural resources will
deteriorate and the recreational experience will be lessened.
Following the analysis of current participation and its
effects, projected trends in recreation will be explored.

FOOTNOTES

1. National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorder, Report
of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders
(New York: Bantam Books, 1968), p. 252.

2. The importance of work in America has been emphasized by
Seymour Wolfbein, Work in American Societ (Glenview, Ill.:
Scott, Foresman and Co., 1971), p. 173:

"Perhaps nowhere else has work been considered
to be as intrinsically good as in the United States
since the earliest colonial times."

3. Alan Fox, A Sociology of Work in Industry (London:
Collier-Macmilla-n,Ltd., 1971), pp. 13, 14, 23; and Robert
Dubin, "Industrial Workers' Worlds: A Study of the Central
Life Interests of Industrial Workers," Social Problems, III
(January, 1956), 131, 140.

4. Curt Tausky, "Meanings of Work Among Blue Collar Men,"
Pacific Sociological Review, XII (Spring, 1960), 54.

5. Haynes Johnson and Nick Kotz, "A Basic Problem: Work
Attitudes Changing," Washington Post, April 18, 1972,
Section A-1, p. 12; and Walter S. Neff, Work and Human
Behavior (New York: Atherton Press, 1968), p. 35.

6. Robert L. Kahn, "The Meaning of Work: Interpretations
and Proposals for Measurement," in The Human Meaninq of
Social Change, ed. by Angus Campbell and Phillip E. Converse
@-New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972), pp. 182-8.3.

7. Robert S. Weiss and David Riesman, "Some Issues in the
Future of Leisure," Social Problems, IX (Summer, 1961), 83.

8. Lewis M. Andrews, "Communes and the Work Crisis," Nation,
CCXXI (November 9, 1970), 460-61.

9. U.S. Department of Commerce Statistics in "Leisure Boom:
Biggest Ever and Still Growing," U.S. News & World Report,
LXXII (April 17, 1972), 42-45. While Americans are
allocating more money on leisure activities, their total
expenditures are also increasing rapidly. The chart below
indicates that the percentage which leisure spending forms
of total personal consumption has increased only slightly.

1965 1967 1969 1972 (est.)
Leisure Spending 13.4% 14.4% 14.2% 14.6%
Total Personal Expenditure

10. "Leisure Boom," pp. 42-45.

579-272 0 - 2

il. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission
predicted a 20% increase in recreation participation from
1960 to 1965; recreation occasions actually increased by
51%. U. S., Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, Outdoor Recreation Trends (Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 7, 12.

12.' For discussion, see: Charles J. Cicchetti, "Population,
Its Characteristics and Congestion as They Affect
Participation in Outdoor Recreation in the United States,"
in Resource and Environmental Consequences of Population
Growth in the TT@ited States, ed. by Ronald G. Ridker,
unpublished report to the Commission.on Population Growth
and the American Future.

13. U. S., Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 37, "Social and
Economic Characteristics of the Population in Metropolitan
and Nonmetropolitan Areas: 1970 and 1960," (Washington,
D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1971), pp. 15, 17.

14. Ibid.J1 P. 16.

15. Whether working hours have declined at all is subject
to considerable debate. See John P. Robinson and Phillip E.
Converse, "Social Change Reflected in the Use of Time," in
The Human Meaning of Social Change, p. 44.

16. Geoffrey H. Moore and Janice Neipert Hedges, "Trends in
Labor and Leisure,".Monthly Labor Review, LXXXXIV (February,
1971), 4-5.

17. Ibid.1 p. 4.

18. U. S., Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
"Social and Economic Characteristics of the Population,"
p. 4.

19. U. S., Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads,
Quarterly Report on the Federal-Aid Highway Program
(Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 0-1966).

20. Rabel Burdge, "Levels of Occupational Prestige and
Leisure Activity," Journal of Leisure Research, I (Summer,
1969), 272-273.

21. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology,
"Outdoor Recreation Studies in Vacation and Weekend Trips,"
by Rabe.1 J. Burdge, A. E. and R. S. No. 65 (University Park,
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1967),
pp. 5, 12, 15.

22. Ibid., pp. 19-20. Recent British studies confirm these
findings. The first national recreation survey in Great
Britain found that "the higher the income level, occupational
class and educational status of contacts, the greater the
number of pursuits they mention for their weekend before
interview, and the greater the.importance of the 'active'
compared to the 'passive' recreations. In short, those with
the highest socioeconomic status not only do more things,
but do more active things." Stanley Parker, The Future of
Work and Leisure (New York: Praeger Publications, 1971),
P. 60.

23. Cicchetti, "Population," p. 3.

SECTION II

OUTDOOR RECREATION ON PRIVATE LANDS

II.,A The Recreational Role of Private Enterprise

The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission has
stated that the most important single factor in outdoor
recreation is private endeavor. Noting that approximately
two-thirds of the nation's land-is privately owned, the
Commission recommended that national policy should encourage
private enterprise to provide recreational opportunities and
services whenever possible.1
Former Secretary of Agriculture, Orville Freeman
agreed:

The outdoor recreation needs of the American
people cannot be met nor will they ever be met by
the combined efforts of local, state, and federal
governments alone. These needs of the unsatisfied
appetite for open spaces and green areas which grows
more rapidly than our population increases-will be
met only as we turn to that portion of our land area
which is in private hands.2

The private sector is playing a major role in providing
outdoor recreational opportunities for the American public.
In 1965, a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation survey of private
recreational facilities in the United States listed over
131,000 enterprises, owning a total of 30 million acres of
land, serving over a billion patrons.3
Since private enterprise is operated primarily for a
profit, its objective is to provide activities or programs
which will appeal to customers.4 If a competitor builds new
and better facilities, the private owner generally feels
compelled to do one of three things: acquire new land upon
which to provide additional activities, provide new
opportunities on undeveloped land which he already owns, or
build new-facilities to increase the density of users in
areas which he has already developed.
A fourth possible solution, improving the quality of
the recreational experience, tends to be overlooked by most
landowners. Clawson and Knetsch point out that more ,
intensive use of the land may mean a higher net income in
the short run; but such use may mean a long-term
deterioration of the area physically, in terms of
satisfaction per unit of use, or both.5
Private owners operate a wide range of recreational
facilities. This study investigated several recreational
enterprises and their environmental effects, including
private forest lands, camp grounds, ski resorts, second home
developments, and theme parks.

II.B Private Forest Lands

opening the vast amount of private forest land in the
United States to the general public could provide a means of
relieving the National Parks and Forests of their currently
overcrowded conditions. Over sixty percent of the forest
land of the 48 contiguous states is privately owned. The
American Forest Institute reports that 61.4 million acres
of privately owned forest land and more than 86,POO miles
of company roads are open to visitors.6 Table 7, which
indicates the percentage of industrial forest land open for
public recreation, suggests that a substantial amount of
public recreation is provided on industrial lands.
However, a large percentage of the general population
is unaware that industrial lands are open for public use.
A public opinion survey7 which asked, "Do forest industries
open their lands for recreation?", gained the following
responses:

Response Percent of Sample
Yes, they do 24%
No, they don't 41%
Some do, some don't 16%
Don't know 20%

Therefore, the mere fact that the lands are open does not
assure their utilization for recreational purposes.
Furthermore, even if the public knew that these lands were
open, people might be unable to distinguish between those
which they were welcome to use and those which were closed.
The 61.4 million acres of private forest land which the
American Forest Institute estimates are open for recreational
purposes represent only fifteen percent of the total forest
acreage in private holdings. Since logging goes on in only
a small part of a forest at any one time, companies could
leave the remainder of the forest open until it is time to
cut the trees in a designated area. However,. there are
several obstacles which discourage owners from opening
forest lands to the public.
A number of forestry firms say that they would have no
complaint if visitors merely wanted to picnic, hike, or pick
berries. But the public wants.organized recreation,
facilities for outdoor sports, showers, toilets, and
electric power outlets, all of which are costly. The Forest
Service estimates that the cost of providing one camping
unit is $600-$700, not including provisions for site
clearing, fire hazard reduction, maintenance, management,
and damage repair.8 The Georgia-Pacific Company reports
that it spends $100,000 per year to repair and maintain 23
recreation areas on its western land.9

TABLE 7

INDUSTRIAL FOREST LAND OPEN FOR PUBLIC RECREATION

Activity Percent of Land Open
Fishing 98%
Hunting 92%
Hiking 90%
Picnicking 88%
Camping 86%
Swimming 86%
Berry Picking 83%
Organized Recreation 47%
Winter Sports 38%
Other 19%

Source: Kenneth S. Fowler, Obstacles to the
Recreational Use of f-rir'-vate Forest Lands
Twashington, D. C.: Government Printing
office, 1967), p. 15.

Many forest landowners are reluctant to charge the
public for use of their land; government parks usually
charge little or nothing for utilization of their facilities,
and private firms do not want unfavorable comparisons. Kern
and Driscoll report that recreation, especially in rural
areas, has long been considered a non-marketable good.10
However, Fowler believes that since the Land and Water
Conservation Fund recognizes the desirability of charging
user fees for public recreation on Federal land, fees on
private lands can be substantially increased with minimal
public opposition.11
Another problem concerns liability. If either an
explicit or implied invitation draws visitors to the land,
the owner is responsible for their safety. Any landowner
desiring to minimize his liability to visitors will attempt
to exclude them by posting his land even if he does not
object to their presence.
Several companies report that the biggest drawback in
opening their lands to the public is the damage inflicted by
vandals. The St. Regis Paper Company has closed a popular
picnic and water sports area in Montana because for two
consecutive years vandals have burned bath house floors,
chopped a dock in half, overturned outhouses and demolished
concrete fireplaces.12 Since private 'forest lands in the
United States are a potential source of relief for National
Parks and Forests, both State and Federal governments should
become involved in the process of eliminating these
obstructions to their use.

II.C Private Campgrounds

A 1965 Bureau of Outdoor Recreation study reported that
there were 3,456 private campgrounds covering 1.7 million
acres of land, with a total capacity of nearly four million
people.13 By 1970, the nuoer of private camp sites had
increased to over 427,000.-" In several areas of the United
States there are now more private than public sites. Over
1,000 commercial campgrounds were in operation in 1966 in
the fourteen northeastern states from Maine to Ohio. The
ratio of private campgrounds to public campgrounds is three
to one in the region as a whole, and as high as seven to one
in Maine.15
The cross-country reservation system offered by
privately owned campground franchises eliminates uncertainty
about overnight sites. Physical facilities are superior to
those of public parks; the new franchised campgrounds tend
to set high standards. In addition, cross-country camping
trips can be budgeted closely with reasonable accuracy.
The leader in the private camping industry is
Kampgrounds of America, Inc. KOA franchise operators are
primarily farmers and ranchers with unused land who pay the
company an initial fee of $8,900 plus $300 a year and eight

percent of the camper fee (from $2 to $6 per night). KOA
gives the franchise operator national advertising, a toll-
free telephone-reservation service listing in the Kampground
Directory, and rigidly enforced standards.16 The number of
KOA campgrounds has increased rapidly, from 385 in 1969 to
@over 700 in 1971. They serve approximately eight million
campers.17
KOA illustrates the role which the private sector can
assume in providing outdoor recreational opportunities for
the American public. However, private owners must provide
facilities without allowing such incidents as the following
to occur:

In one western campground recently, 200 units--
campers, trailers, motor homes and tents--were
jammed into a space designated for 68. Trash
floated down a lone creek and clotheslines erupted
along its banks. All many anglers could hook were
shirts, pants, and empty milk cartons.18

The private sector needs to provide camping facilities which
harm the environment as little as possible and which enable
the camper to have the quality experience he seeks. If the
owner refuses to provide such sites, the government must
enforce regulations which require protection of the
environment. Government ordinances could specify minimum
acceptable sanitary standards and maximum density
regulations.

II.D Ski Resorts

Private developers are providing recreational
opportunities on leased public land to capitalize on the
growing snow skier market in the United States. According
to a BOR study, there were 639 private skiing enterprises in
1965 which were capable of handling 187,530 persons at any
one time. Over 20,900 acres of land were devoted to the
sport of snow skiing.19
The number of skiers in the U. S. rose from approxi-
mately 2.4 million in 1960 to 5.7 million in 1965. It is
estimated that, by 1977, the U. S. total will top ten
million. Ski industries estimate that, in 1971, skiers
spent $1.3 billion on equipment, lodging, travel, lift
tickets, and entertainment at winter resorts. Industry
officials are confident that skiing will be a $2 billion a
year activity by 1974.20 Skiing has become a major business
in the United States.
The very nature of skiing tends toward environmental
damage. Trails must be cleared, lifts built, and lodging
facilities developed in order to handle the growing number
of skiers.

The U.S. Forest Service encourages the development of
winter resorts to meet public needs. Consequently, in 1949
it issued a prospectus which invited bids from the private
sector to develop the Mineral King Valley in the Southern
Sierra Nevadas as a winter sports resort. Although there
apparently was some interest, no bids were put forth at that
time because the only access road to the area was inadequate.
In 1965, the Forest Service again invited bids for a
development estimated to cost $3 million, not including the
expense of building a new access road. While the Forest
Service was considering the six bids which met the minimum
standard requirements for resort development, a new road was
added to the state highway list without legislative hearings.
The only feasible route to Mineral King would cut across
approximately nine miles of Sequoia National Park. Although
in 1916 Congress prohibited any use of the national parks
which does not conform to the fundamental purpose of
conserving natural and historic objects and the scenery, the
proposed road is intended to connect a point on one side of
the national park with a commercial enterprise on the other.
With the highway obstacle eliminated, the Forest
Service accepted the proposal of Walt Disney Productions for
a $35 million project. Disney was issued a three-year
permit to complete the necessary plans and surveys. The
Sierra Club, which had originally supported the idea of
having a resort in the Mineral King area, opposed the
development primarily because of its size. The winter
resort, costing approximately $3 million, described by the
Forest Service was to include lifts or tramways with an
ultimate capacity of 2000 persons per hour, parking
facilities for 1700 cars, and overnight accommodations for
100 persons. The Disney development will have parking
facilities for 3600 vehicles, a 1030-room hotel complex, and
a capacity for 8000 daily skiers.21 The Sierra Club felt
that such numbers would result in overcrowding, lead to
erosion from road damage, and upset the ecological balance
of the valley. The Club also opposed the highway across the
Sequoia National Park.
There was considerable opposition to the development
even within the Forest Service. In a 1967 memorandum,
personnel in the Range and Management Wildlife Section
stated:

The total basic concept of development appears
badly biased in orientation toward a highly
artificial, continued situation, without any real
attention to ecological factors.... Specifically,
stream diversions and channel treatment, flood and
debris control, surface water supply development,
and sewage disposal proposals are all of a nature
we find severely damaging or unacceptable. It is
recognized that development of high intensity year-
round recreational use in this restricted sub-
alpine area is bound to result in pronounced
impacts and certain unavoidable changes.22

The road threatens the vegetation of the National Park,
particularly the giant sequoias. Drainage from road
construction could wash away the thin soil that protects
the shallow root structures of the trees. Michael McCloskey,
executive director of the Sierra Club, emphasizes the
probable damage to trees along the road from auto pollutants
that will coat trunks, branches, and leaves. He points out
that smog in Los Angeles has poisoned numerous trees.23
Increasing the number of people entering Mineral King
may destroy the natural environment of the valley itself and
of adjacent portions of the National Park. In Yosemite
Valley, 150 miles north of Mineral King, the Park Service
is currently correcting past errors. Yosemite has been
plagued by smog, crime, noise pollution, and problems with
sewage disposal. The number of camp sites has been reduced
by half, and there will be no further increase in overnight
accommodations. The peak daily usage projected for Mineral
King would produce three times the concentration of peoVe
which has nearly overwhelmed Yosemite in recent years.2
The Sierra Club filed a suit against Disney Productions
and the National Park Service which eventually reached the
Supreme Court. In a historic ruling, the Court decided 4-3
that the Sierra Club had failed to show that it or any of
its members would be "significantly affected by the
development." Instead they had done no more than vindicate
their own value* preferences. Justice Potter Stewart did
say, however, that "aesthetic and environmental well-being
are "important ingredients of the quality of life" and "are
deserving of legal protection." Furthermore, he broadly
hinted that if the Club amended its complaint to claim that
its campers regularly use the area, it might succeed.25 The
decision was significant in determining w@ether conservation
groups and other citizen's organizations, even though not
directly involved, are eligible to challenge Federal
policies and actions affecting the environment.
Another controversial year-round ski resort being
developed, Big Sky of Montana, Inc., is scheduled to begin
operations in 1973. The principal owner is the Chrysler
Corporation; Chet Huntley is Chairman of the Board.
The site selected for the resort complex is a semi-
primitive area on the West Fork of the West Gallatin River.
The project will consist of self-contained winter and summer
centers. Attractions at the summer Meadow Village will
include an 18-hole golf course designed by Arnold Palmer,
rodeo grounds, tennis courts, a swimming pool, home sites,
and a 50-acre lake with camping facilities. Winter
activities will be centered around Lone Mountain.
Facilities will include ski slopes on two sides of the
village, a total of five ski lifts with a capacity of
approximately 4,000 skiers, and a variety of private shops
and stores.
Environmentalists concede that Big Sky has taken a
number of unusual steps to protect the environment. Two
tertiary sewage treatment plants are to be installed, and

the effluent will be used to irrigate the golf course.
Solid wastes are to be employed in various ways to help
rebuild soil in areas scarred by construction. Special
effort has been taken to prevent soil erosion on the ski
slopes.26
However, the Rocky Mountain Center on Environment,
while admitting that Big Sky is "perhaps the first major
land development in the West that will have made exhaustive
environmental studies prior to making irretrievable
development decisions," states that additional studies are
needed to assure that the environmental impact of the
development is minimal. For example, Big Sky studies have
considered only those immediate areas to be developed. No
extensive studies have been conducted in the adjacent
@Spanish Peaks Primitive Area, where several species of wild
animals roam.27 Furthermore, the very presence of Big Sky
may generate irresponsible land use development in the area.
The resort controversies bring to light the issue of
leasing public lands to private developers who have not
satisfactorily examined the environmental impact of their
development. Private developers should recognize their
responsibility to protect not only the environment within
their properties, but also to aid in the environmental
protection of adjacent areas. Such action preserves the
aesthetic value of the area and enables the vicinity to
provide a high quality recreational experience.
After the resorts have been developed., land which has
previously been open to anyone who c-ared to enter it will be
accessible only to those who are able to pay the usually
high fees requir ed for the utilization of the new facilities.
The total recreational area available to the general public
lessens as private developers build each new resort area.
Resort development and tourism have made a number of
negative economic and environmental demands on the states in
which they are located. There is constant pressure to
improve the highway system in order to reduce travel time
for visitors. Additional police officers are needed to
protect the large number of tourists. More government
officials on the state, Federal, and local levels must be
hired to carry out various administrative duties.
I One argument frequently used in defense of tourism is
that the cost of providing government services is offset by
the tax revenue generated by the.tourist industry. However,
many state and county officials in Colorado, for example,
believe that these tax benefits have not been realized and
the burden of providing services to tourists falls on the
residents within the state.
Due to the absence of a powerful planner and strict
zoning laws, good environmental design and control of
possible pollution effects are frequently left up to the
good will of individual developers. If a developer does not
control a majority of the land in an area land speculation
is prominent and zoning tends to be haphazard.

Ranchers are unable to resist selling their land for
prices which are considerably above what the land would
bring if used for agricultural purposes. The result is
speculative acquisition and land subdivision on a
frightening scale.
At the present time, planning is minimal. The Federal
government has failed to develop a national land use policy.
In several states government appears.to be strongest on the
county level. In Colorado, although regional and state land
use and planning commissions make recommendations, the board
of county commissioners finalizes decisions. Typically, the
county commissioners are ranchers who lack the experience
necessary to handle rapid urbanization.
Relations between the ski resort developer and govern-
ment are complex. On the Federal level, resort operators
must obtain permits from the Forest Service for any lifts
and runs on Forest Service lands; in Colorado, fifty percent
of the mountain -land is owned by the Forest Service. By
withholding permits, the Forest Service can force the
developer to conform to certain requirements on base
facilities, including provisions for adequate parking,
treatment facilities, and employee housing. It can require
developers to control or avoid dangerous avalanche areas and
to avoid delicate plants and migrating wildlife.
The role of environmental groups in controlling ski
resorts is critical. It ha-s virtually become a matter of
course that developers have land-use and environmental
studies conducted by individual consultants or environmental
consulting firms. An environmental group can insist that
impact studies-are done properly and suggest alternative
recreational uses of the land. By employing legal tools,
they can further insure that the studies are taken into
consideration in the developer's final plan.
.In planning new ski facilities, American developers
could profit from observing the outstanding facilities
provided by the French.28 All French resorts are planned
within a regional framework of the total recreational plan
for the entire French Alps. Planning is under the juris-
diction of a joint inner cabinet commission of the French
Federal government which derives its powers and funds from
five Federal ministries: interior, agriculture, economic,
finance, and environment. The Commission controls the
mountain development, provides a positive consulting service
to the developer and the township, and negotiates on behalf
of the township for all lift and trail concessions granted
to the developer.
Ski villages in France are on a walking scale (i.e.,
700-800 meters in length). The village is on one level, and
no automobiles are allowed. From the outset, limitations
are set on village size and population; usual limitations
are approximately 5,000 beds, and a developed area of
between 20 and 60 acres with no sprawl. The single village
must be part of a complex of four-to.-six villages. Recrea-
tional and all other services are ratioed in terms of the
mountain's normal (not maximum) skiing capacity.

The entire resort is integrated to serve the skier.
The uphill side of the resort (called the snowfront) is the
central recreational area of the resort, from which many
lifts depart and to which all ski trails drain. The down-
hill side of the contour linear resort must be the entry
point for the access road, parking area and service delivery
area, all of which are two-to-three levels below the "living"
level of the village.
As a result of governmental planning, French ski
resorts are well planned and regulated. Furthermore, each
new resort avoids mistakes made by previous ones. Although
the structure of the French government is considerably
different from that of the U.S., a mountain planning
commission could help solve problems brought about by ski
resorts in this country. In addition to'regulating ski
1@p facilities, the commission could also attempt to control
the multitude of problems resulting from land speculation.
Perhaps in this manner ski communities of future years may
be well-planned, environmentally conscious resort
developments.

II.E Second Homes

The Census Bureau's 1967.study of second homes indicated
that a total of 1.7 million U.S. households had second homes,
25 percent of which were built between 1960 and 1967. Second
home construction has increased from an average annual rate
of 20,000 units during the 1940's to 55,000 units in the
early 1960's., Approximately 300,000 U.S. households
indicated that they expected to buy or build a second home
within the two-year period following April, 1967.29 The 1.7
million second homes in 1967 were valued at about $10 billion
and covered 3,296,000 acres of land. By 1974 approximately
388,000 second homes will be added at a value of $3 billion,
covering an estimated 820.,000 acres.30
In 1967, the median income of second homeowners was
$9,600. Approximately 47 percent had an annual income of
over $10,000; 19.3 percent had an income of under $5,000 a
year.31
People buy second homes for a variety of reasons. The
second home may serve as a peaceful retreat from urban life
or a place for city children to learn about nature. The
owner may want a.base for a specific sports activity such as
skiing. The second home may be considered an investment;
the purchaser often serves as a middleman, holding his land
for a period of time, and then selling it at a profit.
The Census Bureau study found that 63.2 percent of the
second homes were used on a seasonal basis, 28.5 percent
were used occasionally throughout the entire year, and 6
percent were used for retirement purposes.32 A vast
majority of the second homes are within 200 miles of the
owner.1s primary.residence. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
compiled the following statistics regarding travel distance
and second home ownership:33

Travel Distance from Percent of Second
Primary Home Home Owners
0 50 miles 31.1
50 100 miles 27.9
100 200 miles 20.3
200 - 500 miles 12.1
500 - 3500 miles 8.6

As transportation systems improve and workweeks become
shorter, the distance between primary and secondary homes
.may increase.
Although exact figures are not available, it is reason-
able to assume that the number of companies involved in
second home developments has increased substantially over
the past ten years, resulting in a very competitive situa-
tion. Various developments vie for consumer attention by
offering luxurious or innovative "extras." For example,
the Lansing Corporation is marketing a 10,000-lot River
Lakes.Ranch recreation community near,Redding, California,
which offers residents such facilities as an airstrip, a new
clubhouse, camping grounds, a man-made lake, and an
authentic western working ranch.34 In its 1966 study of
New England vacation homes, the BOR found that approximately
seventy-four percent of the purchasers selected their second
home because of the qualities of the site 35
Wendell Martin lists certain criteri; property must
meet to be acceptable to a developer. The area should be
within.four hours travel time from urban centers to reduce
.travel time for prospective buyers. Site characteristics
must include good scenic features (such as meadow lands,
mountains, or a body of water), developed topography,
adequate subsoil, good drainage, and a safe water supply.
The climate must be satisfactory. Access to the area must
be available on an all weather,*paved major highway, or by
air to-within thirty minutes of the site.' Furthermore a
rangeof recreational activities.should be avallable.39 @
Although waterfront property is particularly desirable,
it is at a premium. However, the lack of water does not
thwart some ambitious developers. For example, in Texas
areas where there is a scarcity of inland water, 60 reser-
voirs have been created and resort communities have been
quickly erected around them.; In Michigan, there are
.approximately 500 second home developments ringing lakes
and dotting forests.
A large number of people who buy homes to escape urban
problems find the same conditions in rural settings. In
southern Wisconsin, which serves as a resort area for
residents of both Milwaukee and Chicago, Lake Delavan has
changed.from-the clear, cool waters which characterized the
lake prior to second home development to a murky lake which
is clouded with human waste. Cottages on the shore stand
,within three or four feet of each other, more densely packed
than many areas of Milwaukee. Door County, Wisconsin, which
handles about 80,000 visitors on a summer weekend, has been

afflicted byserious outbreaks of 'gastrointestinal problems
due to,over-utilized--or in some cases, non-existent--sewage
systems.
In one subdivision 'in California's Nevada County, the
access road was formerly steep and had no pavement or slope
protection. This particular area of northern California
receives an excess of fifty inches of rain annually. As a
result of erosion, lot purchasers had to pay for recon-
struction of a road or road improvements before they could
even reach their property.37 This problem, which appears
to be common near new developments, is significant because
of the vast quantity of soil cover which is washed away.
In New Mexico, approximately 100 companies control more
than one million acres of land, and hav6 planned enough lots
to triple the state's population. Dust from the 8,000 miles
of access roads contributes significantly to air pollution.
Perhaps the biggest problem in the state is the water supply,
which will not be sufficient for a heavy migration of lot '
buyers. Zane Spiegel, an engineering consultant and former
state hydrologist, says that the water table has fallen 100
feet west and south of Santa Fe in recent,years.
A bill was introduced in the state legislature to
authorize the state to reject new subdivision plats unlelss
the developer proved that the water supply and sewage
facilities would be adequate for the planned population and
to require subdividers to reveal pertinent information about
the land to prospective buyers. However, subdividers,
iranchers (many of whom hope to see their land to sub,
dividers), home builders, and the Realtors Association of
New Mexico opposed the proposal. Furthermore, some of New
Mexico's most prominent political figures are involved in
land development, associated with subdividers, -or own land.
Ultimately the bill was defeated.38
The State of Colorado is attempting to control second
home developments by means of a land use act pertainingto
subdivision development within the state. Senate Bill 35
requires the planning commission in each of the 63 counties
in Colorado to develop, and the county commissioners to
adopt and enforce, subdivision regulations for all land
within the unincorporated areas of the county by September 1,
1972. Failure to do so automatically means that the state's
"model" regulations will go into effect in the county in -
question. In addition, before a subdivision is approved,
the developer must prove that the water supply will be
adequate for the planned population. State officials fear,
however, that the bill's vague phrasing may make enforcement
difficult. Furthermore, the bill's 35-acre minimum provision
may not prevent further land division within 'the state.
In contrast to the second home developments,which have
virtually ignored environmental factors, Sea Pines Plantation
which is located on the southern tip of Hilton Head Island,
South Carolina, has a combination of careful planning
techniques and rigid developmental standards. A series of
land covenants control the residential areas of Sea Pines.

The company prepared the covenants as an attempt to protect
the community against the development of any conditions
which would mar the attractiveness of the various neighbor-
hoods within the project.39
Residential homesites are deeded to individual buyers
subject to complete deed restrictions. An Architectural
Review Committee encourages the construction of homes which
are well designed, compatible in size to neighboring homes,
and appropriate for a coastal environment. Materials and
exterior color schemes also come under the purview of the
Committee and must contribute to creating an attractive and
harmonious neighborhood. If the Architectural Review
Committee so recommends, the Sea Pines Company can block
the construction of a home on purely aesthetic values. The
Company has.a thirty-day right of first refusal to purchase
any property offered for sale in the Plantation for the
purchase price at which the owner is willing to sell to
another buyer. Also, in order to discourage land specula-
tion, contracts for the sale of beach and waterfront
property include the provision that if the owner has not
built within ten years, the Company has the right to re-
purchase the property at the original selling price.
The greatest natural amenity at .Sea Pines is the
Atlantic Ocean. Although homes are built a short distance
from the shore, so few trees were destroyed in the con-
struction process that people utilizing the beaches tend to
be unaware that the residential developments are so near.
The Sea Pines Company has developed four golf courses on
its property. Other available recreational activities
include sailing, fishing, horseback tiding, and tennis.
Sea Pines also offers visitors such opportunities as
ecological studies. A couple or family may have a lecture
and a short field trip included in a regular weekend package
at the Hilton Head Inn. Conferences and meetings on such
topics as the Ecology of Land Development, Island Birds, and
Pollution are offered. Many of these programs are conducted
in the Sea Pines Forest Preserve, a 572-acre wilderness area
in the center of the community. Sea Pines has found that by
practicing a policy of environmental protection, the quality
of the recreational experience is so high that visitors will
return many times, resulting in tremendous profit for the
C6mpany.
Like all other private recreational developments, Sea
Pines caters to members of the upper class. Weekly rates
during vacation season run from $140 for an efficiency to
$450 for a beach villa. obviously this is more than the
typical family can afford. Hence, although Sea Pines has
done an admirable job of environmental protection, it does
not provide recreational opportunities for a large segment
of the population.

II.F Theme Parks

A segment of the recreation industry which is attracting
an increasing number of visitors each year is the theme park,
amusement parks which are built around a unifying idea.
.Currently there are twelve major theme parks in the United
'States, and at least eight more are in the advanced planning
stages (see Table 8 ). Admission costs range from $6 $8
for adults and $3 - $5 for children.
Theme parks are relatively new in this country. The
first such park in the United States,was Disneyland, which
was completed in 1955 on a 65 acre tract of land in Anaheim,
California. The number of customers visiting the park
increased from 3.8 million during its first year of
operation to 6.0 million in 1964 and 9.4 million in 1971.
To handle the increasing crowds, Disney boosted investment
in the park from an original $17 million to more than $50
million by 1964. By the end of 1972, more than $90 million
will have been invested in the facility.40
It has been estimated that Disneyland business,.in its
first ten years of operation, resulted in $61.3 million in
sales within the city of.Anaheim.41 Disneyland transformed
Anaheim from a dusty town set among orange groves to a
densely populated commercialized region. In 1950, the
population of Orange County was slightly over 216,000. Each
succeeding year the population increased seven to thirteen
percent until 1956, when it jumped thirty-three percent in a
single year. During the period from 1950 to 1965, the
citrus acreage in the county dropped from a bearing acreage
of 62,000 to just under 20,000 acres. The value.of property
soared from approximately.$3500 an acre in 1950, to between
$15,000 and $20,000 an acre in 1965.42 The agricultural
economy has virtually disappeared, replaced by motels,
restaurants, apartment buildings, a wax museum, and a
Japanese village, all of which hope to attract a portion of
Disneyland's visitors.
Prompted by his success in California, in 1965 Disney
began plans for a new development, Walt Disney World, which
is located near Orlando, Florida. Orlando had been a quiet
region of citrus groves, cypress-lined lakes, and cattle
ranches on land that was not believed to be of any particular
value; the specific site chosen by Disney was mainly low-
lying swamp. After acquiring the site, Disney officials
found that they had to spend $33 million to make it suitable
for construction, a task which required the shifting of 8.5
million cubic yards of earth and elevating the park area by
twelve feet.43
Billed as a "complete vacationland" and as the "largest
non-government building project in the U.S.," Disney World
opened its gates in October of 1971, by which time the
Disney Corporation had already invested $400 million in the
development. Approximately 100 acres of the 43 square miles

579-272 0 - 3

TABLE 8

MAJOR THEME PARKS INTHE UNITED STATES

Existing Parks Location
Disneyland Anaheim, California
Walt Disney World Orlando, Florida
Six Flags Over Texas Dallas, Texas
Six Flags Over Georgia Atlanta, Georgia
Six Flags Over Midwest St. Louis, Missouri
Cedar Point Sandusky, Ohio
Knott's Berry Farm Buena Park, California
Magic World Valencia, California
Astroworld Houston, Texas
Hershey Park Hershey, Pennsylvania
Kings Island Cincinnati, Ohio
Opryland Nashville, Tennessee

Planned Parks Location Completion
Date
Carowinds Raleigh, North Carolina 1973
World of Fun Kansas City, Missouri 1974
Ringling Circus T-Torld Orlando, Florida 1975
Marriott Washington, D. C. 1975
Ta@t Park Richmond, Virginia ?
Sugartree Danville, Virginia ?
Atlantis Virginia Beach, Virginia ?
Sports Center New Jersey ?

Source: David L. Brown, Vice President in Charge
of Theme Parks, Marriott Corporation.

of Disney World property comprise the "Magic Kingdom" or
theme park proper. An additional 2500 acres are utilized
for recreational facilities.and vacation housing. A portion
of the remaining 25,000 acres will be used as a buffer zone
to discourage peripheral developments.
A 7500-acre tract of land has been set aside as a
conservation area; 5000 acres of this is in the Reedy Creek
Swamp, "a dense, tangled forestland of virgin cypresses,
palms, pines, vines, and orchids, of huge, flapping birds,
cranes and turtles, deer and panthers, black bears, and
alligators; every wild bird and animal species of inland
central Florida lives here, with room to survive and
reproduce." 44
As,a result of special laws passed by the Florida State
Legislature, Disney World is a separate entity. It provides
its own sewage and garbage disposal-systems, security force,
fire department, and transportation system. Two separate
cities are located on the Disney property, and the
Corporation has the same powers of eminent domain and
taxation as any other city in the United States.45
An average of $180 per acre was paid for the land upon
which Disney World is located. When Disney Productions made
its plans public late in 1965, it started one of the biggest
speculative land booms ever to hit the state of Florida.
Commercial land in the area soared to a cost of $40,000 an
acre. Humble Oil paid $240,000 for two service station
sites that amount to less than two acres.46 CBS News
Correspondent Mike Wallace reported-that:

hotels plan to build 5000 morerooms in the
next year. And even that won't be able to take
care of the crowds. Some Disney World visitors
have been forced to stay at hotels over sixty
miles away. And now the land boom, the building
boom threatens the famed orange groves of central
Florida. One observer says that he's afraid that
in ten years the only orange tree in the county
will be in a museum. And as the groves disappear
beneath concrete for motels and housing develop-
ments, central Florida faces a problem with-its
water supply, for nine-tenths of the water in
Orange County comes from the ground beneath the
groves which absorbs the rainwater. And rainwater
cannot filter through concrete.47

Agricultural lands in prime water recharge areas are being
sold to developers at a rapid rate. -In late 1971, the
Orange County Agriculture Zoning Board turn'ed down 125
requests for agricultural zoning in favor of developments.48
Although Florida has a history of overdrainage, Disney
World hopes to correct the problem on its own land through
a waterreclamation plan. Seventeen self-regulating dams
permit water levels to be raised and lowered to approximate
natural fluctuations. In addition, the Reedy Creek Improve-

ment District, whose boundaries approximate those of the
Disney property, has built a protective dike around Disney
World. Water draining a 99 square mile area to the north
normally drains into Disney World at eleven different points.
It is monitored daily and water can be refused if its
quality falls below acceptable standards '49
Disney developers are apparently not concerned about
the water which would empty onto Disney property if the dike
had not been built. The increased runoff of water in the
Orlando area creates water quality and quantity problems in
Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades. In the South Blossom
Trail area east of the Disney project, floods have recently
occurred. orange County Commissioners said that the problem
is complicated by high water tables.50
Disney.World has taken a number of unusual steps
regarding pollutioF-control within its property. Wet
garbage will be ground up and sluiced into the sewage system.
Trash, paper cups, tin cans, and bottles will be whisked to
,incinerators at a central collecting point by underground
penumatic tubes from nineteen dumping stations. The
effluent from the three-stage activated sludge plant will
be chlorinated and clear to the eye, with ninety-seven
percent of suspended solids removed. Since nitrates and
phosphates in the effluent water could stimulate detrimental
algae and weed growth if released into a lake, the water
will be used to spray-irrigate golf courses and a projected
experimental farm of 600 acres. Some waste water from the
sewage plant will be recycled and used to combat air
pollution. It will be sprayed onto stack gases emerging
from the central incinerator and will wet down fly ash
emerging from the furnace. The captured fly ash will then
be used in the sewage plant as a flocculent to clarify
effluents.
Although Disney World will buy some electric power, it
will produce most of its own. Two 8,000-horsepower Canadian
jet fighter engines burning low-sulfur natural gas force
1,500-degree heat through turbines driving electric
generators. In addition, over half of the waste heat is
captured by boilers producing 400-degree water. Energy from
the water is employed in a lithium bromide chemical process.
to chill water for air conditioning systems throughout the
p4rk.51
Environmentalists concede that much of the engineering
is advanced and should be incorporated into the plans and
systems of other facilities. However, a number of Disney's
innovations are being criticized. The vacuum trash collec-
tion system was stopped in January, 1972 because of
mechanical failures in the incinerators. James Doyle,
deputy health commissioner for the Orange County Health
Department., says that the department is making tests of the
system regarding possible growth of micro-organisms inside.52
Furthermore, the highway system in central Florida is
not adequate for the heavy load going into Disney World.
Two four-lane highways and one two-lane road carry visitors

into the park. On November 27, 1971, a traffic jam blocked
traffic for 30 miles. Disney officials closed the gates for
the day with a record breaking crowd of 55,000, and turned
thousands away.53
Apparently Disney officials are so overwhelmed by the
.success of their operation that they have not stopped to
consider the problems they are bringing into the Orlando
area. In -the next five years, 150 additional service
stations will be needed in the area, and the number of
restaurants will increase from 54 to approximately 400. ' 54
Furthermore, thousands of indigent job seekers, lured by
rumorg and media coverage, have been pouring into central
Florida. Because of a local one-year residency requirement
for welfare, many of these people are depending on the
Salvation Army kitchen for food and temporary lodging.
Major Sidney Lunch, head of Orlando's Salvation Army,
reports a 360 percent increase in the.Salvation.Army's
Social Welfare Programs in Orange County.55
Orange County has had to spend more than $200,000 to
improve its traffic courts, and the County Commissioner,
Paul Pickett, has stated that a total of approximately $27
million.will be needed to handle all the traffic problems
created by Disney World. Orlando Mayor Carl Langford
estimates that the city will need at least 150 additional
policemen during 1972, and the city has earmarked $6 million
for a new police station and court building. Florida State
Senate President Jerry Thomas claims that it will take years
for the state and local governments to realize enough tax
benefits from Disney World to offset the expenses and
services that will have to be provided immediately.
One realtor states that, "Construction costs in the
Orlando area have gone up in the past year at the rate of
one percent per month, and the $12,000-$18-000 home is
pretty much a thing of the past." The rising cost of living
could make life difficult for the many retired people who
have settled in central Florida, and'spiraling property
taxes are beginning to force citrus farmers to sell out to
developers.5
Although the*Disney company has attacked a number of
environmental problems, it has not looked at the total
environmental (natural and social) impact of its existence.
Developers must realize that their projects have an impact
on the area in which they are located, as well as on the
specific property owned by the Company.

II-G Recommendations

The private sector has a definite role to play in,
providing recreational opportunities for the public. The
Federal government is faced with the task of encouraging
such involvement by the private sector, while simultaneously
maintaining stringent requirements to minimize environmental
damage.,caused by the provision of recreational-opportunities.

There should be coordination between public and private
recreation services. 'A comprehensive study should be made
of commercial recreation res6iirces in the community. This
survey should determine the adequacy of existing facilities
when and where they are needed.
Currently, there are no standards for developers in the
United States, and anyone who wants to call himself a
developer may do so regardless of his background and quali-
fications. Perhaps developers may be issued licenses to
practice.by the state; one of the prerequisites for this
license should be completion of rigid environmental study
in the county in which the developer will be practicing.
Individuals should be encouraged to develop organi-
zations which will further the environmental health of the
community. State and Federal governments could found
environmental research institutes which are concerned with
the quality of the environment and the education of the
people of all ages. Private organizations may be given
small grants to encourage them to gather information and
publish their results.
Before future recreational developments are given
approval by the county governments, their plans should be
studied in detail. Future developments should be compact
enough that no cars are necessary within the development.
If the development is too large (i.e., is not on a walking
scale), utilization of buses or trains should be considered.
Employee housing must be satisfactory.
Consulting services must be provided to impacted
regions, countries, and to developers. A commission for
mountain recreation development should be formed by the
Federal government, and should have responsibilities and
powers similar@ to the French Mountain Planning Commission.
This commission could control recreation development land
uses. A recreation development model is needed to: (1)
guide new developers, (2) avoid past errors, and (3) advance,
under continued research and revision, the state of the art.
Adequate planning and zoning must be provided on the
state and county levels. Furthermore, implementation of
planning is essential, and zoning regulations must be
enforced. (Too many times in the past, adequate planning
has been completed, but has not been implemented.)
Obstacles preventing recreational-usage of land must be
overcome. A possible solution to the developmental cost
obstacle is increased government aid to private land owners,
perhaps in the form of tax relief. In granting aids,
however, it is essential that the government realize that
merely providing financial aid for the initial development
is not sufficient and eventually leads to many failures.
The government should be willing to provide-aid for a one to
two year period. This aid will help defray initial develop-
ment costs, as well as provide maintenance funds until the
operation has become self-sufficient. The government should
make low rate loans available so that second home developers
do not have to rely on the advanced sale of single family
units in order to meet front-end costs.

In regards to owner liability for accidents, the state
or Federal government could-relieve the private owner of
.liability if the land owner is providing public recreation
at no charge. State or Federal officials could inspect the
land periodically to try to assure that dangerous conditions
do not exist.
In the case of vandalism, the public can compensate
land owners through an indemnification program. Another
possible approach is to charge recreational user fees and/
or to require all guests to register before they are
permitted to use the land.
Finally, it must be noted that private enterprise seeks
to make a profit, and consequently caters to the upper
classes. Perhaps discount prices may be offered to certain
people (just as many bus companies allow elderly persons to
ride At a reduced rate)., Perhaps inexpensive transportation
can be provided to these private facilities. In short,
attempts must be made to make private facilities accessible
to all persons.
The environmental damage brought about by the develop-
ment of private recreational facilities may be partially
attributed to the demand placed on the recreation industry
by the population at large. Owners tend to provide-what the
public wants; if the public is willing to accept develop-
ments which ignore environmental considerations, then
irresponsible land-owners will probably ignore environmental
factors in planning recreational usage of their.land.
However, if the public demands that environmental safeguards
are implemented, then the owners will re-evaluate their
position, if only as a consequence of resulting financial
difficulties.
Ultimately, the economy of the recreation industry and
the quality of the recreational experience are inextricably
interrelated. Without a desirable environment, manmade or
natural, there would be no recreation industry. When a
destination area becomes so polluted that it detracts from
the quality of the experience, it affects the full spectrum
of business in that area.57 Consequently, the recreation
industry is faced with the challenge of warding off an
avalanche of recreation-for-profit services which have set
their sights on "how much can I make" rather than "by what
means will it be accomplished" or "at what costs."
The private sector has an essential role to play in
providing recreational opportunities, but must do so in such
a way that the environment is harmed as little as possible.
Private landowners and developers have a responsibility for
the environment of the future. If stewardship is not
carried out at an acceptable level, then state and Federal
legislation, as well as county regulations, must impose
standards which the developers and landowners have failed
to assume for themselves. Senator Hugh Scott accurately
described the situation when he said, "...land developers
hold the key which could unlock a truly beautiful and
livable America."58

FOOTNOTES

1. ORRRC, Outdoor Recreation for America (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1962), p.-T-57.

2. Clodus R. Smith and Lloyd E. Partain, Rural Recreation
for a Profit (Danville, Illinois: Interstate Printers aH-d
Publishers, 1966), introduction.

3. U.S., Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, Selected Outdoor Recreation Statistics (Washington,
D., C.: Government Printing Office, 197 ), pp. 42, 50.

4. Harold Meyer and Charles Brightbill list the major
characteristics of private recreational enterprises in
Community Recreation (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Tr-entice Hall, 1964), pp. 266-277.

5. Marion Clawson and Jack L. Knetsch, Economics of Outdoor
Recreation (Baltimore,'Maryland: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966),
pp. 161, 178.

6. Ernest J. Hodges, "Private Enterprise Reacts to Recrea-
tion Demands," Parks and Recreation, XXIX (January, 1970),
36-38, 56.

7. Fowler, Obstacles to Use of Forest Lands, p. 15.

8. The Forest Service estimate is based on providing the
following facilities:

Facility Cost/Unit in Dollars
Pit toilet $ 60 - $ 90
Table with benches $ 35 - $ 75
Fire pit or grill $ 25 - $ 30
Traffic barriers $ 50
Signs@ and miscellaneous $ 12
$182 - $257
T@e $600 - $700 estimate includes costs of providing a water
system, roads, a parking spur, and other necessary site
development expenses.
See Fowler, Obstacles to Use of Forest Land, pp. 20-36.

9. Paul Steiger, "Forest Firms open Woo Ids to the Public, But
With Reluctance," Wall Street Journal, CLXXII (October 24,
1968), 1.

10. E. E. Kern and L. S. Driscoll, "Marketing of Outdoor
Recreati6nal Services in Rural Areas," Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation, XVI (July-August, 1966), 142.

11. Fowler, Obstacles to the Use of Forest Land, p. 19.

12. Steiger, "Forest Firms," p. 1.

13. BOR, Selected Statistics, pp. 43, 48, 50.

14. "Cashing In on Campers," Time, 96 (July 6, 1970), 62.

15. Wilbur LaPage, "Successful Private Campgrounds," U.S.
Forest Service Research Paper NE-58, (1967), p. 1.

16. "Cashing in on Campers," p. 62.

17' "Camping Spree in America: It's a Billion Dollar
Market," U.S. News and World Report, LXX (May 10, 1971), 30.

18. Bob Behme, "A Crisis in Our Campgrounds," Field and
Stream, LXXV (February, 1971), 130-31.

19. BOR,,Selected Statistics, pp. 43, 48, 50.

20. "Leisure Boom Gains," U.S. News and World Report, LXXI
(April 17, 1972), 44-45.

21. Peter Browning, "Mickey Mouse in the Mountains,"
Harpers, X (March, 1972), 65-71.

22. Arnold Hano, "The Battle of Mineral King," New York
Times Magazine, August 17i 1969, p. 69.

23. Ibid., p. 50.

24. Browning, "Mickey Mouse," p. 70.

25. "The Mineral King Decision," Time, 99 (May 1, 1972).

26. Frank Browning, "Big Sky: Chet Huntley's New Home on
the Range," Ramparts, X (April, 1972), 43.

ir 27. ROMCOE, "Review of Big Sky, Montana Environmental
Reports," 1971, p. 5.

28. The entire section on French ski resorts is based on a
discussion with Walter Lawson, Denver consultant with Charles
'Gathers and Associates, on August 8, 1972, in Denver,
Colorado.

29. U.S., Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Second Homes in the United States (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1969), p. 1.

30. John Hammaker, Investigation into Organized Second Home
Communities (Georgia: Georgia State University, 1971), p. 2.

31. U.S., Department of Commerce, Second Homes, p. 1.

35,

32. Ibid., P. 1.

33. BOR, Selected Statistics-i p. 131.

34. Ralph Z. Miller, "Corporation Giants Eye Recreational
Land Use," The National Real Estate Investor, XI (August,
1969), 4.

35. U.S., Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, Northern New England Vacation Home Study
(Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1966), p. 6.

36. Wendell Martin, "Remote Land: Development or
Exploitation," Urban Land, XXX (February, 1970), 4.

37. Alan T. Hill, "Residential-Recreation Development
Prevents Soil Erosion," Civil Engineering, 41 (December,
1971), 60-64.

38. Morton C. Paulson, "Beware Buyers of Dusty Lots,"
National Observer, June 10, 1972, p. 10.

39. Charles Frazer, "Sea Pines: A Community Designed for
Leisure," in Land: Recreation and Leisure (Washington,
D. C.: Urban-Land Institute, 1970), pp. 59-65.

40. "Tinker Bell, Mary Poppins, Cold Cash," Newsweek, LXVI
(July 12, 1965) , 74.

41. "Fantasy That Paid Off," New York Times Magazine,
June 27, 1965, p. 22.

42. Martin R. Northrup, "The Environmental Impact of Walt
Disney World" (unpublished paper, 1972), p. 13.

43. "New Boom: Disneyland East," Newsweek, LXXVII (April 19,
1972), 105.

44. Elliott McLeary, "Will 10,000,000 People Ruin All This?",
National Wildlife Federation Magazine, IX (June/July, 1971), 7.

45. Columbia Broadcasting Company, "Sixty Minutes," IV
(June 18, 1972), 2.

46. "New Boom," p. 104.

47. Columbia Broadcasting Company, "Sixty Minutes," p. 3.

48. Northrup, "Impact of Disney World," p. 13.

49. McLeary, "10,000,000 People," p. 8.

50. Northrup, "Impact of Disney World," pp. 3, 7-8.

51. For a complete description of the steps Disney World
developers have taken, see McLeary, "10,000,000 People,"
pp. 9-11.

52. Northrup, "Impact of Disney World," p. 5.

53. "Disney 'Full' Sign Makes Parking Lot of Highway,"
Orlando Sentinel, November 27, 1971, p-l.

54. "Preview of the New Biggest Show on Earth," Look, XXXV
(April 6, 1971), 28-35.

55. Columbia Broadcasting Company, "Sixty Minutes," pp. 5-6.

56. "New Boom: Disneyland East," p. 104.
57. This idea is the basis for a proposed travel industry
environmental summit meeting of economically and politically
influential executives to discuss problems threatening the
recreation industry.

58. Hugh Scott, Congressional Record, February 9, 1970.

SECTION III
OUTDOOR RECREATION IN COASTAL AREAS

The coastal area is no longer just a place to visit but
also a place to live and work. In 1940, 107 million people
or 80.9 percent of the total U.S. population lived in the
thirty coastal states. By 1970, the coastal population had
increased to 173 million or 85.1 percent of the total popu-
lation. In fact, in 1970 ' the population of just the
coastal counties in these states was 49 percent of the U.S.
population.1
This-concentration of half the U.S. population so near
the coast causes severe problems in the coastal environment.
This report-will be concerned primarily with the problems
caused by recreational activities. However, since reckea-
tion, industry and resident population are interrelated,
coastal zone management policies must be implemented which
take all these factors into consideration.

III.A Demand

Recreational demand on coastlines is so high that a 1955
Department of the Interior survey concluded: "Present
facilities are already inadequate and will be smothered by
increasing attendance unless additional recreation areas are
provided." During the seventeen years since this report,
conditions have worsened. The overcrowding of facilities
on Federal, state and local levels can be illustrated by
several examples.
In the twenty year period from 1943 to 1954, the
Department of Interior survey found an increase in the use
of the New York State 3ublic beaches from 5 million to 61
million annual visits . In 1968, the 3.4 mile beach at
Coney Island recorded 27 million visits, Rockaway Beach in
Queens recorded 21 million visits, and all the New York City
beaches combined accommodated nearly 50 million visits.3
Coastal states are also experiencing increases in
tourists and permanent coastal residents. The number of
tourists visiting Florida doubled from 10 to 20 million
between 1960 and 1970.4 In California, 127 million recrea-
tion days were spent at the shore in 1970.5 At Virginia
Beach, Virginia, the permanent population grew from 19,984
in 1940 to over 100,000 in 1963 and 172,106 in 1970.6
Six national seashores, established by the National
Park Service in an attempt to relieve the pressure on local
beaches, were visited nine million times in 1970 and well
over ten million times in 1971. Point Reyes Seashore in
California witnessed an increase in visits in excess of
250,000 from 1970 to 1971.7 The Bureau of Sports, Fisheries
and Wildlife reported a ten percent increase in overall
visits to its wildlife refuges. At these areas, boating and
swimming rank as the first and second most popular non-
wildlife oriented uses.8
Most of the demand for coastlines is in the form of
one-day outings. The shoreline within a few hours drive of

urban areas is used much more heavily than distant national
seashores. While Coney Island recorded 27 million visits
in 1968, all the National Seashores together received only
ten million visits in 1970. On urban coastlines, a peak use
effect is evident. Situations such as 70,000 day users at
Pismo State Beach, California on July 4, 1968, and less than
4,000 a few days later are common.9 Demand for coastline
recreation is highest on weekends and holidays. Coasts are
not vacation destinations.as much as they are day-use areas.
It is difficult to obtain a measure of recreational
activities in coastal regions. Although the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation compiles statistics on activities, it
does not divide them by location. It is certainly true that
the coast is a primary area for such activities as picnicking,
driving for pleasure and nature walks as well as for such
water-oriented activities as swimming, sailing, boating and
water skiing. The rise in participation in these activities
is an indirect indicator of the increasing demand for coastal
recreation. In 1965, swimming was fourth on the Bor's list of
most popular activities, with 67.8 million participants over
the age of twelve. Participation in swimming increased
fifteen percent between 1960 and 1965, while the population
increased by only eight percent. In the same time period, *
participation in water skiing increased by eight percent, motor-
boating by eighteen percent and sailing by 62 percent. Partici-
pants in all these water-based activities totaled 114.4
million in 1965.10 This increase in participation in water-
based recreation has affected coastal areas as well as
inland waters.

III.B supply

The demand for outdoor recreation in the coastal zone
is increasing. Is the supply of coastal recreational land
sufficient to meet the projected increases in demand? In
1955, only 6.5 percent of the 3,700 miles of shoreline on
the Atlantic and Gulf coasts were in Federal and state hands
for public use. These 240 miles were comprised of 39 areas
in fourteen states; including two national parks, one sea-
shore recreation area, and 30 state seashores. More than
one-half of the 240 miles were contained-in the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore and in Acadia and Everglades National Parks.
The large amount of coastline in private hands is a
serious problem in providing coastline recreation. It is
estimated that less than one-tenth of one percent of the
shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay is available to the public.11
Private homes inland can obstruct access to a public beach-.
The problem of public access to beaches through private
holdings has become a factor in many areas. At Miami Beach,
for example, erosion is proceeding at a tremendous rate as a
result of man-made changes along the beach and recent
tropical storms. Most of the land adjacent to the beaches
is owned by large hotels. The Army Corps of Engineers has

proposed a 35 million dollar erosion control plan, of which
60-70 percent would be financed by the Federal Government if
public access to the beach were allowed. The hotel owners
fear that public access would cause a loss of revenue and
therefore oppose the Corps' proposal. The delicate balance
of public and private interests hinders an attempt to
provide public shoreline recreation.
There are two methods of increasing the supply of.
coastline recreation. The first is to develop the existing
8,500 acres of public shoreline to accommodate more recrea-
tionists and the second is to acquire more miles of coastal
property.
Proper development of the now publicly-owned coast
could alleviate situations such as,the overcrowding of New
York City beaches. Table 9 shows that only 3,400 miles of
public coast are presently developed for recreation.

TABLE 9

SHORELINE USE (EXCLUDING ALASKA)

Recreation Public (09%)
Recreation Private 5,800 (16%)
Non-Recreation,Development 5,900 (16%)
Undeveloped 21,800 (59%)

Construction of beach-savi'ng devices, and adjunct facilities
such as parking lots, marinas and picnic areas could
increase the supply of recreational coast available. How-
ever, only 33 percent of the total shoreline has beaches
and as much as 75 percent of the beach area may already be
developed.12 The shortage of natural beachareas may cause
a reorientation of development to include less ideal loca-
tions such as bluff and marsh areas.
I More shoreline could be acquired by governmental
agencies. A 1936 Department of Interior sIurvey13 recom-
mended increased acquisition of shoreline. While twelve
major strips with 437 miles of beach were planned,.only one
of the areas was acquired within the next twenty years. The
others are now privately owned. The costs of land acquisi-
.tion have increased tremendously since 1936. Thirty miles
.of undeveloped land recommended for acquisition in 1935 at a
cost of $9,000 a mile would have cost $110,000 a mile.to
acquire.in 1955. Since the Government must pay a tremendous
price to increase coastal supply now, intensive screening of
proposed areas must be undertaken before purchase.
I I In 1955, 54 areas with 640 miles of beach were identi-
fied as underdeveloped areas suitable for recreational
development. These areas comprised seventeen percent of the
shoreline from Maine to the Gulf of Mexico. One-third of
the suggested area was in Texas; the densely populated
section between Massachusetts and Delaware contained 118
miles ofthe suggested areas.14 All the areas were within

one day's travel of hundreds of thousands of people. In
spite of the high costs of shoreline acquisition, over 700
miles of marshes and beaches have been added to Federal
seashore recreation areas in the last three years.15
However, the National Seashores were acquired in scenic
areas often far distant from population concentrations.
A comparison.of the visitation statistics cited above
shows that attendance at the National Seashores is far
surpassed by the use of New York City..beaches. In recent
years, the National Park Service has tried to provide
Federal seashore recreation facilities close to urban areas.
One example of this change in policy is the proposed Gateway
National Recreation Area in New York Harbor. Gateway will
be available to city dwellers because of its proximity and
links with public transportation 'systems. This is very
important because 35 percent of the households within a two
hour travel range from the Gateway sites had incomes under
$5,000 in 1960. In New York City alone, 1968 figures
indicate 30 Tercent of the families had incomes of less
than $5,000. 6
Data made available by the Regional Planning Associa-
shows that:

(a) 20.1 million people live within two hours of travel
of the proposed park;

(b) This figure of 20.1 compares with the total of 15.2
million persons within two hours of all six of the existing
National Seashores: Assateague, Cape Cod, Cape Hatteras,
Fire Island, Padre Island and Point Reyes;

(c) The estimated total of 30 million annual visits-to
the five areas of Gateway, which is probably low, compared
favorably with the total of nine million visits to the same
six National Seashores.;

(d) In 1968, the eight New York City beaches, many of
which are overcrowded and polluted, had a total of 48 million
visits;

(e) The number of carless households within two hours
of Gateway is 1,607,000 or 28 percent of all households in
the area, fourteen percent of all carless households in the
nation.

The attempt by the National Park Service to bring
coastal recreational facilities to urban areas has met with
the approval of urban leaders. Although there will be many
problems to be solved while Gateway is being developed, its
development should be used as a master plan for future areas
near other coastal urban centers.

II.C Environmental IMact

All coastal developers must face the special problems
of the coastal environment. The coastal ecosystem is very
sensitive to man's actions and even in a natural state is
highly mobile and subject to change as the result of
extensive storms.. Waves are the main factor in creating
and degrading beaches, although shore processes are
extremely complex. When waves hit the shore most of their
power is absorbed by the beach but some is responsible for
littoral drift which moves parallel to the shore and carries
beach material downdrift. The use of jetties and other
beach saving devices for recreational as well as other
purposes can break up this littoral drift and create
problems of-severe erosion miles from the jetty. Darrier
beaches are often breached by recreational developments,
such as access roads, and the effect on the ecology of the
coastline can be severe. Barrier beaches often protect a
lagoon or marshland which houses a very productive ecologi-
cal community.. Fish spawning p4tterns can be affected by
the breach of the barrier, and the stability of the marsh
community can be threatened.
Erosion is a natural phenomenon on the mobile coasts.
The awareness of erosion as a problem stems from the desire
to keep the coasts static to allow permanent structures as
near to the water as possible. But coastal erosion has
recently increased tremendously, partly as a result of river
flood control measures which reduce the supply of sand to
ocean beaches. In 1962, erosion was,a serious problem along
some areas of coastline in twenty states and a moderate
problem in areas of twelve states.18 The Corps of Engineers
has recently conducted,a survey on shore erosion. Their
national assessment (Table iQ). shows that 20,500 miles of
coastal area is undergoing significant erosions.

TABLE 10

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF SHORE EROSION19

Total Shoreline Significant Critical Non Critical Non
Miles Erosion Erosion Erosion Eroding
84,240 20,500 2,700 17,800 63,740

Beach erosion in Florida currently causes the loss of
500 acres of ocean front property.yearly. Already 200 miles
of th6 most beautiful beaches have been eroded to such an
extent that they can no longer be considered usable recrea-
tional areas.20 On Long Island, losses of from one-half to
one acre of beach per mile per year in unprotected areas
occurs.21 Since 1940, according to the Army Corps of
Engineers, beaches in the worst of these areas have receded
in places by amounts ranging from 70 to 500 feet. The
stretch-between Fir*e Island and Jones Beach Inlet is
disappearing at the rate of about three and one-half feet a

year. One hundred ninety miles of coast in the U.S. is
so severely eroded that property and public safety is
@endangered.22
The potential ecological impact of development is
.tremendous, and unless local governments consider this
impact, much harm to the coastline may be done. The Federal
Government, using institutionalized impact statements, must
be prepared to oversee developments within the coastal
region. The Federal government probably must fund much
shoreline protection. Along the 2700 miles of coast under-
going the most severe erosion, the Army Corps of Engineers
estimates the cost of correction at 1.8 billion dollars.
Problems of industry and other developments besides
recreation disrupt this sensitive area and therefore should
also come.under the control of the Federal government. The
entire coastal zone is a single cohesive unit, and it is
necessary that all areas of development be regulated
together. Unless industriali commercial,-residential and
recreational developments are included in overall planning,
the results will not be satisfactory. Just as jetties
constructed by one community to build up their beaches may
erode other beaches, non-recreational developments affect
recreation. There is a tremendous concentration of industry
in the coastal zones,since a labor force, water necessary
in power generation and many industrial'processes, and access
to marine transportation are readily available. The ocean
is also a convenient dump for industrial waste. Problems of
conflict of interest between recreation and industry are
constantly arising.
On Chesapeake Bay a BOR proposed new park site has been
supported by the State of Maryland as a pier for the impor-
tation of liquid natural gas by The Columbia Gas System.
The Calvert Cliffs area.has historic and geologic signifi-
cance but, if the extensive pier required by the gas project
is constructed, access to the park will be severely limited.
In Delaware Bay, a docking facility for oil super tankers is
proposed which would require construction of an artificial
island eight miles from shore. This island, as well as the
potential oil spills from the tankers, will severely affect
the recreational use of the Bay.
The concentration of half the nation's population in or
near the coastal counties produces immense amounts of
domestic wastes which are often dumped untreated into ocean
waters. In 1962, water pollution, mostly from municipal
wastes, was a serious problem in some areas of the twelve
coastal states and a moderate problem in areas of ten of the
states.23 Two hundred and fifty million gallons of raw
human wastes from Baltimore, Richmond and Washington, D.C.
flow into the Chesapeake Bay daily.24 The untreated sewage
of most of the city of Honolulu is currently dumped into the
Pacific ocean. In 1970 the Hawaii Department of Health
sampled the Waikiki beaches and found excessive pollution.

679-272 0 - 4

Chemical and thermal pollution from industry are also
problems along the coast. -The concentration of population
and industry means that coastal pollution is most serious
near urban areas where the recreational demand is also
highest. As a result, the few beaches that do exist in
these areas often open and close on a day-to-day basis
because of pollution problems. The need for management of
all relevant sectors to reduce these conflicts is evident.
The problems of industry and population in the coastal
zone are readily apparent to the public, but recreational
activities often cause environmental problems as well. The
problems may not be serious,when the coastal zone is con-
sidered as a whole, but they often disturb the recreational
quality of a particular region. Industrial wastes, while
they may be more concentrated when first released into the
water, are often diluted by the time they reach the recrea-
tional areas. Recreational sewage wastes,.however, are
produced and often released at the recreation site and may
have immediate effects. It is important to consider recrea-
tional impact on coasts so that the recreational resources
may be preserved.
Although little work has been done in the U.S., the
Lindsey County Council in Great Britain has produced a study
on the ecological implications of countryside recreation.25
Although the ocean and coastlines are thought of as
undamageable resources, this study illustrates their
sensitivity even to recreation. Concentrated use frequently
occurs on the ecologically fragile dunes and wetland areas
near the shoreline. Sand dunes may be naturally either
stable or mobile. The stable dunes are protected and
stabilized by a vegetative cover which is often destroyed
by excessive use. -Once this cover is removed, dune building
ceases an'd existing dunes may erode. Mobile dunes ate
affected even more severely. This erosion often results
in a loss of sand from the beach and can cause severe damage
to formerly protected areas behind the dunes. In wetland
areas, 7500 people per season walking off a concrete path
onto a salt marsh can cause complete loss of vegetation
cover.
Improper use of motorized vehicles upon beaches causes
significant environmental damage. Use of dune buggies,
which now number 70,000 to 100,000, has torn away grass vital
,to sand dune ecology and had a disturbing affect on shore
birds. Nesting sites and feeding grounds are destroyed,
while noise pollution may affect wildlife beyond the
immediate vicinity. Intensive vehicle use on many beaches
has brought all the problems.of urban life to the shoreline.
Certain beaches have virtually been converted into highways
through excessive use. During a single weekend in Oceano,
California, 287,250 people brought 30,000 vehicles to the
dune area creating crowding, traffic problems, and garbage
and sanitary problems.26

In wetland areas, motor vehicles such as swamp buggies
and air boats are causing increasing problems. The noise
these vehicles produce, as well as the disruption in vege-
tation, can have severe effects on the ecosystem and can
eliminate other recreational uses of the wetlands.
Discarding unused food and trash often creates serious
difficulties. Bird and mammal scavengers, foxes and rats,
and various insects are drawn to food scraps,,thus upsetting
the natural food chain and creating unhealthy conditions in
the.area. Sanitary facilities such as toilets and washrooms
are often insufficient or lacking at recreational sites. At
Oceano, only twelve toilets were available for more than a
quarter million people. Human waste produces more.nitrogen
than the shore can tolerate and creates a habitat for
disease-carrying organisms.
The rapid growth of boating in enclosed coastal waters
has also had significant environmental impact. With approxi-
mately 75,000 boats currently operating in Chesapeake Bay,
the problems of traffic and exhaust fumes are becoming more
serious. Aside from air pollution, the engines generate
continuous noise which may be detrimental to wildlife and
other outdoor pursuits.
Another problem is that of marine toilet wastes. The
use of holding tanks and pumping stations may alleviate the,
situation, but several problems have to be solved before
.such methods can be implemented. Secretion from present
holding tanks is inevitable, and the chemicals now used to
prevent odors and rapid decomposition cause problems when
mixed with water disposal systems inland. A possible
solution may be the construction of separate facilities to
process boating wastes. Certainly more comprehensive
planning is needed to solve water-based problems without
transferring them to the shore.
The necessary adjunct facilities for recreation cause
their own environmental problems. Wetland areas inshore
from the beach are often filled in for parking lots and on-
shore facilities. Roads use tremendous amounts of land and
can create severe problems by cutting across barrier beaches.
Waste disposal facilities on shore can result in pollution
of areas behind the beach itself. The presence of a shore-
line recreation resource often affects surrounding develop-
ment and provokes strips of shopping centers, motels,
franchise restaurants, and parking lots which can damage
the inland area. Ironically, the most delicate part of the
coastal environment, the-dunes and the wetlands, are subject
to the most damaging uses.

III..D Coastal Planning

Coastal planning must increasingly give attention to
the recreational potential and,management of the shore.
Current beach attendance figures and the coastal population
concentration attest to the demand for available facilities.
Increasing the supply of usable beach areas is.needed where

possible, but more environmentally sound management policies
are absolutely necessary in existing shoreline areas.
Numbers of users and types of use must be balanced with
the fragile nature of the shoreline ecosystem. Unless this
is done, the existing supply will.deteriorate and the
quality of experience will decline.
At False Cape, Virginia (south.of Virginia Beach), a
new recreation facility is planned which may accommodate
25,000 people per hour on hot summer days by the year 2000.
In this area, environmental impact studies are being con-
ducted' as well as careful planning, to reduce the amount
of concomitant development. Mass transit to the area and
the elimination of overnight stays are proposed to relieve
potential strain on the wetland area.
The vast a'mount of shoreline in private holdings has
the potential to provide recreational opportunities for a
large segment of the American public. Involvement by the
private sector relieves pressure on public lands, and, if
properly regulated, may provide ecologically sound facili-
ties for beach users. Many states are realizing that the
public and private sectors may effectively complement one
another--public areas may be used for daytime recreation
while private campgrounds may be utilized for overnight
stays. In this way, the state may concentrate its efforts
on providing and maintaining existing recreational resources.
The State of Maine has created a complete shoreline plan
which includes industry and population distribution as well
as agriculture and energy supply.27 All of these sectors are
to be combined with recreation in a cycle that will produce
little pollution and will have a minimal effect on the
environment. As compared witha conventional system (see
Figure 'bl) the proposed cycle provides human necessities
without adversely affecting the environment. This simplified
scheme involves many difficulties, but does acknowledge the
interdependent functions that together create the coastal*
environment. Coastal management must integrate recreational
needs with urban and industrial development. This will hope-
fully produce a shoreline that can be used by industry and
recreators alike with a minimal amount of environmental
damage.

FOOTNOTES

1. Miller B. Spangler, "Projections of Socioeconomic Trends
in the Coastal Zone," MTS Journal, VI (July-August, 1972), 21.

2. National Park Service, Our Vanishing Shoreline (Washington,
D@ C.: National Park Service, 1955), pp. 13-20.

3. U.S., Congress, House, Subcommittee on National Parks and
Recreation, Gateway Proposals, Hearings, Boris Pushkarev, on
H.R. 1121 and H.R. 1370, 92nd Congress, 1971, pp. 354-58.

4. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Outdoor Recrea-
tion in Florida (Tallahassee, Florida: 1971), p. 11.

5. California Department of Parks and Recreation, California
Coastline Preservation and Recreation (Sacramento, California:
1971), p. 7.

6. Department of Economic Development, Industrial Development
Division, Economic Profile Virginia Beach, Virginia,, 1970
(Virginia Beach: 1971), p. 9.

7. National Park Service, Division of Statistical Analysis,
Public Use of the National Parks: December 1971 (Washington,
D. C.: National Park Service, 1972).

.8. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Public Use of
National Wildlife Refuges - 1970 (Washington, D. C.: Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife-, 1971).

9. Kenneth D. Golden, "Recreational Parks and Beaches:
Peak Demand, Quality and Management," Journal of Leisure
Research, III (Spring, 1971), 82.

10. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, The 1965 Survey of Outdoor
Recreation Activities (Washington, D. C.: Government
Printing Office, 1966), p. 3.

11. National Park Service, Vanishing Shoreline, p. 23.

12. Corps of Engineers, National Shoreline Study: Shore
Management Guidelines'(Wa gton, D. C.: Government
Tr-In-ting Office, 197F), p. 11.

13. National Park Service, vanishing_Shoreline.,. P. 9.

14. Ibid., pp. 28-29.

15. National Park Service, Islands of America (Washington,
D. C.: National Park Service, 1970), p. 2.

16. U.S., Congress, Senate, Subcommittee on Parks and
Recreation, Gateway Proposal, Hearings, Richard Plunkett,
on S.1193 and S.1852, 92nd Cohgress, 1971, p. 93.

17. National Park Service, Gateway National Recreation Area:
A Proposal (Washington, D. C.: National Park Service, 1970).

18. ORRRC, Outdoor Recreation for America, Vol. IV
(Washington, D. C.: Government Printin@7 office, 1962),
pp. 22-23.

19. Corps of Engineers, National Shoreline Study, p. 14.

20. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Outdoor
Recreation in Florida, p. 254.

21. Stephen R. Davenport, "The Great Ripoff of Long Island's
Beaches," The New York Times Magazine, July 30, 19721 p. 8.

22. Ibid., Introduction.

23. ORRRC,-Outdoor Recreation for America, pp. 18-19.

24. Bill Bergoffen, Ed., Conference Report of the Citizens,
Program for the Chesapeake Bav (College Park, Maryland:
University of Maryland, 1971), p. 60.

25. Lindsey County Council, Countryside Recreation: The
Ecological Implication (Lindsey County, Great Britain:
Lindsey,County Government, 1970), pp. 54-70.

26. Philip Fradkin, "Woodstock--Dune Buggy Style," Los
Angeles Times, July 13, 1970, Sec. E, pp. 1-2.

27. Maine State Planning office, Maine Coastal Resources
Renewal (Augusta, Maine: 1971), pp. 135-40.

SECTION IV
.OUTDOOR RECREATION IN URBAN AREAS

Until recently, most recreation studies have ignored
urban recreation. When the Outdoor Recreation Resources
Review Commission was established in 1958, Congress dictated
that "'Outdoor recreation resources' shall not mean nor
include recreation facilities, programs and opportunities
usually associated with urban development, such as play-
grounds, stadia, golf courses, city parks and zoos ."l Public
and private recreational areas far removed from urban areas
have expanded both in size and popularity, but the needs of
the central city population have not been adequately met.
Although 70 percent of.the visitors to the National
Parks are from urban areas,2 it is apparent that most of
these urban park visitors are from suburban areas, not from
central cities. Residents of the larger cities (1,000,000
or more) are underrepresented among National Park visitors.3
Fewer central city residents take weekend or vacation trips
than any other group in the cQuntry.4 The poor, non-white
elements of the population which are concentrated in the cen-
tral cities do not have the money and mobility to visit the
outlying public and private recreation areas. For central
city inhabitants, recreational supply is located within the
cities.

IV.A SuL)ply

Recreational supply in urban areas is often discussed as
if it included only city parks. It is important.to recognize
that "park" and "recreational area" are not synonymous terms,
though they are usually linked together under one municipal
department. Urban recreation can occur in parks, but it also
occurs in playgrounds, play lots and other publically develop-
ed areas, as well as on streets, sidewalks and stoops.
Furthermore, the distinction between outdoor and indoor recre-
ation is tenuous in the city where permanent structures, such
as community centers and schools, are used for recreational
purposes more often than elsewhere.5

IV.A.1 Measurement

The parameters and standards by which the urban recrea-
tion supply is currently measured are inadequate. The most
common measures are acres in recreation, acres per capital'
and number of areas. However, these do not account for types
of areas which have different levels of-use - a greenbelt and
a crowded playground, for example. Because the playground
accomodates more people, it supplies more recreation than the
greenbelt, although its area may be much,smaller. Another
frequently used measure is the money invested per capita in
recreation. Privately ogerated facilities and informal
recreation are excluded. The discussion that follows is
based on these criteria, but their limitations should be borne
in mind.7

TABLE

SUMMARY OF CITY-RELATED INDEX VALUES

City Recreational Index City Accessibility Index

CITY NAME 1965 1970 1965 1970

New York 197 166 0.268

Chicago 91 90 0.325

Philadelphia 200 216 0.634

Houston 149 138 0.173

Baltimore 210 264 0.874

Dallas 262 266 0.251

Washington, D.C. 329 362 1.808

Cleveland 275 295 0.905 1.518

San Francisco 291 291 0.099

St. Louis 221 233 0.964

.Phoenix 396 339

Seattle 282 314 10.838

Pittsburgh 228 240 1.571

Denver 281 264 3.054

Atlanta 253 298 1.446 1.451

@,verage 244 252 1.658*

Without Seattle, the average is .952.

Source: C. Bisselle, S. Lubore, R. Pikul, National
Environmental Indices: Air Quality and Outdoor Recreation,
[The ITRE Corp., April -19721,-p.

A recent attempt to determine the suppl y of recreation
in various urban areas was made by the MITRE Corporation.
Their efforts to develop a city recreation index and a city
accessibility index were hampered by many methodological
problems, the greatest of which was the lack of a uniform
data collection and recording system among cities. The
authors reported that areas like traffic islands and median
strips were often included by Park and Recreation departments
in their determination of the total number of areas under
their jurisdiction.8 In addition, only public recreation
facilities under the jurisdiction of city governments were
considered, which do not constitute even the total of public
recreation facilities available to urban residents. The
MITRE study's basic assumptions are also-open to some ques-
tion. The authors assume that if the acreage is the same
between two similarly sized cities, the city with the largest
number of parks has more, smaller parks which are closer to
the people. They state "that more capacity, more money spent
and more employees imply better recreation opportunity."
And finally, "the chosen measures are of the nature of input
parameters; i.e., they indicated.what is available but not
what satisfaction is derived. The latter is difficult to
define, much less to measure."9 With all its methodological
problems, however, the MITRE study remains one of very few
attempts to measure the supply of urban recreation.
It is apparent from the MITRE data (shown in Table- 11)
that the supply of urban recreation varies widely throughout
the country. In five of the cities the supply, as measured
by the City Recreation Index (CRI), decreased from 1965 to
1970. While limited supply is the rule, there are.certain
notable exceptions. The City Accessibility Index for Seattle
is high because of the Federal recreation areas located with-
in its 50 mile radius. Similarly, the CRI for Washington,
D.-C. is, one of the highest in the country because of its
status as a Federal City.
The supply figures from Table 11 can only be interpre-
ted properly in the context of the total recreation supply
in the United States. The largest supply of recreational
land is located far from urban areas. Only three percent of
the public land base and 25 percent of the recreation facili-
ties are located for use during the after-work, after-school
hours or for one-day outings. These three time periods
represent the peak usage hours.
If only Federal lands are considered, the evidence is
even stronger. Nearly all of the Federal land base is inac-
cessible to disadvantaged Americans. The division of Govern-
ment holdings by controlling agency and location in [email protected]
demonstrates that the bulk of public land is located in rural
areas.

IV.A.2 Accessibility

Accessibility is not only a problem within the country
as a whole, but within urban areas as well. No matter how
large the park acreage is per thousand persons, if that

TABLE - 12

FEDERALLY OWNED LAND IN THE UNITED STATES BY
SELECTED AGENCIES, 1970

Acreage by Location

% of % of
Total Urban Total, Rural Total

All Agencies 761,300,913.2 1,555,840.2 0.02 759,745,073.0 .99.9.8

Forest Service 186,888,833.1 1,903.6 0.00 186,886,929.5 100.00

Defense 30,599,503.8 1,429,617.9 4.67 29,169,885.9 95.33

National Park '24,400,087.2 .37,964.5 0.15 24i362,122.7 99.85
Service,
Ln

Source: John P. Keith and John P-Milsop, Park Space for Urban America, a
submission to the Urban Task Force of the C3-nservation To-uNd-a-Ul-on Study of
the Department of Interior's Second Century, mimeographed, revised
February 1972, p. 8.

acreage is located predominantly in the urban fringe areas
the parks are usually not accessible to center city I residents
without cars. In.the New York City area, for example, the
ocean beaches are'the only large public recreational areas
accessible by common carrier transportation.
A 1965 study of park need in New York.City noted that
despite the City's relati'vely,large acreage total (17% of the
.city's area), 21,500 of the Park Department's 36,000 acres
were either under water, in large parks in the urban fringes,
or highly seasonal in nature (the ocean beaches). Only
14,500 acres of Park Department land is part of the available
supply for recreation. Furthermore, the neighborhoods effec-
tively isolated from recreation opportunities are the ghettoes:
Harlem, Chelsea, South Bronx and Bedford Stuyvestant. The
lack of recreation areas extends to the commercial and indus-
trial areas of the city where there are few areas for workers
or visitors to sit or eat lunch.10

IV.A.3 Urban Land Use

Another factor affecting the supply of urban land avail-
able for recreational use is the pressure from other urban
.land uses. A list of landforms suited for o pen space includes.
flood prone river'valleys, groundwater recharge are .as, marshes
and swamps, areas of excessive slopes, other areas unsuitable
for building, and "unique ecological communities."ll The bias
toward land rejected for other purposes is clear, As well as
the tendency for these large areas of open space to be loca-
ted on the fringe of metropolitan areas rather than in the
central cities. Although this aggravates the accessibility
problem, it is perhaps understandable from a short-term
economic standpoint. Land costs in urban areas have sky-
rocketed since Central Park was established.
Despite the economic costs connected with the preserva-
tion of urban open space, the long-term benefits of urban
parks are beginning to be recognized. New planned communities
are including open space in their designs. In established
urban areast open space preservation programs have been pro-
posed in connection with land-use planning.
However, the economic pressures for alternative uses of
park land are sometimes not withstood. The park director in
Atlanta reported in 1969 that 60 percent of the city's park
land had been lost in the previous thirty years.12 Another
measure of encroachment is provided in Figure- based on
1970 figures, which shows the type of jurisdiction of'the
acreage lost and the cause of encroachment. Most of the
4500 acres that were lost between 1965 and 1970 were used for
public purposes: highways, schools, public buildings and
utilities.
There are indications that the availability of vacant
land in American cities is not a limiting factor for urban
recreational supply. "A study done of the nation's 106
largest cities revealed that, on'the average, 20 percent of
the land areas of the city is undeveloped and uncommitted
land.',13 Generally, areas which could increase the supply
53

of recreational land have not been purchased. The factors
which limit expansion of urban recreation supply include high
land cost (an economic reflection of other possible land uses)
and the cost of developing recreational facilities.14
The supply of urban recreation cannot be evaluated by
simple measurements. There are inequities in the distribu-
tion of public lands within the country as a whole and within
individual metropolitan areas. Central cities are consis-
tently on the short end of supply.

IV. B Demand

There are three common measures of the -demand for urban
,recreation: population size, need for recreational facilities
(as reflected by residents' desires), and participation
figures. S@ince participation and population are much easier
to measure than need and desire, participation has often been
equated with demand. The emphasis here will be on measure-
ment of need and desire.

TV.B.1 Characteristics of the Population

The demographic patterns of the-United States show that
the proportion of Americans living in Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas has steadily increased in the last half-
century, and is expected to increase further. Metropolitan
areas contained 66 percent of the nation's population in 1960
and 71 percent in 1970. The percentage of Americans residing
in metropolitan areas of over 1,000,000 people has also
increased. These "great metropolitan areas" are expected to
contain the majority of Americans by 1980.15
The population increase in metropolitan areas is caused
by growth in the population Of the suburbs, not of the central
cities. The percentage of the U.S. population living in cities
of over 100,000 dropped from 28.3% to 27.6% between 1960 and
1970.16 Of 25 central cities studied by the NRPA, only fif-
teen declined in population between 1960 and 1970.17 These
general findings are exemplified by one specific case, New
Havenj Connecticut, where the population of the central city
decreased 6.8% between 1960 and 1967, while the population of
the SMSA increased by 8.2%.18 The out-migration from the
central cities to the suburbs, which partially accounts for,
these population distribution trends within SMSA's, has been
one of the best documented'demographic trends in the nation.
However, despite the population migrations which have increa-
sed the suburban population and reduced the central city popu-
lation, 29% of all Americans still live in central cities of
SMSA's.19 A California study reports.. "One out of every
eight Californians lives in an urban impacted area .,20
The changes in population distribution.between the metro-
politan areas-and the rural areas and within the metropolitan
areas have resulted in differing distributions of socio-
economic and racial characteristics. The differences are
particularly apparent when central city areas are compared
with the surrounding urban fringes. The Census data given in
Table 13 -compares metropolitan/nonmetropolitan and central

cn z z z
0 R 0 ilo@ 0
0 0 H ril 0 H ct a 0 H ct a

w 0 H. CD ct to 0 Fj- CD rt- En 01--
(D (t En H-to ft &to P- t-0 (a P-to & p
" P- a 0 (D " P-OJO H. 11 0 (D L-4
0 PAM @-Pj a 0 0im @-Qj H 0 PA (D f- Pu 0
tO (D H- W wdM H- 1-3 tO (D H-
0 Z c! 0 0rl- En 0 0 0 rt (A t1i 0 0 ft (n
f-h 0 En - @-j 0 (D A) ft @- 0 CD Su ct 1-40 (D 0) rt- a)
I-h :1 0 M H- (D 0:5 IW P- (D0 ::@ 0) P. (D 0 :3 0) 0 z
1 0. rt ril rt, (t .11 rt, rt ft :3 r+ & t1i
t3: H-- 0) Hw (D wft 0) (D w ct H0) CD En
(D (D Vu z A)" V) 0H H co :j 11 5D PI ri)
w As I-- (D %D H (D 0) (D (D
IZ 0 1--, 0) - Pj @-j W 5b U2
0 0) H H 00) vi () ED @l p- z
ko :I (D (D 0 )-1- -- (D0 1-- - 0 0 od
Pi W 0) H- rt 0H- rt P) P- ft (D
H I-J 0 rt H- - - wct P- - (a rt H.
P. tij H. (D P- (D i-- (D 0
ft0 0 (D W - - (D CO- (D En (D
0)0 @-h fn (a
9 ft
t5 ::r .
1- (D
(D0 4 0
P) 0 t-i
0 (D H
FJ H N m m fiz;. -4 -4 (it w 0
C@ Lo t%> 0@ pi (A) W Ln L.) @j H N.) OD @-j N) H
H rA I I -ft I . I% a
0 w C71 Ln Ln P co 00 (A C> m $P. C> co m Ln 0 (D F-I
j 0 00 LJ CO tlj C) 0 U) 00 N) t1i F-J oo w F" w F3
C> rt Lil M @j N Ili NJ @o 00 00 110 Ln U) Ln %D It'..
(D 0 ED t7j
fl 0 H @
H. H ol ol ho tzj
oj En " F.A F-I 0 P- (D
(D tQ @- vi -j C> W Lo " ol@ 0 w w w 0) 0 r@ ED " Z 0
::3 %D LP ul 0 0 43-% CO W $P- 0 Ln a@ ko P. o H- ft 0 0 Z
0 ft 0 N (D rtj
w Ln tj @j 0 '01 z:l 6 zo *C:) 0 P- 0 .. W
to I ft
0 0
t-h
F-J I- z
rt. H H F-A Ln VI IP. 110 Ln o"% 4Ln tn f-j @j
@3' w a) N) w co w -1 %.0 co (3) 64. @j bi OD C)
0) (D Ct N @ @ % @ @ ft @. @ N I N @ 9
En P, $P. A;. 6p. w N -4 0*1 Whl m Lo VI @lj w ON
@:r 10 0 OD W OD H %0 m ko W LI) t.0 H co w 0) -4 0
H- 0 0 I-j --3 L%) 00 P 00 C@ N) Ln -@] -lj a)
0 to
H (D CL to
0) z Lu H @Ln m o W W W a@ 0 Lo W w 0@ CD H- (D
@3 ft 0 Ln W H 0. 0 -1 " 0 w 0 .13 C> N) tj 0 W Fj CD I
H H * . . @o 6 1-- rt 0
0 (t to to Ln @4 @n @o 0 N (D
:fl ts
ctl

(D
F-J I @-J @-J N)
(D P. w 4@1 6P. 0. m N) a-,. 00 op. co 4.0 W
0 rt (D " ft @ . % ft % @ ft I @ %
.4 H rn W (-A t,) L" -.4 vi H -j --I w00 @-A 00
(D 0 C> Cp 0 H F-4 w %C@- Ul @o w (:> o Ln vi Ln
ki po 00 0. a\ -j w 0) Ln (7) 0 @j @-a 0 f-@ a Na @j
0 1
H bi
P- w
ft
P) PU ko (D
p z I H F-I (D -,j
0 Lo Ln bi Qn -i tj ul o. H -13 w I-A --lj Lk) H 0
P) 4 0
:3 t@ Ln o3 tDb Q Z., @o zn zn @) Ab. (D
ct

city/suburban area racial characteristics. Significantly,
the percentage of the white population living in central
cities declined 5.4 percent between 1960 and 1970,'while the
percentage of the black population in central cities increa-
sed by 32.8 percent.
The Census Bureau's data on differing income levels
between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas is given in
Tablesr, 14 and ]L5-.; The disparity of incomes between the cen-
tral city and the suburbs is eviaent from these figures. The
Census figures also give the percentage of the population
below the poverty level.21 While 6.3 percent of the metro-
politan residents outside the central city were below poverty
level in 1969, 13.4 percent of the metropolitan residents with-
in the central city were in poverty.22 The percentage of
elderly (over 65) seems to be higher'in central cities than
in other.areas.23 Perhaps the dominant population character-
istics of central city residents can be summed up in'Burch and
Shelstad's words which refer specifically to New Haven, but
seem more generally applicable: "All of these indicators sug-
gest that the central city is now largely inhabited by the
poor, the old, the black, single individuals and young couples
with*no children or infant children."24 These changes.mean
that public recreational facilities in the cities are a more
crucial need than ever, since these groups are least able to
afford private recreation.

IV.B.2 Participation Data and Need

Participation data for most urban recreation systems is
.scant. Federal surveys measure participation in various acti-
vities but make no breakdown as to location. Except in a few
cases, municipal information on park attendance is non-
existent. In fact, many officials agree that usage figures
are impossible to obtain for most city parks.25 However, a
combination of information from various sources can-give an
approximation of participation in urban recreation. This
participation information can be-interpreted in two ways:
1) showing whether metropolitan residents'participate in dif-
ferent activities than American residents generally and
2) whether metropolitan recreation areas are used for differ-
ent purposes than recreation areas as a whole.
Urban residents comprise the majority of U.S. residents,
and can thus naturally be expected to be the majority of all
recreation participants. In the sample survey conducted by
the BOR in 1965, 64.7% of the respondents lived in SMSA's and
35.3% lived outside of SMSA's. Percentages of the partici-
pants in selected activities.who resided in and outside of
SMSA's are .given in Table 16. Metropolitan residents parti-
cipate more than their percentage of the total sample in out-
door games and sports, golf, tennis, canoeing, sailing, boat-
ing, swimming, water skiing, walking for pleasure, nature
walking, attending concerts and plays, ice skating, snow ski-
ing and sledding. They participate less than their population
percentage in hunting, sightseeing, fishing and horseback
riding. In the other activities, metropolitan residents

TABLE 14

NONMETROPOLITAN RESIDENCE: 1970 AND 1960

(In 1969.dollars. Number of families in thousands. Families as of March 1970 and April 19601

1 9 6 9 1 9 5 9
Metropolitan areas Non- Metropolitan areas Non-
Inside OuEside metro- Inside Outside- metro-
Income Characteristics Total central central politan Total central centrallpolitan
cities cities areas cities cities areas

ALL RACES
All Families . . . . . . 33,150 14,704 18,446 18,089 28,584 14,715 13,869 16,420
Average size of family. 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.7
Median income . . $110,261 $9,157 $11,003 $7,982 $7,880 $7,417 $8,351 $5,647
Mean income . . . 11,506 10,450 12,348 8,872 -9,202 8,634 9,806 6,488
Income per family member. 3,183 2,989 3,328 2,448 2,559 2,467 2,651 1,734

WHITE
V1 All Families . . . . . . 29,335 11,759 17,576 16,689 25,764 12,447 13,317 15,067
Average size of family. . 3.5 3.3 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.6
Median income . . . . . . $10,646 $9,797 $11,155 $8,312 $8,198 $7,881 $81,486 $5,976
mean income . . . . . . . 11,958 11,124 12,516 9,185 9,594 9,172 9,988 6,808
Income per family member. 3,380 3,329 3,412 2,599 2,709 2,691 2,725 1,865

NEGRO
All Families . . . 3,466 2,740 726 1,308 2,606 2,126 480 1,257
Average size of family. 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.7' 4.1 4.0 4.5 4.7
Median income . . . . . . $6,836 $6,794 $6,986 $3,969 $4,768 $4,840 $4,383 $2,152
Mean income . . . . . . . 7,725 7,575 8,291 4,972 5,340 5,399 5,077 2,787
Income per family member. 1,847 IJF841 1,866 1,066 1,309 1,354 1,131 589

NEGRO AS % OF WHITE
Median income . . . . . . 64.2 69.3 62.6 47.8 58.2 61.4 51.6 36. 0
mean income . . . . . . . 64.6 68.1 66.2 54.1 55.7 58.9 50.8 40.9
Income per family member. 54.6 55.3 54.7 41.0 48.3 50.3 41.5 31.6
Source: U.S., Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 37,
"Social and Economic Charact-er-Tstics of the Population in metropolitan and Non,
Metropolitan Areas: 1970 and 1960," [Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1971].

TABLE - 15

CENSUS*DISTRIBUT'ION OF FAMILY INCOME - BY PERCENTAGE

Metro- Inside Outside Non-
politan Central Central Metro-
1969 Income Total Total City city politan

Under $3,000 9.3 7.0 9.40- 4.80 13.70
$ 3,000 - 6,000 16.6 14.2 17.7 11.2 21.1
$ 6,000 - 8,000 13.7 12.7 14.5 11.3 15.5
$ 8,000 - 10,000 14.4 14.3 14.2 14.3 14.7
$10,000 -15,000 26.7 25.4 31.5 22.9
$15,000 - 25,000 15.6 18.5 15.2 21.1 10.4
$25,000+ 3.6 4.8 3.7 5.6 1.8

Total 100 100 100 .100 100

1959 Income

Under $3,000 16.4 11.1 12.9 8.9 25.8
$ 3,000 - 6,000 22-.7 20.0 22.7 17.3 27.6
$ 6,000 - .81000 19.6 20.1 19.7 20.5 18.6
$ 8,000 - 10,000 14.3 15.9 15.2 16.6 11.6
$10,000 - 15,000 18.2 21.9 [email protected] 24.2 11.7
$15,000 - 25,000 6.7 8.3 7.6 9.2 3.6
$25,000+ 2.2 2.8 2.2 3.4 1.*2

.Total 100 100 100 100 100

Source: U.S., Bureau of the Census, Current Population
Reports, Series P-23, No. 37, ffSocial and Economic
-Characteristics of the Population in Metropolitan
and Non-Metropolitan Areas: 1970 and 1960,"
(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
19711, pp. 3, 37.

TABLE - 16

PARTICIPATION 'IN OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITIES
BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE - 1965

Activity % of Participants % of Participants
in SMSA in Non-SMSA.

Total Sample 64.71 [email protected]

Bicycling 67 33
Horseback Riding'- 58 42
Outdoor Games and Sports 71 29
Golf 75 25
Tennis 77 23
Fishing 60 40
Canoeing 77 23
Sailing 84 16
Boating [all other] 68 32
Swimming 70 30
Water Skiing 68 32
Camping 6'3 37
Hiking 64 36
Walking for Pleasure 70 30
Birdwatching 66 34
Photography 65 35
Nature Walking 70 30
Picnicking 66 34
Driving for Pleasure 67 33
Sightseeing 52 43,
Attending sports events 67 33
Attending concerts and plays 73 27
Hunting 48 52
Ice Skating 70 30
Snow Skiing 69 31
Sledding 68 32

Source: U.S., Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, The 1965 Survey of Outdoor Recreation
Activities [Washington, D.C.: Government PrinFil-n-g-
Office], pp. 12-45, 52.

579-272 0 - 5

participate in a percentage similar to their proportion of
the population.
The distribution of outdoor recreation participants with-
in a metropolitan ar .ea can be estimated by using the income
distribution data provided by the BOR.Cokumn-l"of the--foLI16wing chart
gives the income distribution for the total BOR sample. A
comparison of this data with the census data given in columns
2 and 3 indicates that the BOR sample was heavily biased to-
ward low income ranges. This bias must-be borne in mind
throughout the following discussion.
The table gives the income distributions of participants
in the activities metropolitan residents selectively preferred.
When compared to the distribution of,the sample, it is clear
that families in the lowest income range have a very low par-
ticipation rate in any of these activities (the sole exception
being walking for pleasure). Families in Middle income ranges
($8,000 - $15,000) have more participants in these activities
than their percentage of the total sample. Many of the acti-
vities depend on acquisition of personal equipment and skills
and some (canoeing, boating, sailing, water and snow skiing)
require travel away from the metropolitan area. Families in
this middle income range can generally afford these pursuits
while those in the lower ranges cannot. Activities such as
outdoor games, swimming, and.walking forpleasure have an
income distribution which resembles the income distribution
of the sample much more nearly.
The figures support the idea that accessibility and equip-
ment prices are deterrents to the participation by low income
citizens in manyoutdoor activities. These citizens partici-
pate in activities that are available close to home with a
minimum of equipment and training. The poor urban population
does not participate in recreation as much as other groups in
the country. @ I
It is clear that metropolitan park and recreation areas
are used for significantly different purposes than park and
recreation areas in general. Use by adults tends to be more
passive (sitting and walking) while children use the more
highly developed facilities of playgrounds.26
Generally, urban areas and facilities are used more
intensively than non-urban facilities. At the Senate Hearings
for the proposed Gateway National Recreation Area in New York,
Mayor John Lindsay observed:

We are hundreds of miles from the nearest national
park. As a resulti the citizens of the New York
region constantly use our 700 parks and 18 miles of
beachfront. They welcome more than 17 million visi-
tors a year, many of whom join them at local beaches
and pools. In fact, Coney Island, the most heavily
used beach in the city, attracts more people in one
summer weekend than does Cape Cod in an entire
year. . . . Four thousand people to an acre of beach
five times the figure recommended by the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation.27

w w 0 0 0 000
:3 0 &P.M mop-m
0 w P) EQ 0 P) E0 0 0 Z rt.H
0 H En 9 F_j W9) S@ PC 0) & 0
En F-i En Fj 1-0 0) (D 0
M H. U) 0 H- (n $10, 0 En :4
Fj V (D (D tr 0 P_ H. (D En
w Z w 0 rZ w En 0 a (D :j P_ 0
01% H_ 1-i H ri. 0 @_ & & 0 10 H 0 0 0 Fj LQ ::F: 1-0
0 (a (D 0) 0 F- H H- H 0 F-J (D H_ H_ rj-
ko PO 0 (D CF) P) 0 M N M Fh H 0) )_J_
H 0 0 0 %D H 0 P& LQ LQ 0 PV k-C4 0 0
H_ @_ rj 0En LQ F1 P- W 04
P-0 I oo I (D 0 ;j
rt, Fh H Fl- Ft, H - En LQ 0
rt, o) 0 & 0
H_ 0 0 L4 0
0 0 0
0 5 5 In
Income (D - (D
Below $3,000 19.03 7.0 9 3 1 5 1 3 1 2 1 8 1 24 1 7 7 7
3,000-6,000 28.79 14.20 17.70 27 17 21 24 .12 27 27 26 25 22
6,000-8,000 18.03 12.70 14.50 20 19 17 23 17 21 '19 20 20 20
8,00,0-10,000 10".:03 14.30 14.20 14 14 14 13 17 13 12 16 14 15
10,000-15,000 14.12 28.80 25.40 9 28 24 21 26 19 17 18 19 23
15,000-25,000 4.33 18.50 15.20 6 10 11 11 13 6 6 8 9 7
25,000+ 1.34 4.8 3.70 2 6 3 1 7 2 1 1 2 2
Other 4.30 3 3 5 4 6 4 4 4 4 4

Sources:. U.S., Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, The 1965 Survey
of Outdoor Recreation Activities [Washington, D.C.: Government Printin@-Off-ic-el-1.
pp. 12-45#1 5T-.
U.S., Bureau of the Census, Current P .opulation Reports, Series P-23, No. 37,
"Social and Economic Characteristics of the Population in Metropolitan and Non-
Metropolitan Areas: 1970 and 1960," [Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
19711, p. 37.

The argument that urban recreation areas should be used
more intensively than other recreation areas is reasonable.
Urban facilities normally do not contain the natural elements
associated with the National Parks and forests. In most cases
public urban recreation areas do not have provision for camp-
ing and wilderness experiences Those who have neither the
.money nor the mobility to trav;l to scenic areas cannot find
comparable attractions on mass transportation lines. By en-
couraging the intensive use of urban parks and recreation
areas, more p.eople can be accomodated in a different type of
experience than is found elsewhere .28
Some studies have been done of the leisure participation
of various subgroups which are concentrated within central
city areas_(the poor, the non-white and the elderly). In
general:

Participation. . . /rn public outdoor recreation-/:
declines with advanc-ing age, rises with increasing
education up to the point of high school gradua-
tion, and with increasing income, up to a point
well above average income, but declines at the
,very highest income levels. Participation also
rises with increasing amounts of paid vacation.29

Samuel Klausner argues that "not simply the manifest rules and
physical facilities used, but also the very forms and dramatic
contents of recreation are class-related."-Jo His.statement
is borne out by a stddy investigating racial differences in
the use of leisure time.
This study began with the assumption that there were
significant differences in racial participation in leisure
activities that would remain significant even when other vari-
ables, such-as income, were held constant. Their conclusion
altered the original hypothesis "to show that persons of the
same socioeconomic level, regardless of race, exhibit similar
leisure use patterns.31 This finding can be interpreted to
mean that observed differences in recreation participation
between races can normally be explained by the socio-economic
variables of income, education, occupation, and social clas.s.
Some specific studies have been conducted in urban areas
to determine the recreation participation of urban residents.
The major study to date is one on.the urban impacted areas of
California.. Of all residents, 59% use the local parks and
recreation centers and 26% use them more than once a week.
This high participation rate contradicts the argument that
recreation demand is primarily from upper income suburban
residents. However, the most popular leisure activities in
the Urban Impacted Area are watching television, reading,
sewing, and visiting family and friends. None of these are
active, outdoor activities. Most of the leisure needs expres-
sed by the UIA residents were for improved public recreation
facilities. (See Table 17 )
The California study is unique in that its discussion of
need includes information given by inhabitants themselves.

TABLE 17

SELECTED FINDINGS'FROM CALIFORNIA URBAN'IPMACTED AREAS

Percent of Resi-
Most Popular Leisure Activities dents Participating

Watching television 53%
Reading 28%
Sewing 17%
Visiting family and friends 15%
Going to.local park 13%
Going to movies 13%
Swimming 13%
Driving, traveling, sightseeing 11%
Attending church, clubs 11%
Going to beach, lake, mountains 10%
Fishing, hunting 9%
Gardening 9%

Barriers to Participation Percent of all
in a New Activity Barriers

Costs 25%
Inadequate parks 19%
No time 16%
Personal responsibilities 13%
Transportation 13%
Neighborhood problems 8%
Lack of opportunity 4%

Local parks and recreation centers are used by 59% of the
residents of urban impacted areas; 26% of the residents use
them more than once a week.

Leisure Needs Expressed by Residents Percent of all
Residents

Swimming facilities 12%
More parks 11%
Better park maintenance 8%
Better police protection 5%
Community center for teenagers 4%
Better equipped parks 4%
Activities for teenagers 3%
Activities for younger children 3%
Better transportation 2%

579-272 0 - 6

TABLE 17 (continued]

SELECTED FINDINGS FROM CAI;IFORNIA URBAN DIPACTED AREAS

Leisure Needs Expressed by Residents Percent of all
Residents

Arts, crafts, hobby center 2%
Festivals, musical groups, happenings 2%
Facilities for children

Source: William J. Emrie, Recreation Problems in the Urban
Impacted Areas of California, prepared for the
League of California Cities, County Supervisors
Association of California and the California
Department of Parks and Recreation [Sacramento:
19701, pp. 9-12.

Other research into recreation needs of urban residents has
not proceeded very far.
Edwin Staley, searching for an analytical tool to help
municipal governments determine recreation priorities, has
developed a "need index," which measures youth population
(5-19), population density, median family income, and the-
juvenile delinquency rate.32 His index is a pragmatic formu-
lation of need, but the assumptions on which the index is
based are untested by any research:

1) There are measurable social characteristics and
neighborhood recreation resources which indicated
comparative need for recreation and youth services
by areas, communities or neighborhoods in an urban
setting; 2) all citizens have important basic needs
for recreation services, but due to different socio-
economic characteristics and interests, they have
differing needs for recreation services; 3) priori-
ties in community - subsidized recreation services
should go to those experiencing maximum social
pressures from density of population, number of
youth, low income, and evidences of social disor-.
ganization.33

Other discussions of recreational need are equally ill-
supported. These range from the ORRRC's "In a very practical
sense, access to outdoor recreation for the inner city resi-
dents is essential not only for his own comfort and well-
being but also for the advantages occurring to society from
his advancement,',34 to Robert Everly's somewhat stranger
ideas that urban parks satisfy man's territorial instincts
by giving apparent security to neighborhoods, and that the
presence of natural areas prevents urban dwellers from becom-
ing overly aggressive.35
Generally, the need for recreation and open space among
urban residents is assumed to be as strong or stronger than
the need among the American public generally. However, the
information used to support this view is slight. Gerald
Vaughn presented a challenge to prove or disprove his hypo-
thesis that "urban-reared families do not feel as great a
need for open space as do rural-reared families."3 The only
indication that this might not be true is the high proportion
of California UIA residents who used the city parks and want-
ed better parks. Tools like Staley's are useful for making
municipal policy, but they have not been supported with hard
research.
Even for special groups, recreational research has been
slight. The one area which has been explored is children's
play, but even here, work has been of poor quality and not
truly scientific. This is a significant admission since play
research could be immediately relevant to designers of play-
grounds and play equipment. Michael Ellis, 6 leading resear-
cher in the field of children's play, has developed a theory
of.play based on experimental evidence. Namely, a child will

usually seek arousal in playing and try to increase the num-
ber of sense stimuli received up to a certain optimum level.37
Some of Ellis's experiments have demonstrated that more com-
plex 3lay apparatus is preferred in the experimental situa-
8
tion . In playground management, Ellis would replace static
play equipment with movable, flexible equipment adapted for
a wide variety of uses, which could be manipulated by the
children themselves. Despite his work, however, the tradi-
tional theories still appear in the literature - and in the
playgrounds. 'Ellis' formulation of the need for play has yet
to be incorporated into general practice.
The influence of an intuitive view of children's recrea-
tion needs can be seen in the Kirschner report of 1970, after
the Recreation Support Program of the summer of 1970. In
this research, "community influentials" were contacted for
their views of the recreational needs of disadvantaged child-
ren. It is important,to examine this information, since it
is the opinions of "community influentials" that determine
recreation programming more than scientific research or parti-
cipation data. Those interviewed felt that the disadvantaged
youngsters needed earlier exposure to competitive sports,
11more space; more parks and, in general, more recreational.
services." They felt that special emotional needs of the
children could also be met through recreation, including
needs for "love and companionship; a sense of belonging; a
need to experience success; and a male model with whom they
/could 7 identify."39
Aiiother special group that is concentrated in urban areas
is the poor. Here again both participation data and need re-
search is minimal. Of the residents of the California Urban
Impacted Area, 40 percent have incomes below $4,000 a year.
These people felt that swimming facilities, more parks and
improved parks were their major needs. When such resident
surveys are not conducted, however, discussion of the recrea-
tional needs of the poor has been confined to the problem of
accessibility. The California study reported that:

almost half of the residents in these areas Z
ar; limited to the leisure activities which they
can do within walking distance of home. The cost
of public transportation precludes travelling to a
recreation site, at least for those with gross
family incomes of less than $4,000 per year.40

A major argument used in support of the Gateway proposal in
New York was the number of carless households that would be
served.41 But public transportation is not always the answer.
Unless fares are subsidized, the round-trip cost to Gateway
from Manhattan will be $1.40, and use of the ferry system
connecting the three areas of the Recreation Area will raise
the cost still further.42 Poor people's most urgent need is
recreation facilities within walking distance, or subsidized
travel to,outlying areas.

Very little research has been done on the needs of the
elderly, who tend to form a greater percentage of residents
of cities than they do elsewhere. Paul Friedberg suggests
that observation of current activity patterns of the elderly
will indicate that there is a need to provide places for them
to congregate within normal city patterns. He also suggests
providing job opportunities for the elderly to work in recrea-
tion services.43
In another area of neglected research, Friedberg suggests
that recreation planning for teenagers should move away from
the "one-dimensional basketball, baseball fields" and provide
for the adolescent's need for room and privacy.44 He and
others have pointed out that a great deal of recreational
planning is directed toward the teenage boy but very little
toward the teenage girl.
This discussion of demand suggests that needs and desires
are best determined by observing and asking the people invol-
ved, rather than relying on the testimony of "community influ-
entials." The former has been done very rarely, and even
more rarely has it been done in a scientific fashion. The
results of the research presented here indicate that need and
demand cannot always be measured by participation.

IV.B.3Problems of Interpreting Supply and Demand

The inadequacies of mea'surement of supply and demand of
urban recreation lead one to wonder if urban recreation sys-
tems can handle the recreational needs of all their citizens.
Has the supply of urban recreation been sufficient to meet
the demand? Most sources say no. The Kerner Commission's
report on the riots of the summer of 1967 listed inadequate
recreational facilities as the fifth most important contribu-
ting factor.45 The situation has not improved much since
1967. A report from the National League,of Cities in 1968
states that "Despite extensive acreage, the simple fact re-
mains that in all major cities large numbers of inhabitants
do not have access to public recreation facilities because
the parks are not where the people are.,,46
The reasons that urban recreation systems do not meet
the demands and needs of urban residents are varied. The
most important, however, may be the interpretations of
"demand" and "supply" accepted by the administrators of park
and recreation programs at all levels; "demand" is interpre-
ted to mean participation, and "supply" is interpreted to
mean land and facilities. These two factors have resulted in
obsolescent park layouts, and underuse of many existing city
parks - while the needs for recreation are still not met.
Many municipal parks and recreation departments and even
the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, interpret demand solely on
the-basis of participation figures. The greater levels of
participation in outdoor recreation among those of higher
incomes is interpreted to mean that the demand for outdoor
recreation 'is greater among these groups - not that the supply
of recreation facilities is less for low income, poorly edu-
cated citizens. Since, by this definition, demand is greater

in white, middle-class, middle-income areas, additional faci-
lities are provided for these groups.47. A simplistic example
would contrast two neighborhoods: A, white, middle income,
which has two public swimming pools and B, predominantly
black in an urban impacted area which has none. Not surpri-
singly, participation in swimming is much higher in Area A
than in Area B. Funds for a new swimming pool are spent in
Area A where the "demand" is greater.
Part of the demand problem relates to the lack of re-
search into recreational need which was discussed earlier.
True demand must include a component of need as well as
participation, but too often urban residents are not asked
about their desires or 'participation. Urban populations are
.seen as homogeneous, and many city officials believe that
recreational needs are the same for all segments of the
city.,48 This is really a dual problem involving both a lack
of community participation in park and recreation decision
making and a disparity between recreation planners and their
clientele.
Most studies about urban recreation echo the National
League of Cities report which called for greater citizen
participation in park and recreation planning.49 There is
disagreement on where the impetus for new facilities should
begin, how much should be done by the community alone, and
what the optimal relations between community, government,
and professional consultants are. However, most observers
feel that community involvement is not assuming its proper
role.50 Although the Model Cities program of HUD has institu-
tionalized community participation on the-Federal level,
this program has not led to greater community action in local
recreation programs.51
A related problem is the disparity between recreation
plannera.and their clients in central cities. The city park
still bears the marks of the grand scale of space and design,
popularized by the Olmsted school of landscape architecture.
City parks are not consciously designed to meet the needs of
lower-class urban residents. Urban residents specifically
objected to recreation planning which did not meet their needs
in Baltimore, where recreation money was used to build a
stadium and construct golf courses, and Chicago, whose Lake
Front Development Plan included marinas and horseback riding.52
One of the causes for the disparity between recreation
planners and urban residents seems to be that recreation
programs are directed at the middle class and staffed by the
middle class.53 Klausner puts the matter bluntly:

Outdoor recreation personnel are drawn from a nar-
row band within the middle class of our society.
The policy-making, operating, and research 'ersonnel
p
are almost entirely white, of English or Western
European descent, disproportionately from rural
backgrounds and adherents of a physically active
life style. They have tended to project an image
of outdoor recreation (created in their own milieu)
upon the whole of the society.54

Few Americans have traditionally urban backgrounds, so
urban recreation preferences probably have not been estab-
lished. It may be that urban residents do not need open
space expanses similar to those planned by Olmsted.55
Whether or not city park systems designed and maintained by
people with a middle-class, rural background really serve
the needs of a largely lower class urban population is
questionable.
The lack of knowledge and communication of urban recrea-
tion needs and the common interpretation of demand as parti-
cipation could be corrected. A recent theory in the econo-
mics of outdoor recreation seems to provide a truer picture
of the relation between supply and demand. The opportunity
theory, if it is implemented, may alleviate the current
situation. Basically, the theory states that participation
in outdoor recreation depends on the opportunities available
for participation (supply) and not necessarily on demand in
the economic sense, or on need.56
Lindsay and Ogle tested the opportunity theory by study-
ing users and non-users of a major recreation area near an
urban community. They hypothesized that the higher income
and education patterns associated with participation in out-
..door recreation might not hold true in this case where
accessibility problems were minimized. Their results showed
that the difference in income between users and non-users of
the recreation area was not significant, but that the differ-
ence in education was significant - the users had less educa-
tion than the non-users. Lindsay and Ogle concludig-dthat
probably preference for outdoor recreation was equal among
all groups, but.'that the opportunity structure favored higher
income, well educated segments of the population.57 The
opportunity theory, if applied on the municipal level, could
result in a more equitable distribution of recreation facili-
ties in our cities.
Supply has been misinterpreted by park and recreation
officials to mean facilities and land. Recreation supply, in
fact' means much more. It includes operation and maintenance
costs, opening and closing hours, provision of police protec-
tion'. and, most importantly, recreational programming and
supervision. Typically, municipal recreation budgets are
divided into two sections: capital expenditures, and opera-
tion and maintenance. Although capital park expenditures
(such as acquisition.of land, and construction of permanent
facilities) can be financed through a variety of means, inclu-
ding bond issues, the second h 'alf of the budget is often
sacrificed. There are few Federal funds which provide pro-
gram money, and none which provide money for operations and
maintenance. The massive Land and Water Conservation Fund
monies are designated solely for land acquisition and perma-
nent facilities.58 Equipment, maintenance, and programming
is not forthcoming for the new parks and many of the older
parks in cities are forced to close facilities when maintenance
costs cannot be met. The operations and maintenance problem
is acute in many areas of the co,.untry.59

The problems within the municipal recreation budget are
heightened by the fact that recreation is a social service
and must compete with education, fire and police protection,
and other services for a cut of the municipal budget. Recrea-
tion budgets have long been one of the favorite targets for
municipal slashing. It is somewhat ironic that now, as the
importance of recreation is beginning to be widely recognized,
budgets face new threats not only from municipalities, but
from the Federal Government's proposed revenue sharing pro-
gram. According to Dwight Rettle, executive director of the
National Recreation and Parks.Association, revenue sharing
could have a disastrous effect on Federal funding of urban
recreation.60 Recreation.is specifically excluded from
general revenue sharing, and under special revenue sharing
it will have to compete with housing, and other social ser-
vices for funds.
The misinterpretations of supply and demand result in
park systems which are obsolete and underused. Of course,
underuse aggravates the problem, since low usestatistics can
be used to hinder further recreation funding. Present under-
use is incompatible with the theory that urban parks should
be used more intensively than parks'in the countryside. The
difficulties can be seen on many leve'ls, from large urban
parks, to playgrounds, to vest pocket parks.
A recent study by Malt Associates of Washington attempted
to pinpoint the causes for the underutilization of urban parks.
It began with the thesis that underutilization was due to
crime or fear of crime. Phase I examined studies in several
cities which broke crime rates down by places of occurence.
All the studies concurred that crime rates in or near parks
were much lower than for the cities as an average, and that
the vast majority of the crime which did occur in parks was
vandalism.
The rest of the Malt report went beyond the original
hypothesis to search for an alternative cause for underuse
of parks. The press release which accompanied the final re-
port stated some of the major findings and conclusions:

� Almost all the parks scored poorly on apparent
security as represented by lighting, communica-
tion access and control, visibility and similar
'factors.
� Physical facilities were inadequate. For example,
49 of the parks /Total sample of 64 7 had toilet
,.facilities, but iiost were locked an(T unusable.
� Facilities were mostly designed for teenage males.
Teenage girls have nothing; the elderly have
little. There is almost a total lack of innova-
tive opportunities for adults.

The biggest issue that bothers park users is the
deficiencies of physical facilities. one of the least
signif icant, issues is crime.

In short the majority of the parks are aestheti-
cally impotent, sterile, and incapable of giving
pleasure to the people who would use them. Parks
have not changed much in 100 years. They are
underutilized. People who use them feel isolated
and lonely. The parks are not serving their
purpose.6

The importance of the Malt report cannot be overemphasized.
It is the first study to attempt to pin down the status and
problems of urban parks on a nationwide basis.
It has long been recognized that many playground facili-
ties are inadequate. In her discussion of sidewalks, Jane
Jacobs supports unorganized play on streets and sidewalks,
attacking "the myth that playgrounds and grass and hired
.guards or supervisors are innately wholesome for children.62
The play research of Michael Ellis and others has remained
largely unapplied to playground design. Instead, "generally
what has been resorted to in designing play settings is a
system employing hunch, intuition,.and scattered field obser-
vation.,,63 A case example illustrates the results of this
method:

a recent study in a variety of different locations
in Philadelphia showed that children visited only
once per day and then for only fifteen minutes.
Children in the most depressed environment with
presumably least opportunities for play and per-
haps greatest need showed the same pattern.
Further, the study showed that on the average
the play apparatus was vacant at least 88% of the
peak usage time.64

Although the research in children's play is more advanced than
in any other area of recreational research, the traditional
swing-slide-and-seesaw playground continues to reign in the
cities.
The idea of vest-pocket parks became popular about ten
years ago. These are 1/3-1/2 acre areas with benches, some
trees, and varying additional facilities. City governments
built many of these parks, some designed by famous architects,
in depressed and commercial areas of large cities. Unfortu-
nately, many of the problems of the larger parks recurred on
a small scale in the vest-pocket parks. Often community
involvement in the decision to construct the park or in the
choice of facilities was minimal. This lack of involvement
may be a factor in the nonuse, non-cooperation and vandalism
suffered by some of these areas.
Nanine Clay did a study of the so-called mini-parks, and
was 'Iconstantly struck with how empty /Die parks7 were even
on warm days and evenings when we expeEted them Fo be teeming.
There are exceptions, of course, but from a cross country sur-
vey,they are indeed underused. . . ."65 The founder of the
Black Students program in Architecture at Columbia University

commented on the woes of the vest pocket parks as follows:

Proposals for improving life in the ghetto should
recognize the paramount importance of developing
an economic base with the black community under
local control. The failure of the vest pocket
parks should be carefully studied, in order to
avoid the kinds of gimmicky proposals which are
not rooted in the needs of the people.66

The supply and demand problems of urban recreation
systems can be related to the tendency on the part of many
urban officials to view metropolitan recreational land as if
it were National Park and Forest land. In Paul Friedberg's
words:

For economic reasons alone, apart from other valid
reasons, we cannot continue providing recreational
resources in the way we have been doing. Our cities
are strangling, trying to build more and more public
facilities and in the process taking more and more
land off the tax rolls . . . .
The answer is to recognize that our park depart-
ments . . . are anachronistic, that our ways of look-
ing at open space in the city are similarly behind
the times, that our means of developing existing
space and creating new space are unimaginative and
that our so-called standards are stultifying.67

An intensive recreational land use is required in urban areas.
The emphasis on operations and programs needed to provide
this intensive use is difficult to achieve with anachronistic
park departments.

IV.C Environmental Impact

The urban environment is characterized by unusual concen-
trations of people, industry, service facilities, and high-
ways. The effects of the urban environment on the people who
live, visit or work in it are great. Recreational land is also
affected by the urban environment, generally in adverse ways.
Conversely, recreation and recreational land affect the phy-.
sical and psychological environment of the city.
Paul Friedberg describes the psychological impact of
urbanization and the futility of traditional recreational
approaches:

...the urban environment has the power to desensitize
the perceptions, cause an unnecessary physical
strain, create a lingering disorientation, inten-
sify a growing apathy and lack of involvement, limit
the capacity to communicate with others, reduce the
ability to learn and develop. The environment batters
us so devastatingly that no number of basketball
.games or picnics or bowling matches can neutralize
the impact68

The effect of the urban environment on open space land
is crucial since open space is the source of most recrea-
tional land. Besides the restriction in the quantity of open
space because of competing land uses, urban environmental
pollution affects the quality of the land as well.69 Air
pollution and soil made salty by snow removal activity can
damage,city trees. Asphalt and cement help reduce their
supplies of air, water and nutrients. City trees are sub-
jected to physical damage from vandals, motorists and main-
tenance crews. Urban open space is just as susceptible to
fire as remote forestland.70 The urban environment affects
recreation in a more direct way when urban air pollution
makes outdoor activity unsafe. Urban water pollution in
rivers denies use of a tremendous recreational resource.
Recreation areas two blocks away from a residential neigh-
borhood can be inaccessible if there are major freeways
between them.
The effects of the urban environment on recreation seem
to be mostly detrimental. The effects of recreation and
recreational land on the urban environment are more difficult
to determine. The dichotomy between recreational land and
open space is significant here. Some recreational lands
(playgrounds, community centers) have no more effect on the
urban microclimate than a typical building. These areas
render the ground impervious just as effectively as a parking
lot, and are of no positive help in controlling air pollution.
Green space, however, can have significant effects on
the physical environment of the city. Although the effects
of trees on some air pollutants, notably carbon dioxide,
have been overrated, it seems clear that some air pollutants
are absorbed by vegetation. Vegetation seems to have posi-
tive effects on the particulate count, the S02 level and the
ozone content - all pollutants associated with urban industry
and power generation.71
There is also evidence that green space acts in reducing
noise levels. Experiments have been conducted on sound pro-
pagation in forests, and recently the effects of shelterbelts
on highway noise has been explored. It appears that small
groves of trees can cut sound levels by 8db per 1000 feet
which "may make the difference between unpleasant street noise
and relatively pleasant urban living."72 Green space also
acts to ameliorate the urban microclimate. Temperature differ-
ences between city and country are accentuated during the
summer months, particularly during the early evening. When
the sun goes down the countryside cools off, but city build-
ings retain their heat. This temperature difference is due
to the heat island effect, generated by the concentration of
heat absorbing building materials, a polluted atmosphere, and
heat from combustion and metabolic processes.73 Green space
can make the.heat island effect less intense and cool the
city.
Urban vegetation can have a significant effect in con-
trolling water pollution. It is commonly observed that cities
tend to have more precipitation than the country because of

the high particulate count in the atmosphere and the action
of buildings as condensing foci. This precipitation cannot
infiltrate into the ground because of the vast amount of
impervious area in a city. As a result, the storm sewage
system becomes overloaded, and the "lag time" between the
time of precipitation and the time the runoff reaches the
river is shortened tremendously. The end result can be
massive flooding. Urbanization of watershed areas (i.e.,
loss of vegetation) coupled with severe rains, is considered
to be the cause of the recent California mudslides. If grassy
and vegetated areas were restored to the city, rain would be
able to infiltrate into the ground. If floodplains were
zoned as open space, n floods that occurred would not cause
tremendous destruction. 4
The effects of well-placed green space on the urban
environment are important, but these are not necessarily
recreational impacts. The major recreational impact is on
the psychological environment of the residents of the city,
and here the lack of hard research is evident.
One effect of recreation and recreational land on the
psychology of urban residents is the need for a semblance of
spaciousness. Gerald Vaughn suggests that the provision of
open space and recreational land in cluster developments and
new towns "could reduce the potential demand for outlying
recreation areas, regional parks and 'breathing room' in
general.,'75 Perhaps incorporation of open space plans in
older cities could have this effect.
One of the mental effects of recreation, often used as
a justification for funding recreation programs, is the theory
that recreation is a palliative which can reduce anti-social
behavior. Many summer recreation programs began in 1968,
after the 1967 riots and the Kerner Commission report. The
Recreation Support Program and others assumed that recreation-
al programming would "cool down" the ghettoes in the summer.
it is unlikely that increased recreational programming
will immediately reduce juvenile delinquency and misbehavior.
Although personality may be correlated with the type of
recreational activity preferred, a change in recreation will
not produce a change in personality type-76 Experience with
outdoor nature programs for urban children confirms that
"there is little indication that outdoor education exper-
iences have much carry over to the other dimensions of
life.',77 It is clear that recreation and physical health
are positively correlated. But much.research is needed to
justify or replace the simplistic "constructive use of lei-
sure time" approach which has dominated discussions of recrea-
tion and mental health.

IV.D Recommendat ions

There ate several recourses that would alleviate the
present situation in urban recreation. The most important,
of course, is the necessary research into the need for recrea-
tion by various groups and the impact of recreation on the
psychological environment of the city. However, some action

must be taken to correct inequities of the recreation situa-
tion before research can be completed. A first goal would be
to equally distribute recreation opportunities within cities.
This could be accomplished by'acquiring small parcels of land
and acquiring leases or easements on land which is temporarily
vacant. Flexibility of playground and park equipment would
make it possible for municipal park and recreation depart-
ments to take advantage of the changing configuration of open
space in the central city. At present, acquisition of land
within the central city should have a higher priority than
land acquisition in other parts of the metropolitan areas.
Similarly, when funds for intensely developed recreation areas
must compete with park land or open space, the intense recrea-
tion plans should be favored. Federal money should be avail-
able for year round operation, maintenance and program costs.
Federal development of areas like Gateway in New York should
be encouraged.
In recreation areas, an increase in supervision and pro-
,grams offered will increase use of presently underused parks.
While no statistics are available, the use of Central Park
seems to have increased since the recent restaurants, special
events, and nighttime plays and concerts were introduced.
Natural areas within acity should be maintained for
the positive effect these areas have on the urban climate and
pollution control. Also, natural areas can help form a sense
of "place" among urban residents. The virgin ecosystem,
which every city has invaded, exists in remnants in some city
parks, in small marshes and meadows and on the riverfronts.
These small areas, if developed properly, can form elements
of a city's identity and serve educational as well as rec.rea-
tionalpurposes.
Once research has been conducted, the techniques for
.implementing the findings on a municipal level must be
improved'.@ Neighborhoods and community action groups must
play a more significant role in recreational planning and
decision making.
The problems of the urban environment are interrelated
and it is difficult for ghetto residents to separate recrea-
tional problems from the myriad of others confronting them
daily. It is clear, however, that recreation has a positive
effect on the physical and mental environment of city
dwellers. By providing adequate recreational facilities' with-
in central cities, the inequities of recreational land distri-
bution in the United States can be alleviated. If recreation-
al land can make the cities more livable, some of the pres-
sure will be alleviated in the other recreational lands in
the country.

FOOTNOTES

1. C. Bisselle, S. Lubore, R. Pikul, National Environmental
Indices: 'Air Quality 'and outdoor Recreation,(T e MITRE Corp.,
XP'ril 197-2T-, P. 131. -

2. An urban resident is defined by the Census Bureau as a
resident of a community of 2,500 or more. A Standard
Metropolitan StatIstical'Area is "a county or group of con-
tiguous counties Which co-Et-ains at least one city of 50,000
inhabitants or more, or twin cities with a combined population
of at least 50,000 . . . . contiguous counties are included
in an SMSA if, according to certain criteria, they are essen-
tially metropolitan in character and are,socially and econo-
mically integrated with the central city." For the purposes
of this study, the term "urban" will be roughly synonymous
with central cities of SMSA's. In this introduction, however,
the use of "urban" will mean metropolitan according to the
Census Bureau definition. U. S., Bureau of the Census,
Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 37, "Social and
U-c-o-n-o-m-1-c Characteristics @T the Population in metropolitan
and Non-Metropolitan Areas: 1970 and 1960," (Washington, D.C.:,
Government Printing Office, 1971), p. 9.

3. Percent of U.S. Percent of National
Population Park Visitors 18 and
City Size 18 and over over

Rural 29.1 30.6
2,500-99,000 20.1 25.0
100,000-999,999 20.8 20.2
1,000,000 and over 30.0 24.2

John P. Keith and John P. Milsop, Park Space'for Urban
America, a submission to the Urban Task Force of the Conserva-
tion Foundation Study of the Department of Interior's Second
Century, mimeographed, revised February, 1972, p. 8. Source
of figures - the National Park Service.

4. Rabel Burdge, Outdoor Recreation Studies: Vacations and
(Unive
Weekends, A.E. and R.S. rsity Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania
State University, 1967), pp. 8, 18.

5. The problems of indoor vs. outdoor occur with the Bureau
of Outdoor Recreation's distribution of money from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund and other sources. This money is
normally earmarked solely for outdoor purposes.--Many speakers
at the recent BOR hearings suggested that the Bureau's name
be changed to the Bureau of Recreation and that fund alloca-
tion cease discriminating against indoor activities.

6. Such groups as the YMCA, YWCA, Boy and Girl Scouts,
Athletic Clubs, private day nurseries, to name a few, are all
involved in recreation.

7. The use of standards, such as the National Recreation
Association's ten acres of municipal park land / thousand
persons, has recently come under attack. The NRA standard,
for example., would require more park acreage on Manhattan
than the total area of the Island. For discussions, see
Henry M. Levin, Estimati , g.the Municipal Demand for Public
Recreational Lana__Mashington, D.C.: 'TTFe B-r-`-o-o'RT1n;Ts-IHstitution,
October 196iT,_@`p. 8-11, and Gerald F. Vaughn, "In Search of
Standards for Preserving Open Space," Public Administration
Review XXIV (December, 1964), 254-58.

8. The City Recreation Index used as its parameters 1) acres
in recreation, 2) number of areas 3) dollars spent on opera-
tions and maintenance, 4) number of employees and 5) crime as
a deterrent to park use. The City Accessibility Index mea-
sured acres capacity and number of areas in two zones (0-25
and 25-50 miles) surrounding the city. Bisselle, Lubore, and
Pikul, National Environmental Indices, pp. 22, 191.

9. Ibid., pp. 127-28.

10. New York City Department of City Planning, Recreation
Needs in the City 2f New York (July 1965), pp. 111 1-4.

11. Marion Clawson, "Open (Uncovered) Space as a New Urban
Resource," in H. Perloff, ed., The Quality of the Urban
Environment (Baltimore: Resourc@j`sf6_r -the FU_tuj7e_, Y_nc., 1969),
pp. 160-61.

12. Joseph Shomon, Open Land for Urban America: Acquisitions,
Safekeeping and Use TBaltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971),
P. 5.

13. Dwight Rettie, quoted in Committee on Architecture for
the Arts and Recreation of the American Institute of Archi-
tects, "The American Endless Weekend"' (draft, October, 1971),
p. 77,

14. Some-cities, like Philadelphia, had minimum acreage
standards for recreation areas. Philadelphia's three acre
minimum for playgrounds seems to have effectively prevented
the purchase of smaller lot 's. This standard has been dropped,
but the reluctance on the part of city officials to purchase
many small areas rather than one large one is probably wide-
spread., Community Council of Greater New York, Urban Parks
and Recreation: Challenge of the 1970's (New Yor ebruary,
1972 2-33. .

15. Jerome Pickard, "U.S. Metropolitan Growth and Expansion,
1970-2000, with Population Projections," prepared for the
Commission on-Population Growth and the American Future,
draft, (Washington: Urban Land Institute, July, 1971),
pp. 1-2. The definition of "metropolitan area" used in this
report is slightly different than the Census' SMSA. The ULI

study restores a county definition to New England SMSA's,
includes "Proto-metropolitan areas (cont i i urbanized
aining an
area with a total population of at least 50,000)," and merges
some adjacent SMSA's into a single metropolitan area.

.16. Committee on Architecture for the Arts and Recreation,
"The American Endless Weekend," p. 46.

17.. Diana Dunn, "1970: Urban Recreation and Park. Data
Bench Mark Year," Parks and Recreation, VI (February 1971),
p. 36.

18. Will 'iam R. Burch, Jr., and Merlin Shelstad, "Nature,
Forests and Urban Children - Some Preliminary Findings,"
revised version of paper presented to the 1971 National Con-
vention of the Society of American Foresters in Cleveland
Ohio, pp. 8-9.

19. U.S., Bureau of Census, Current Population Reports, p. 1.

20. William J. Emrie, Recreation Problems in the Urban
Impacted Areas of California, prepared for the League of
California 'Cities, County Supervisors Association of Califor-
nia and the California Department of Parks and Recreation
(Sacramento: 1970), p. 3. The study's definition of urban
impacted area is "multi-neighborhood portions of our largest
cities, which exhibit abnormal concentrations of social mala-
dies."

21. Ibid., p. 10. In 1969, $3,743 for a nonfarm family of
four was the income cutoff marking the poverty line.

22. Ibid., p. 76. This compared to a 17.1% poverty level for
the non-metropolitan population.

23. Emrie, Recreation Problems, p. 6.

24. Burch and Shelstad, "Nature, Forests and Urban Children,"
pp. 9-10.

25. Harold Lewis Malt Associates, An Analysis of Public Safety
as Related to the Incidence of Crime in Parks and fe-creation
j@r_e@Ts @in CeiTt_r@il_Cities, PFa T report HUD contract H-1481,
ch, 1971, p. 7.

26. Shomon,,Open Land for Urban Amer ica, p. 95.

27. U. S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insu-,
lar Affairs, Gateway National Recreation Area, Hearings, John
Lindsay beforW-the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation, on
1193 and S. 1852, 92d Cong., lst sess., 1971.

28. The various means for increasing the "carrying capacityll
.of urban parks include longer hours, more planned programst
better supervision and better 'maintenance of facilities.
Fragile ecosystems are seldom a problem in central cities.,
and therefore the "carrying capacity" is not limited by physi-
cal factors. Most metropolitan recreational land is "typo-
graphically 'self-preserving"', ORRRC Study Rep 21: The
Future of OUtdoorRecreation in ffe-trop6litan Areas ZTE Eh-e
Unit 9-talt"e'-s7-Washington, D.C.: Government PrinUil-nTOT-fir-ce,
I 9-6-Z -, F. -3,

29. Clawson, "Open (Uncovered) Space," p. 150.

30. Samuel Klausner, "Recreation as Social Action," in A
Program for Outdoor Recreation Research (Washington, D.C.%
National Academy of ScienZFes, 1969), p. 69.

31. Alvar L. Nieves and Rabel Burdge Black-White Differ-
ences in the use of Leisure," draft oi paper presented at the
34th Annual Meeting of the Southern Sociological Society,
Miami Beach, Florida, May 6, 1971, p. 13. This study is one
of very few that have attempted to relate socioeconomic
variables to use of leisure time or recreation participation.

32. Edwin J. Staley, "Determining Neighborhood Recreation
Priorities: An Instrument," Journal of Leisure Research,
I (Winter 1969), p. 70.

33. Ibid., p. 69.

34. ORRRC Study Report 21, p. 10.

35. Robert Everly, "Put Parks Where the People Are," The
American City, March 1972, p. 72.

.36. Vaughn, "In Search of Standards," p. 258.

37. Michael J. Ellis, "The Rational Design of Playgrounds,"
in Educational Products Information Exchaage Institute Product
Report, VIII - Ix (177-0), p. 9.

38. Michael J. Ellis, "Play: Theory and Research," revised
article based on a presentation to the National Symposium on
Park Recreation and Environmental Design (Chicago: February
16, 1971), p. 3.

39. Kirschner Associates, Inc., A National Evaluation of the
Summer 1970 Neighborhood Youth Corps Recreation Support Program,
prepared for U.S., Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, December 1970.

40. Emrie, Recreation Problems, pp. xi, 6.

579-272 0 - 7

41. At the Gateway Hearings, Richard Plunkett of the
National Audubon Society gave "the numberof carless house-
holds within two hours of Gateway. . . as 28%,. . . 14% of
the carless households in the Nation." ORRRC Study Report 21,
P. 10.

42. New York Times editorial of February 21, 1972, quoted in
the Conservation Foundation's Task Force report, "The National
Park System and Urban America," (Washington, D.C.: The
National Conservation Foundation, 1972), p. 6.

43. Paul M. Friedberg, Play and Interplay (New York: Mac-
millan, 1970), pp. 129-134.

44. Ibid., pp. 91-94.

45 Report of. the National Advisory Commis ,s.i,on on civil
Disorders (New York: Bantam Books, 1968), p. 8.

46. National League of Cities, Department of Urban Studies,
Recreation in the Nation's Cities: Problems and Ap@roaches,
prepare e Bureau of OutdZ53`r Recreation .(Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1968), p. 4.

47. Charles Cicchetti provides an excellent statement of
this problem in "Some Economic Issues in Planning Urban
Recreation Facilities," Land Economics, XLVII (February, 1971),
pp. 14-23.

48. National League of Cities, Recreation in the Nation's
Cities, p. 17.

49. Ibid., p. 23.

50. Simpson F. Lawson, ed., Workshop on Urban Open Space
'iintiRg-Of Fir-ce, M-9)
(Washington, D.C.: Government P
pp. 14-17. Another discussion of community involvement is
in Community Council of Greater New York, Urban Parks and
Recreation, pp. 46-51.

51. William Emrie describes the action of the Model Cities
program in California as "a start," however "the attempts to
combine the necessary sophisticated planning and a high degree
of grassroots' participation appears to have imposed a severe
strain on the programs in California. In many of these pro-
grams, recreation and leisure activities appear to be, at
best, a superficial consideration." Emrie, Recreation
Problems, p. 1.

52. National League of Cities, Recreation in the Nationts
Cities., p. 15.

53. John G. Williams, "Staff.Development," galley sheets of
NRPA forum in Houston, October 18, 1971.

54. Klausner, "Recreation as Social Action," p. 69.

55. Vaughn, "In Search of Standards," p. 257.

56. John V. Krutilla and Jack L. Knetsch, "Outdoor Recreation
Economics, Annals'of the Ameri can'Academy of Political and
Social Science, -CCCLXXXIX (May, 17970), 69.

57. John L. Lindsay and Richard A. Ogle, "Socioeconomic
Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Use Near Urban Areas," Journal
of Leisure Research, IV (1972), 19-24.

58. The Land and Water Conservation Fund provided $103,200,000
to local governments from its inception in 1965 through
December 31, 1970. The grants are in the form of 50% match-
ing funds. During the same period a total of $224,000,000 was
provided for state and regional agencies and $471,666,722 to
Federal Agencies (NPS, FS, BSFW, and BLM). Not only have
Federal agencies acquiring land often far removed from urban
centers received more than 50% of the L &,WCF monies, but also
allocation procedures written into the law by Congress have
further restricted the amount of money spent in Urban areas.
The Conservation Foundation desdribes the result: in fiscal
1972, for example, the per capita allocations for such open
states as Wyoming and ia-a-ho were 6.44 and $3.28 respectively,
while states with denser populations had to be content with far
less - $1 for New Jersey, 87 cents for New York and $1.26 for
Maryland. Conservation Foundation, CF Newsletter, March 1972,
p. 2.

59. A study of New York noted that "the Department of Parks
does not have adequate recreation personnel. Only one-half
of the park playgrounds have year round leadership . . . . cur-
tailing programs and shifting personnel constantly is not a
sound recreation practice." New York City Department of City
Planning, Recreation Needs, p. 111-14.

60. Dwight Rettie, interview with authors, July 1972.

61. Malt Associates, "An Analysis of Public Safety," pp. 4-17.

62. Jane Jacobs, "The Uses of Sidewalks: Assimilating Child-
ren," in Harold Proshansky, William Ittelson, and Leanne
Rivlin, editors, Environmental Psychology (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1970), p. 383.

63. Anthony Gramza, "New Directions for the Design of Play
Environments," presented at the National Symposium on Parks,
Recreation, and Environmental Design, Chicago, February 16,
1971,.p. 5.

64. Ellis, "The Rational Design of Playgrounds," p. 8.

65. Nanine Clay, "Miniparks - Diminishing Returns," Parks
and Recreation, VI (January 1971), p. 23.

66. Quoted in Ibid., p. 25.

67. Friedberg, Play and Interplay, p. 153.

68. Ibid., p. 15.

69.' ORRRC Study Report 21, p. 29.

70. D. James Lindsay, "Protecting and Managing Trees and
Wooded Areas Subjected to Heavy Recreational Use," Symposium
on Trees and Forests in an Urbanizing Environment (University
of achusetts: Cooperative Extension Service, 1970), p. 113.

71. Saul Rich, "Effects of Trees and Forests in Reducing Air
Pollution," in Trees and Forests in an Urbanizipq Environment
(University of Ma-ssac setts: Cooperative Extension Service,
1970), pp. 29-33.

72. Raymond Leonard, "Effects of Trees and Forests in Noise
Abatement," Trees and Forests in an Urbanizing Environment
(Amherst: Un'1vers1EY-6Y -massacRusetts, August 1970), p. 38.

73. Wilfrid Bach, "7 Steps to Better Living on the Urban
Heat Island," Landscape Architecture, LXI (January, 1971),
pp. 136-137.

74. Ibid., p. 137.

75. Vaughn, "In Search of Standards," p. 254.

76. Abbott Ferriss, "Social and Personality Correlates of
Outdoor Recreation," Annals of the American Academy of Poli-
tical and Social Sciences, CCCLXXXIX (Ra-y-,1970), 1 =50.

77. Burch and Shelstad, "Nature, Forests and Urban Children,"
p. 17.

SECTION V
FUTURE RECREATION TRENDS

Future recreation trends necessitate balancing numbers
of participants and types of use with environmental considera-
tions. All forecasts of participation reveal an accelerating
demand for the outdoors. The Bureau of outdoor Recreation
anticipates a 160% increase in recreation occasions from 1965
to 2000.1 All factors contributing to recreational demand --
leisure time, education, disposable income, population growth,
and mobility -- will continue to change in the direction of
increased participation.

V,A Population Growth Factors

The recreation demand of a growing population will place
even greater pressure upon existing facilities. Population
projections for the years 1980 and 2000 indicate sustained
growth within a broad spectrum of patterns. The limits of
this range are represented by Bureau of the Census population
series B and E. Series B (3100 children born per 1000 women)
and Series E (2100 children born per 1000 women) are the high-
est and lowest birth rates currently being predicted. These
patterns would result in significantly different population
sizes. While series B leads to an increase from the 1970
population of 16.9% in 1980 and 58.4% in 2000, series E only
produces a rise of 11.3% and 31.5% respectively. Both cases
result in growing recreation demand, but at rates which may
have differential environmental impact.2
Growth in accordance with series B would result in more
rapidly accelerating demand and participation in outdoor
recreation. Unless the supply of facilities were greatly
expanded or access is restricted, the sheer number of parti-
cipants and intensity of use might threaten the reusability
of the recreational resource. More people intensify the
problems of congestion and ecological damage.
These growth limits result in significant demographic
changes as well. The age distribution for series B in 1980
and 2000 nearly duplicates that of 1970, while series E would
lead to a much older population (see Table 5.1). The concen-
tration of a less rapidly growing populace in older age cate-
gories is quite evident. Median age for series B in 1980 and
2000 is 27.8 and 27.2 years respectively; for series B it is
29.3 and 34.0 years.3 Whether the shift in age distribution
will affect demand or participation in certain activities is
difficult to assess. One analysis points to the negative
effect of increased age upon.participation as the most impor-
tant result of series E growth.4 Investigation is needed to
determine the age sensitivity of various outdoor activities.
Recreation planning must consider the potential implications
of an older population for outdoor involvement.

TABLE - 18

Population Distribution by Age

Series'B Series E

19710 1980 .2000 1980 2000
Under 16 years 30.7% 29.4% 31.4% 25.9% 24.2%
16 to 24 years 15.7% 16.0% 15.6% 16.8% 13.6%
25 to 54 years 34.9% 35.7%. 36.9% 37.5% 42.9%
55 years and over 18.7% 18.9% 16.1% 19.8% 19.4%

Source: Denis F. Johnston, "The Future of Work: Three
Possible Alternatives," monthly Labor Review,
LXXXXV (May, 1972), 7.

All population projections assume an increasing concen-
tration of Americans in metropolitan areas. While 71% of the
1970 population resided in a metropolitan center, an antici-
pated 85% will do so by 2000. This trend is particularly
evident in the metropolitan units of on 'e million inhabitants
or more. In 1970 44% of the population lived in such areas
and by'2000 65% (series B) or 63% (series E) will be metro-
politan dwellers. Many of these urban centers lie along the
coasts, implying increased demand for shoreline recreation.
Substantial growth in western and southern cities will increase
use of the public lands. Unless recreational facilities are
integrated in the planning of metropolitan regions, the addi-
tional residents will utilize federal, state, local, and pri-
vate areas for outdoor activity.5
As the population increases proportionately.. more Ameri-
cans will engage in outdoor activities. Recent studies con-
firm that professional and white-collar workers with advanced
education and good income are the most active outdoor parti-
cipants. Professional and technical jobs arecurrently ex-
panding twice as fast as the total labor force.6 the trend
toward a better educated population will continue through
1980. The high schoo 1 graduation rate, proportion of young
people earning college degrees, and the proportion of advanced
degrees earned will be greater in 1980-81 than in 1970-71.7
As education stimulates interest in all forms of outdoor
activity, a 7% annual rise in disposable income during the
'1970's will facilitate participation.8 During the next
decades moreAmericans will gain the jobs, education-, and
income that provide the opportunity and interest to use the
public lands, shoreline, and private facilities..

V-B Increased Leisure Time

A population increasingly capable and desirous of out-
door involvement can only participate during nonwork time.
All forecasts predict increased leisure for Americans, but
the form this takes may be the most important factor contri-
buting to the magnitude and consequences of participation.

Whether free time occurs at the end of each day or is concen-
trated on long weekends or vacations will affect the demand
Tor nearby and distant facilities. Recent trends indicate an
increase in blocks of leisure time which encourages recrea-
tional movement to distant outdoor areas.9
Shortening the workweek has appeared as the most innova-
tive means of expanding free time.lu The progress and effects
of such a change are documented in Kenneth E. Wheeler's study
for the American Management Association entitled The Four-Day
Week. Mr..Wheeler estimated that approximately 100,000
employees in 700 to 1000 manufacturing firms were currently
working a reduced workweek. Based on a survey of American
Management Association member companies, he concluded that
"within little more than five years, and surely within ten,
a sizable segment, if not a majority of American workers may
experience a workweek of four days -- and in some cases even
fewer."11
'to Current usage of the term four-day week usually refers
the compression of present working hours (approximately 40)
into four rather than five working days. Management has in
every case initiated this rearrangement in work time. Employ-
ers are attempting to increase output and recruitment, improve
customer and employee relations, and reduce absenteeism, tar-
diness, and turnover.12 The effort to maximize efficiency
with constant labor costs concentrates leisure time in a lar-
ger and.more usable form.
While labor has traditionally sought fewer work and
greater leisure hours, it refuses to accept a shortening of
the workweek accompanied by a lengthening of the work day.
The eight hour day represents a major achievement for organi-
zed labor. I.W. Abel, president of the United Steel Workers,
insists that American labor wants work opportunity for more
persons through "less hours of work Tand 7 fewer days of
work.13 Apart from the questions of-fatigue and health ari-
sing from long working hours, labor's best interests are not
served in'assenting to a four day, forty hour arrangement.
AFL-CIO economist Rudy Oswald insists that the "forty-hour
week is already dead," and must now be replaced.by a four-
day, thirty-two hour week.14 Organized labor seeks an increase
in leisure time, but one that does not jeopardize current
wage and hour levels.
Leaders of the United Auto Workers emphasize the need
for increased leisure to compensate for unrewarding work.
Douglas A. Fraser, UAW vice-president, believes rearranged
and shortened work schedules will help calm the.growing pro-
portion of young laborers. Repetitive tasks force employees.
to turn to cultural and recreational activities for personal
satisfaction and a sense of achievement. Thus more time will
be needed for leisure pursuits.15 Fewer days and fewer hours
appear to be future union bargaining demands.16
Even at this early stage, the consequences of four
consecutive work days and three-day weekends are discernible.
Most industry currently operates on a four-day week ten per-
cent of the year as a result of federal legislation. Since

1971, five of the ten national holidays have been observed
on Mondays. The Discover American Travel Organization (DATO)
documented the "highly favorable-results which have accrued
to the travel industry" as a consequence of the additional
long weekends. This report indicates that those businesses.
which cater to tourists arriving in the family car are pro-
fiting most. Many resort or tourist areas experienced heavy
increases over normal weekends or over the same weekends
during the previous year. With more concentrated leisure
time people took more trips away from home.17
Riva Poor evaluated the effects of a shorter week by
interviewing the employees at thirteen four-day firms in
July and August, l970. For this limited sample, all free
time activities increased during the longer weekend. However,
the most significant gains'in recreation occurred in the cate-
gory of participant activities (travel, fishing and hunting,
athletics, swimming, and boating). Respondents increased
their travel by 152% and swimming and boating by 319% with
the additional leisure,day. over half the workers traveled
regularly now, as opposed to one-fourth before- One-third
of the sample spent more money on free time activities than
before the shorter week began. If these findings could be
generalized, the consequences for recreational lands and faci-
lities would be immense.18
These limited studies have focused on one dimension of
the four-day week, that which includes four days of ;work
followed by a long weekend. An investigation of the effects
of a shorter workweek upon transportation has made the alter-
natives inherent in a four-day scheme explicit. Although
average daily urban travel would not be affected by a reduced
workweek if everyone worked the same four days, peak period
traffic would be significantly altered. By varying the
sequence of working days and number of employees present on
any given day, five basic four-day schedules appear possible
(see Table 19 1. Comparison of the traffic conditions gener-
ated by each of these arrangements with user capacity on a
portion of the Los Angeles freeway system revealed those
patterns which maximized free flow traffic. Demand remained
in closest harmony with capacity when the four-day week was
equally rotated over six days (67% of the employees worked on
any given day). The next best solution was equal rotation of
employees over five days from Monday to Friday (80% of the
employees worked on any given day). Varying the workweek in
these ways distributed peak demand within capacity limita-
tions.19
Outdoor recreation demand can be spread in a similar
manner that reduces the intensity and hence impact of parti-
cipation. Research conducted by the Department of Transpor-
tation confirms that most outdoor activities are concentrated
on weekends. With most leisure time concentrated on Satur-
days and Sundays, these are the times of intense recreational
activity and resulting environmental damage. Variations of
the four-day week offer ways of distributing demand and there-
,by reducing impact.20

TABLE 19

Possible Weekly 4-Day Working Arrangements

Percent of Employees on
4-Day Working a Given Day
Work Schedule
M Tu W Th F S

1. Equally rotated M-F 80 80 80 80 80
2. 1/2 M-Th; 1/2 Tu-F 50 100 100 100 50
3. Equally rotated M-Sat 67 67 67 67 67 67
4. 1/3 M-Th; 1/3 Tu-F; 33 67 100 100 67 33
1/3 W-Sat
5. 1/2 M-Th; 1/2 W-Sat 50 50 100 100 50 50

Source: Vincent R. Desimone, "The 4-Day Workweek and Transpor-
tation," Joint ASCE-ASME Transportation Engineering
Meeting, Seattle, Washington, July 26-30, 1971.

Flexible work schedules can alleviate crowding on the
roads as well as in recreational areas. Four working days
spread over a five or six day period could provide larger
blocks of leisure time during different segments of the week.
Existing problems of congestion and excessive use are partially
a result of standardized work and leisure patterns. By con
centrating leisure during the week rather than only on the
weekend, and vacations throughout the year rather than only
in summer, existing demand could be satisfied without exceed-
ing an area's carrying capacity. Although distributing free
time conflicts with the traditional weekend and the rigidity
of the school system, this possibility allows maximum use of
existing facilities with minimal damage.
The possibilities inherent in a four-day scheme are
matched by the difficulties of affecting such a change.
Management and labor would have to adopt special procedures
to accomodate new production conditions. At present, basic
differences over the length of the work day and week obscure
the problems of adjustment. Labor is unlikely to consent to
more than an eight-hour day without overtime pay, nor is
management willing to reduce hours and maintain wages unless
substantial gains are made in productivity. Movement toward
a shorter week will come slowly, but fewer hours per day and
days per week seem eventually inevitable.21
Additional holidays and longer vacations will provide
more immediate increases in leisure time. Members of the
AFL-CIO are attaining ten and eleven paid holidays, while
office workers received an average of eight and plant workers
an average of 7.5 in 1968. Some unions have just negotiated
for seventeen paid holidays (Transit Union and New York
School District), while others have just won their thirteenth
(machinists at McDonnell-Douglas and the Ladies' Garment
Workers). These victories will encourage other unions to
seek similar benefits, leading to a greater average number of
holidays for all workers.22

Collective bargaining in 1971 also produced significant
vacation increases. Many industries reduced the eligibility
requirements for vacation' increments. More contracts joined
the trend of providing a fifth and sixth week of vacation for
long-service employees. other benefits such as plant shut-
downs between Christmas and New Years have also spread.23
Shortening the working life of Americans will continue
to provide large blocks of leisure time. The increase in
necessary educational attainment has delayed entrance into
the work force, thus allowing more discretionary time at a
young age. Retirement age is also decreasing, as illustrated
by the United Auto Workers' contract provision granting full
pension benefits at age 56 with thirty years of service. This
trend will become more widespread among laborers.24
Leisure time will steadily increase for,Americans during
the next few years. Rather than reductions in daily working
hours, this gain will be primarily concentrated in larger
units. More paid holidays, longer vacations, earlier retire-
ment, and additional schooling will allow blocks of time for
personal use. These will encourage frequent participation in
outdoor activities far from home. Visits to the national
parks and forests, shorelines, and mountain resorts will cer-
tainly rise.
Variations of the four-day week offer a major source of
leisure time as well as means of distributing recreational
demand. Fewer working days will allow greater involvement in
all outdoor events. However, the scheduling of nonwork time
can help allocate recreational use over the limited supply of
facilities. Fewer numbers of participants at any given time
may reduce ecological damage and enhance the quality of the
experience. Greater flexibility in work and leisure might
thus allow existing resources to satisfy growing recreation
demand with minimal impact. The federal government might
well discuss the potential of this scheme with both industry
and labor.
All factors contributing to outdoor recreation demand
point to a continuing boom in participation. As the oppor-
tunity and interest to pursue-outdoor activities increase, A_
the reusability of limited resourceg will be ever more imper-
ative. Within the scope of governmental and private recrea-
tional planning, environmental considerations must increasing-
ly receive attention. Enjoyment of the outdoors for present
and future users necessitates knowledge of an area's sensiti-
vity. Unless attempts are made to balance numbers of parti-
cipants,.kinds of activities, and frequency of use with a
resourcels ecological and psychological carrying capacity,
the supply will deteriorate and the quality of experience will
decline. Current and future recreational planning must inte-
grate human desires with environmental necessities.

FOOTNOTES

1. U. S., Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation,'Outdoor Recreation Trends (Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 1-24.

2. Denis F. Johnston, "The Future of Work: Three Possible
Alternatives," Monthly Labor Review, LXXXXV (May, 1972), 7.

3. U. S., Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports,
Series P-25, No. 470, "Projection the Population of the
United States, by Age and Sex: 1970 to 202011 (Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1971).

4. Charles J. Cicchetti, "Population, Its Characteristics,
and Congestion as They Affect Participation in Outdoor
Recreation in the United States," Resource and Environmental
Consequences of Population Growth in the Uni-ted States,
unpublished paper, 1972.

5. Jerome Pickard, "U. S. Metropolitan Growth and Expansion,
1970-2000, with Population Projections," prepared for the
Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, to
be published in 1972, p. 1.

6. Seymour Wolfbein, Work in American Society (Glenview,
Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1971), pp. 45-46.

7. U. S., Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Office of Education, National Center for Educational Statis-
tics, Projections of Educational Statistics to 1980-81
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing office, 1972),
p. 2. These statistics actually minimize the educational
attainment of the population; many high school diplomas and
bachelor's degrees are earned by people older than the common
graduation age.

8. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Changing Leisure
Markets, March, 1972.

9. Janice Neipert Hedges, "A Look at the 4-Day Workweek,"
Monthly Labor Review, LXXXXIV (October, 1971), 33-37.

10. Time-budget analysis in the Soviet Union has dispelled
the notion that reductions in worktime necessarily imply
.gains in leisure time. Prukinsky's findings in 1959 indicated
"that despite a shorter workweek and the freeing of Russian
women from almost an hour of housework over the intervening
35 years, the amount of discretionary 'leisure' time had
increased only slightly among women and had actually declined
for men. The decreases in work and housework had been absor-
bed by marked increases in the amount of time spent waiting
in queues and shopping, as well as traveling to and from work."

John P. Robinson and Philip E. Converse, "Social Change
Reflected in the Use of Time," in Campbell and Converse,
The Human Meaning of Social !C@han ge (New York: Russell Sage
F-ou-n a@a -ti o n_,1_977_2T,_pp. 1-8-19.

11. Kenneth E. Wheeler, Richard Gurman, and-Dale Tarnowieski,
The Four-Day Week, AMA Research Report (New York: American
Management Association, Inc., 1972), p. 6.

12. Riva Poor, ed., 4 D Iays, 40 Hours, Reporting a Revolution
in Work and Leisure (Cambridge, Mass.: Bursk and f'o-or, 1970),,-
p. 15.

13. "Why the Work Week Pattern is Changing," Business Week,
March 13, 1971, pp. 108-109.

14. Rudy Oswald, "The Union View of the Rearranged Workweek,"
Speech before the 43rd Annual Personnel Conference, American
Management Association, Chicago, February 10, 1972.

15. Wheeler, Gurman, and Tarnowieski, Four-Day Week, pp.
36-37.

16. United Auto Workers, Solidarity, XV (April, 1972), 14.

17. Discover America Travel Organizati 'on, DATO Development
Planning Council, "Interim Report, Impact of Monday Holiday
Legislation," December, 1971, p. 7.

18. Poor, 4 Days, 40 Hours, pp. 105-106, 114-16.

19. Vincent R. Desimone, "The 4-Day Work Week and Transpor-
tation," Joint ASCE-ASME Transportation Engineering Meeting,
Seattlef Washington, July 26-30, 1971). These calculations
were based upon the assumption that in one case 100% and in
another 35% of the work force would be on a four-day week.
The.results discussed above apply to both cases and are
significant since at most 35% to 40% of the labor force would Aq
be affected by the four-day week before 1990.

20. U.S., Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, "Weekend Recreational Travel Patterns,"
Highway Planning Technical Report, No. 18 (February, 1971),
pp. 4-14.

21. Hedges, "Look at the 4-Day Workweek," pp. 35-36.

22. Rudy Oswald and Phillip Ray, "Collective Bargaining:
New Outlook in 1972," reprinted from AFL-CIO American
Federationist, March, 1972.

23. Ibid.

24. Correspondence with Paul A. Wagner, United Auto Workers,
Washington, D.C.

i
T

SELECTED WATER 4-
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS

INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
4, T,Oe -5, -Rbp6ii
Studies in Environment Volume V Outdoor Recreation
and the Environment

i A&hor'
Benno Kimmelman, Keith Bildstein, Paul Bujak,
_P, J@@
William Horton and Mary Savina.
garizat" n

Homer Hoyt Institute 801473
Washington,-D.C.
1Repo-
F
Al 0- _0
P

15, sa"JI lome'laory Nay:es
Environmental Protection Agency report number,
EPA-600/5-73-012e, February 1974.

lci,

Increases in discretionary time (time free from "earning a living") over the past
number of years have dramatically increased the pursuit of leisure activities.
Reductions in the length of the work week, increases in paid holidays, longer
vacations, and early retirement all foster increases in leisure activities, as do
the rise in personal disposable income and higher levels of educational attainment.
Add to these factors the increase in mobility, and the resulting boom in recreation
is almost obvious.

The increasing tendency toward recreational activity has notably placed a heavy
demand on existing facilities and has also created a shortage of recreational
facilities during peak vacation periods. This potential strain on the ecological
carrying capacity of recreational areas is an ever-increasing environmental concern.
This study focuses on the problems and potentials between outdoor recreation and
the environment. The areas studied include recreation on private land, along
coastal areas, national parks and urban areas. All of the.factors contributing to
recreational demand--leisure time, education, disposable income, population growth
and mobility--are forecasted to increase and will result in increased participation
in recreational activities.

17a. Descriptors

17b. Identifiers

17c, C01YRRField& Group
&
"'i @,q
N 6.r, ap" 'Ig
I @ ,- t.", IM Send To:

WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENTOFTHE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20240

]RD 674
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AeENCY
Forms and Publications Center
Route 8, Box 116, Hwy. 70, West POSTAGE AND FEES PA&D
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 XIMROMMKIWAL PROTECTION AGUNCT

EPA-335
Official Business

,00) sr4 -- -- --- --- --- - - -
'i 10 A% 40

a)
(0
u@d)

Cl)
N
6
Z@
cc:

If your addren is incorrect, piesse change on the above label;
tear off, and return to the above address.
If you do not devire to continue receiving this technical report
series, C=CL HERE 0 tear off label, wW return it to the
above address,
MMAT