COUNTY PARK SYSTEMS IN MICHIGAN: AN ANALYSIS OF SPATIAL LOCATIDNAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DAVID McCREERY 1970 III; IIIIIIILIII III II III III IIIIIIIIZI I91 I 1/, ,.M._ _ ....:.- 1'": M AF 3 L [B R ., :d‘fiighigfin Sig-IT?! W- (.1 , "‘1‘? ‘Ky'f " Igma‘ -4 new «#7 2.1??? .‘Ww Ln}; “.I-«r: ”TAT”? 13""rnarm R‘ ’1, [£va ABSTRACT COUNTY PARK SYSTEMS IN MICHIGAN: AN ANALYSIS OF SPATIAL, LOCATIONAL, AND ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS By David McCreery This study was concerned with an evaluation of size, acreage, location, and administration for county park systems in Michigan. Evaluation, in turn, necessitated a knowledge of the roles county parks played in the provision of outdoor recreation services for the residents of Michigan. Once the roles were determined, a means of evaluating the counties' performance was necessary. Performance was measured by comparing existing characteristics with related standards. The results of the compari— son indicated an evaluation of county park systems. Prior to the actual evaluative process it was necessary to substantiate the concept that recreation was a valid function of county government. To accomplish that objective it was necessary to trace significant developments and philosophies in recreation. David McCreery Recreation was shown to have been an integral component in the lives of all people. The values attributed to recreation have been largely determined by social, economic, and political institutions in power. In the Greek and Roman periods recreation was con- sidered a natural expression of life. During the Middle Ages the Catholic Church altered the concept of recreation. Recreation was then considered a re ~creative function enabling man to prepare for the succeeding day' s labors. England was credited with several significant trends. First, William the Conqueror established the county as the primary unit of local government. Second, the use of parks became the privilege of all citizens. Finally, the informal concept of park design replaced the more formal parks established in France and Italy. As a colony of Great Britain, the United States inherited the three trends previously indicated. A strictly American influence on recreation was the Puritan Ethic, i. e. , recreational activities were sinful and therefore not accepted by society. The Puritan Ethic has continued to influence Americans' concept of recreation, though the degree of influence has diminished significantly. ‘ Though it was difficult to analyze philosophies of recreation in the current society, the trend appeared to have been in the direction of considering recreation as a socially constructive product. David McCreery Recreation was thought to have been one of several factors creating a mentally and physically stable society. Because recreation personified social values it, like education, was considered a valid governmental responsibility. Given the various levels of government, the problem often encountered was that of allocating responsibilities between the governing agencies. The county has been considered an intermediary agency working between the city and State. The nature of county services encompassed a wide variety of recreational functions, depending on the local requirements. However, the county was generally thought to have been primarily responsible for day -use recreation services. In an attempt to evaluate the four criteria previously indicated the following standards were adopted: 1. Each county park system should have a separate county park and recreation commission as a poli cy- making body. 2. Some county parks and recreation facilities should be within at least fifteen miles of each county resident' 3 home. 1Day -users were those persons spending an entire day, or part of a day, at a park. David McCreery 3. County parks, excluding roadside parks, should be between 100 and 400 acres in size. 4. Total county park acreage should meet or exceed that amount prescribed by the supply -demand standard indicated in Chapter Four for any given county. Each county in Michigan was numerically evaluated accord- ing to the four standards. The scores were then totaled. The total score indicated either compliance or degrees of non -compliance with suggested standards. The results of the evaluative technique indicated that there were three distinct groups of counties in the State. Group One either satisfied the four requirements or was relatively close to satisfying them. Group Two was composed of counties having somewhat greater degrees of non —compliance with the four standards. Group Three counties were those with the least compliance with the standards. Only one county, Genesee County , met all four suggested standards. The remaining 82 counties proved the second hypothesis (county park systems in Michigan are inadequate) correct. COUNTY PARK SYSTEMS IN MICHIGAN: AN ANALYSIS OF SPATIAL, LOCATIONAL, AND ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS By David McCreery A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Park and Recreation Resources 1970 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to all those who have assisted me with the preparation of this thesis. I am particularly indebted to Mr. Douglas M. Crapo, Instructor, Department of Park and Recreation Resources. . His diligent assistance during the thesis preparation and personal friend- ship have been an invaluable asset. Special thanks is also extended to Professor Louis Twardzik and Dr. Michael Chubb for their contributions to the thesis and my education. I would like to thank Mr. William Colburn, Recreation Resources Planning Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Michi - gan, for his assistance in data collection and thesis suggestions. Thanks are also extended to: Mr. Kenneth Smithee, Genesee County Park and Recrea- tion Director, and Mr. Sanford Farness, Department of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture, for their time and assistance as part of my guiding committee; other graduate students and friends in the Departments of Resource Development and Park and ii Recreation Resources for their informal contributions to my educafion. Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Inez. Her loyal support and patience made the most difficult periods more bear- able. iii TABLE OF CON TENTS Page LISTOFTABLES....................vii LISTOFFIGURES....................viii CHAPTER I. AN INTRODUCTION TO COUNTY PARK ANALYSIS.................. 1 Introduction Statement of the Problem Significance of the Problem Limitations of the Study Assumptions Hypothesis Definitions II. A REVIEW OF TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS INFLUENCING COUNTY PARKS . . . . . . . . 11 Recreation in the Early Stages Greece Rome The Middle Ages —-A Change in Play Concept Early European Trends American Movement A Review of Recreation' 8 Development and Effect on the Present Society iv CHAPTER Page III. COUNTY RESPONSIBILITY AND A DETERMINA- TION OF RELATED STANDARDS . . . . . . . 40 A Policy for County Park and Recreation Systems Nature of County Park Systems Standards for County Park and Recreation Systems County Park and Recreation Administration County Park Size County Park Location--As Related to Time- " Distance Supply-Demand Analysis Standards Summary IV. RESULTS OF COUNTY PARK FINDINGS . . . . 71 Data Collection County Park Administration County Park Space Requirements Size of Parks Service Areas Summary V. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS . .. . . . . . . . . 99 A Beginning Point for a County Park System Regional Developments County Park and Recreation Orientation Future Directions Results and Recommendations REFERENCESCITED 107 APPENDIX 1. 1969 COUNTY PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 12 II. COUNTY SOCIO - E CONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS . . l 13 A. SEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 13 B. EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 15 C. RACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 17 AP PE ND'IX D. INCOME E. AGE F. PLACE OF RESIDENCE (DENSITY) III. FINAL DETERMINATION OF DEMAND IV. SUPPLY-DEMAND, DEFICIENCY, AND ADEQUACY V. COUNTY SCORES AND TOTAL FOR EACH STANDARD vi Page 119 121 123 125 129 133 LIST OF TABLE S TABLE Page 1. Number of County Parks and Total Acreage Increases from 1900 to 1929 . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2. Number of County Parks and Total Acreage Increases from 1900 to 1940 . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3. Number of County Parks and Total Acreage Increases from 1925 to 1950 . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4. Breakdown of the Six Socio-E conomic Variables Used in Measuring Demand for County Recreation.................... 65 5. Supply and Demand for Huron -Clinton Metro - politan Authority and Member Counties . . . . . . 81 vii FIGURE 1. 10. LIST OF FIGURES Distribution of Forms of County Recreation Commissions The Number of Counties Requiring Specific Acreage Increases . . . . . . Distribution of County Acreage Deficiencies Service Areas Mapped for Six Regions in the State of Michigan Region One Service Areas Region Two Service Areas Region Three Service Areas Region Four Service Areas Region Five Service Areas Region Six Service Areas viii Page 76 78 79 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 CHAPTER I AN INTRODUCTION TO COUNTY PARK ANALYSIS Introduction In the past, county government has been a relatively insig- nificant supplier of park and recreation services. As the general demand for such services increased, counties have been gradually forced into a greater responsibility. The reason for county involvement has generally been credited to two factors. These factors, H. S. Duncombe stated, were: First, no other unit of government was providing these services for densely populated but unincorporated areas. Secondly, there are certain types of parks and recreational services that are better provided by a unit of government having a larger area than a city. In orderto satisfy residents' demand for these recreational services, as well as that demand created by nonresidents, some knowledge about county government was needed. 1.H. S. Duncombe, County Government in America (Wash— ington, D.C.: National Association of Counties, 1966), pp. 90-91. The need for adequate "standards"1 was apparent for three reasons. First, people demand a wide variety of recreational ser- vices of which, as Duncombe stated, the county provides only certain types. Therefore, standards that distinguish areas of emphasis for county government appear to have been a necessary requirement. Second, funding for any public endeavor was generally limited. Therefore, a basis for distributing scarce government funds was needed. Finally, federal, state, and local governments have been involved in the provision of recreation services for many years. The counties have not generally had the advantage of such long, practical experience. Therefore, in order to "supplement" the limited amount of knowledge available to county governments, it was felt that a set of standards was necessary. These standards would then be used as a guide in the development of county park and recreation systems. There has been considerable skepticism concerning the value of standards. Charles Doell attempts to resolve the argument by stating: . . Concerning park classifications and corresponding stan- dards that however inexact they may be, how general the need is for modifications in applying them, how subject they may be 1 . . . . . When used in conjunction With recreation, standards gen- erally refer to a minimum acceptable level of some recreation service or product. to criticism because of the unscientific way in which they have been compiled and the empherical experiences on which most reliance is placed, there is enough inherent merit in them to justify a high place in the list of tools which are used in evalu- ating and planning a park and recreational system. 1 Standards critics suggest that the current level of competency of standards research may cause errors in. analysis and subsequent decisions based on the incorrect analysis. However, until improved standards are developed, recreation practitioners will be forced to make decisions on unreliable standards. Assuming standards are a vital tool in recreation planning, the problem then becomes one of continually improving and re -evaluating standards. The standards developed in this study were an evaluation of, and suggested alter- native to, the previously used county park standards for acreage requirements, location, size, and administration. Statement of the Problem The problem was one of determining whether or not Michi - gan' 3 county park systems were fulfilling their responsibilities at an adequate level. In order to determine an answer to that problem, three areas had to be examined: 1. A measure of demand for county park services had to be determined. 1Charles E. Doell, Elements of Park and Recreation Administration (Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company, 1964), p. 27. 2. A knowledge of the current supply of county park facilities was required. 3. A knowledge of other interrelated factors affecting the development and use of parks had to be known. Given the information necessary to solve those problems, could a, logical answer be derived? Significance of the Problem It is generally accepted that man needs recreation. As S. R. Slavson stated: Everyone feels the need within himself for some satisfying occupations and diversions that will remove him, psycho- logically at least, from the activities of everyday living. This craving for difference and diversion is primary and basic to man as a biological, psychological, and social entity. Denying or starving it frequently leads to more orless serious person- ality difficulties, and a community that fails to supply recrea- tional outlets may in the long run pay dearly for it, both financially and through a loss of human resources. In Michigan, an increased concern has been expressed about the need for counties taking a more active role as suppliers of recreational services. That concern probably emanated from an increased demand by the people for "county orientated" services, while increases in supply remained relatively slight. In Oakland County the need for county recreation has been outlined as follows: 1S. R. Slavson, Recreation and the Total Personality (New York: Association Press, 1948). p. v. Every study shows a great deficiency in recreational facilities in the Counties' area of responsibility. We are beginning to see what should have seemed obvious before, that recreation for an urban population is also an essential and vital service, not just some kind of luxury. 1 It has been generally assumed that every county in Mi chi - gan required "more" County park and recreation space. However, relatively few attempts have been made that actually relate demand for county parks with the current supply. Therefore, determining the need for additional county parks has been primarily based on assumptions. The lack of a more scientific basis for measuring park requirements was particularly significant when counties tried to justify additional federal, state, and local funds for county parks. The actual determination of total "required" park acreage to serve the optimum recreational requirements of county residents has been one of the most significant problems encountered by most county park and recreation staff. Once an accurate measure of required acreage has been determined, the acreage should be dis - tributed throughout the county in a system of parks. Distribution, in turn, necessitated a knowledge of at least two additional factors. First, the county had to know what size each park should be to best serve its intended purpose. Second, the county had to ascertain the 1Gerald C. Lacey, The Creation of Recreation (Oakland County: Oakland County Parks and Recreation Commission, 1968), p. 3. optimal location of new park areas in order to best serve the requirements of the county residents. The factors of preferable location and size have been termed significant factors in the use of county parks. For example, in an attempt to answer a question of "how much recreation area was required, " Marion Clawson suggested: "The location of an area, its physical characteristics, its design, its administration, and other factors are often as important as the actual areal extent. "1 One further area of significance mentioned by Clawson concerned the type of governing body administering the county park and recreation system. The need for competent county leadership was aptly stated as follows: "Imaginative leadership in County gov- ernment is essential. The future of all people, now and forever, depends on this leadership and action. "2 In Michigan, most county park departments were initially developed as part of the county road departments. However, recent State legislation enabled the County Board of Supervisors to establish a separate county recreation commission. 3 The nature of the policy 1Marion Clawson, Economics of Outdoor Recreation (Balti - more: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966), p. 147. 2Lacey, op. cit. 3L. F. Twardzik, Summary of Laws Relating to Local Parks and Recreation (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1965), pp. 14-18. making body has significant influence on county park and recreation systems. That influence undoubtedly prompted the Michigan Outdoor Recreation Institute1 to encourage the establishment of park and recreation commissions in every county in Michigan. The significance of total acreage requirements, size of each park, park locations in relationship to home locations, and nature of the governing board are considered to be essential ingredients of a county park system. Knowledge of acceptable standards for each, so faras they can be developed, is essential in determining the quality of any county park and recreation system. Limitations of the Study The following are limitations of this study: 1. The study will examine only the following four char- acteristics of county park systems in Michigan: Required park acreage, size, location, and adminis- tration. 2. The‘study will utilize information on "supply” derived primarily from the 1969 County Park and Recreation Survey, Michigan State Association of Supervisors. Supplemental data will be used when available. 1The institute was jointly sponsored by the National Associa- tion of Counties and the Michigan State Association of Supervisors. It was held at the Sheriton Hotel, Detroit, in April, 1969. 3. The study- will utilize only those county characteristics derived from the 1960 United States Census of Popula— tion. 4. The study will analyze each county separately. Multi - county characteristics will be analyzed only where deemed necessary. Assumptions The following assumptions are made in this study: 1. The information derived from the Michigan State Asso- ciation of Supervisors' questionnaire, and other sources, is assumed to be correct. 2. Data collected from the 1960 U. S. Census of Popula- tion is assumed to be accurate. 3. Measured social and economic influences on recreation demand data derived from several sources is assumed to be accurate. Hypothesis It is hypothesized that recreation is a valid responsibility for county government. It is further hypothesized that county park systems are generally inadequate. This inadequacy will be measured by the following set of subhypotheses: The Each county system should have a separate county park and recreation commission as a policy -making body. Some county parks and recreation facilities should be within at least fifteen miles of each county resident' 3 home. County parks, excluding roadside parks, should be between 100 and 400 acres in size. Total county park acreage should meet or exceed that amount prescribed by the supply -demand standard indicated later in Chapter IV for any given county. Definitions following are definitions of terms used in this study: Standards: A general numerical basis for comparison or a criterion for measure employed by county park systems. Leisure: There are numerous definitions of leisure varying in interpretation with dates of origin. In this study the formal interpretation equating leisure with free -time will be used. Recreation: The refreshment of the mind and body through some means which in itself is pleasureful. Play: Similar to recreation, though generally asso— ciated with children. 10 County Park Supply: The number and size of park areas of facilities currently being provided by the county. County Recreation Demand: Like recreation and leisure, demand has several meanings. In the context of this study, demand means the total number of acres required to satisfy a given level of anticipated park use on a given date. Day -Use: Recreation experience lasting a single day, or a portion of that day. Regional Park: A recreation resource serving alarge percentage of residents from more .than one county. County Park: A recreation resource primarily serving residents of only one county. CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS INFLUENCING COUNTY PARKS The belief that recreation is a valid service of county government has been widely accepted. There exist, however, some people who suggest that recreation is not a governmental responsi - bility; rather, recreation is a personal value. Certainly the choice of participating in any given activity is, or should be, left to the individual. In Chapter 11, however, it will be shown that the desire forrecreation is inherent in society. Certain forms of recreation that cannot be met. on an individual basis then become a responsibility of government. Recreation in the Early Stages Archaeological evidence from primitive societies indicated that man' s time was consumed almost exclusively with such activities as food gathering and defense. Cave dwellers, for example, graphi - cally depicted hunting and fishing exploits on the walls of their homes. Today we generally consider these activities to be recreative 11 12 in nature. Whether these elements were construed as embodying recreative connotations for primitive man was difficult to sub- stantiate, since we lack knowledge of the values early manattributed to each. However, it has been stated that primitive man did play. In fact, according to Johan Huizinga, play occurred prior to culture. 1 That belief stemmed from viewing inferior animals engaged in play activities. It was likely that man' s early play activities had motivations attached to them other than the enjoyment of the activity itself. Woody reported that physical activities of primitive man logically fell into two major categories: (1) An informal apprenticeship by which he prepared .for the various physical occupations essential to life; and (2) play activities which may have served a utilitarian end ultimately, but were recreational and were engaged in primarily because they were fundamentally satisfying. According to Leo Frobenius, archaic man ”plays the order 3 of nature as imprinted on his conscious. " This "playing at nature," Frobenius explained, was the starting point of all social order and 1Johan Huizinga, Homo Ludens (Boston: Beacon Press, 1950), p. 1. 2Thomas Woody, Life and Education in Early Societies (New York: MacMillan Company, 1949), p. 20. 3Huizinga, op. cit., pp. 15—17. 13 thus social institutions. Through ritual play savage society gained its rudimentary governmental forms. 1 Through time, recreational activities such as hunting and fishing remained as popular pastimes. One can, in fact, allude to examples of similar behavior in our present society. However, during the same period marked transformations in the social institutions occurred, reflecting Frobenius' theory of play at nature. These transformations were due in part to a specialization in occu- pations. As a result, a few men were free to exercise much or all their time in pursuits other than food gathering. One such speciali - zation marked the beginning of organized religion, in which a few men dedicated themselves to interpreting nature for others. Special- ization, in turn, resulted in institutions and social class differences composed in one, the ruling and religious portions, and the other, common man. In time, class differences came to be even more pronounced. Higher ranking class orders established a mode of living far superior to that of the ”commoner. " Here were found the foundations for "cultural" recreation pursuits experienced by the Sumarian, Egyptian, and later Greek and Roman empires. Music, art, drama, literature, and sport emerged in a quality and quantity not experi - enced for hundreds of years thereafter. 1Ibid. 14 An aspect of early recreational pursuits included the origin of the first parks. The first parks, established around 2340 B. C. , were credited to Sumarian Kings. 1 Later populations of Egypt, Greece, and Rome developed parks emulating the cultural emphasis of the periods. Early Sumarian and Egyptian parks were places of great beauty in which nobles would often fish and hunt to the exclu- sion of the general populace. The point that these parks were not available to the general masses had great relevance. Later in history, particularly during the British Empire' 3 rule, all men assumed greater privileges for the use of parks. It may generally . be assumed that these rights led to governmental involvement in parks and recreation as a "social necessity. " We have alluded to the fact that as man progressed, changes in class structure occurred. These changes in turn resulted in the formation of greater specialization in role formations. The economist Thorstein Veblan' s book, The Theory. of the Leisure Class, explained the phenomenon that developed into our first dis - tinction between leisure classes and common man. Veblan stated that "those of leisure" were the nobles, warriors, and priests. 2 1C. E. Doell and G. B. Fitzgerald, A Brief History of Parks and Recreation in the United States (Chicago: Athletic Institute, 1954), p. 12. 2Thorstein Veblan, The Theory of the Leisure Class (New York: Mentor Book, 1899), pp. 21-22, 15 Nobles possessed the divine right of rule conferred upon them by the gods. To please the gods, commoners, poor men, and slaves were expected to devote their lives to the nobles' service. At least this was the myth perpetuated by those of power. Interpreting Veblan, free time was said to have been instituted in property, justified by religion, and enforced by power. Because of the inequitable nature of the class structure, the average man' s life was very miserable. Despite hardships, and partially-because of them, man had more free time than ever before or since. Human effort was entirely based on the "pleasure of the gods. " It may be assumed that the ruling classes interpreted the gods' pleasure as a means toward their own ends. The-working classes required rest from their arduous labors if they were to remain productive. Consequently, the rulers had to permit numerous days of rest. As Burns indicated: In ancient Egypt, it seems, holidays amounted to one -fifth of the year; in ancient Athens. there were fifty to sixty days of festival in the year: and in Torentum in-the days of its prosperity there were more holidays than working days. In ancient Rome about one -third of the days of the year were nefasti, unlucky for work; and in the later Empire, the "games" and other festivals were largely extended. The distribution of free time for recreation was not of an equal proportion between classes. Aristotle, for example, was 1C. Delisle Burns, Leisure in the Modern World (New York: Century Company, 1932), p. 260. 16 believed to have said there was no leisure for slaves. 1 This was generally assumed to have meant that peasants were to support the lives of others more fortunate. In addition, peasants lacked the education and other requirements Aristotle thought necessary for the realization of leisure' s values. This was a fact instigated and perpetuated by economic and social institutions. As civilization and urbanization progressed, fear of the gods subsided. In place of the holy day a new form of rest appeared, later known as the holiday. Holidays were days filled with recrea- tion and play. Probably the most significant examples of the new trend were found in the Greek feasts and Roman circuses in which all forms of orgiastic and brutal entertainment occurred. It was this period during which the formal transition from "holy day” to "holiday" became complete. 2 Greece During the height of Greek culture two city -states came to the fore, Sparta and Athens. These city -states represented a striking contrast in philosophies of life and leisure. Sparta, as an 1N. P. Miller and D. M. Robinson, The Leisure Age (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1967), p. 40. Robert Lee, Religion and Leisure in America (New York: Abington Press, 1964), pp. 132 -133. 17 example of the Stoic philosophy, stressed the belief that bodily pleasures were to be foregone. In every aspect of life citizens were trained for war. Riding, hunting, gymnastics, and even singing and dancingwere structured toward that end. Spartan girls began physical training at home around seven years of age and continued until they were either married or reached their twentieth birthday. The sole emphasis in their training was the development of strong bodies in order to foster strong children. Like the girls, Spartan boys began training when they were seven years of age. Their training was sponsored by the public in " Each "agoge" was composed compulsory schools called ”agoges. of several "herds, ” each with a "herd" leader. Spartan training emphasized total physical involvement. Specialization in any particular activity was discouraged. After the eighth century, con- sidered to have been the greatest period of Sparta, specialization in the form of gladiators marked the beginning of the end of Spartan emphasis on personal strength. It has been said that Sparta prospered while at war, and that peace was the most difficult time. Spartan men trained in rigorous discipline were able to occupy themselves during peaceful periods by practicing war; but thewomen, free from labors done by slaves, were unable to find proper outlets for their leisure time. 18 As De Grazia explained, the women abandoned themselves to license and luxury. 1 Women alone were not the sole cause of Sparta' s decline, for they received a comparable, though less intensive, training than that of their male counterpart. Probably the most significant overall reason for decline was the restriction of human development. As Miller and Robinson said: One is tempted to agree that the perversion of the needs of man for play, relaxation, fun and amusement into the stern discipline of warmaking and militarization of all phases of life might lead to internal contradictions, despair of many, and the progressive . brutalization of many, accompanied by cultural decline and decline of the very strength the policy is supposed to guarantee. Of interest is the philosophy this system spawned, characterized by the Stoicism of the phiIOSOpher Zeno and others, that virtue lies in service, loyalty, and duty to the state, the foregoing of bodily pleasures and the practicing of moderation and simplicity of life. 2 Similarly, De Grazia stated: "A citizenry unprepared for leisure will degenerate in prosperous times. "3 Apparently this was exactly what happened to Sparta. Despite their emphasis on a rigorous life and government, Sparta declined by constantly warring with others. When changes were needed, they were not made because the stern military discipline prohibited it. 1Sebastian De Grazia, Of Time, Work, and Leisure (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1962), p. 9. 2 Miller and Robinson, op. cit., p. 36. 3De Grazia, op. cit., p. 10. 19 In contrast to Sparta, Athens stressed a balance between mental and physical life. Athenian education encompassed conduct, letters, literature, music, gymnastics, exercise and games. Life in Athens was not based on war, but rather on peace. Peace, as Aristotle said, was the ultimate end after war. Based onconstructive usage of leisure, Athens developed one of the greatest cultural periods in world history. The Greek period, as was shown, resulted in two divergent philosophies concerning recreation. Inherent within the Athenian interpretation were the works of Plato and Aristotle. Their philoso- phy of recreation had a significant influence on succeeding generations' attitudes. Plato' 3 book, {-31.32 based on a Utopian state, discussed the values he attributed to recreation or play. In it he stated: That which has neither utility nor truth nor likeness, nor yet, in its effects is harmful, can best be judged by the criterion of the charm that is in it, and by the pleasure it affords. Such pleasure, entailing as it does no appreciable good or ill, is play. It was interesting to note that Plato stated that man should seek higher things in play than the mere element of play for "play' 3 own sake.’ Rather, man should continue towards a higher goal. 1Huizinga, op. cit., p. 160. 2Ibid. 20 That goal was interpreted to have been that of the Greek theory of leisure. De Grazia' s interpretation of Aristotle stated that only two broad categories constituted leisure; these were contemplation and music. 1 Aristotle did not consider play a valid form of leisure since play was an activity of the very young. Leisure was thought to have been accessible to only those people with the capacity to utilize it, i. e. , one must be educated in order to realize the maximum benefits of leisure. In De Grazia' 5 reference to education, he stated: The legislator. is to blame if he does not educate citizens to those other virtues needed for the proper use of leisure. . . . The greater the abundance of blessings that fall to man, the greater will be their need for wisdom, and wisdom is the virtue that cannot appear except in leisure. During Aristotle' 5 life the Greeks held leisure' s values as the principal objective of the universe. All work was directed towards ultimate leisure for. the selected few. And yet, it was noted that the basis for the availability of leisure was servitude of others. A few were free to pursue leisure because the majority had none. For that reason Miller and Robinson suggested Greece was eventually led to decline. 1De Grazia, op. cit., p. 14. 2Ibid., p. 10. 3Miller and Robinson, op. cit., p. 42. 21 Miller and Robinson were undoubtedly close to the under- lying reason for Athens' decline. However, the more outward explanation was Athens' inability to find peace with Sparta and the other city -states weakening the Greek war efforts abroad. Soon it became necessary to alter one of the primary institutions in Athenianlife, that of the citizen ~soldier. New methods of warfare and increased external strength forced the creation of state -sponsored "ephebic" training, comparable to our present enforced military training. 1 Even that move towards professionalism appeared too late. With the realization that Greeks were not invincible, a decline in interest towards personal fitness and one' s contribution to the state took place within the citizenry. Thus government was increasingly forced to assume a role it was unprepared to fill, while the citizens continued to degenerate both physically and mentally. Rome The Roman Empire developed slowly over time, reaching its peak around the first century A. D. During the formative years Rome borrowed heavily from the declining Greek culture, though an emphasis on rural life pervaded. Greek teachers and philosophers were utilized as teachers for children of wealthy Romans. 1Woody, op. cit., p. 323. 22 It was further shown that play in the early days of Rome emulated much of the same character of Grecian play. Yet there was an inherent difference between the philosophies of leisure inGreece and Rome. The Greek did not regard the play activity as the end product in itself. There was always a further motive such as citizenship, military strength, and physical beauty, expressed in the play activity. In Rome games were enjoyed for their own sake, not for some higher motive. Seneca explained that leisure or "otium" was for the sake of work, or "negotium. "1 Neumeyer and Neumeyer explained the Roman philosophy of play as "a natural expression cf . life energies which should be gratified without restraint. "2 Certainly the concept of lack of restraint was easily documented. However, Neumeyer and Neumeyer-were undoubtedly concerned with the latter periods of the Roman Empire. It was generally assumed that in the formative years Rome adhered to Seneca' 3 work —play philosophy. To the Romans, Greek athletic excesses were highly criti - cized, partially because of the predominating Stoic philosophy and partially because the prescribed status of citizens prohibited 1De Grazia, op. cit., p. 19. 2 M. H. Neumeyer and E. S. Neumeyer, Leisure and Recreation (New York: Ronald Press, 1958), p. 55. 23 athletics. As Gibbons explained: ”The most eminent of the Greeks were actors, the Romans were mere spectators. ”1 Yet despite criticism, Greek athletic exercises grew in popularity, particularly amongst the poor. Huizinga claimed the play -element in Roman society was best exemplified in the desire for games. Roman games were termed holy and considered the holy right of all citizens to attend; though it was questionable whether the spectators felt any religious qualities while viewing them. These games, Huizinga continued, were a survival of the archaic play -factor in depotentialized form. Like the Greeks before them, the Romans eventually grew lazy and disinterested in matters of state. Men of power accumulated monetary and military strength at the expense of others. Once in power, the leaders extravagantly wasted fortunes on items of con- spicuous consumption, causing near—bankruptcy of the Roman Empire. So it was that a nation begun with a sound philosophy of recreation and citizenship grew weak through excess and corrupt ideals . 1E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Philadelphia: Coats and Porter, vol. 3, 1856), p. 422. 2 Woody, op. cit., p. 654. 3Huizinga, op. cit., p. 177. 24 Within the Empire, Christianity grew stronger and attacked pagan amusements. From the outside, Attila and the Huns provided a final blow that brought the great Roman Empire to an end. Out of the rubble emerged two new institutions: The Catholic church and feudalism. 1 The Middle Ages --A Change in Play Concept Following the demise of the Roman Empire no dominant leadership appeared for some time in Europe. To a large extent that vacuum was eventually filled by the Catholic church because it possessed the only well -structured power system of that period. Closely allied with the church, though less powerful, were the feudal lords who appeared to have usurped power on a smaller scale. One of the most significant movements in the history of recreation received its impetus from the Catholic church and later religious denominations. During the Middle Ages there was a move- ment away from ”play as a natural expression of life. " Play, now more than in any other period, became a re -creative function of work. It was only after work that man could have play. Play was considered a restorative function which enabled man to prepare for the hardships of work. 1Miller and Robinson, op. cit., p. 47. 25 The church gained a strong following amongst the lower class peoples of the Middle Ages. At first resistance to change'was great, but gradually the poor laborers and slaves were able to wit- ness the advantages of the Catholic work concept. For the monks themselves the most important aspect of their existence remained the celebration of religious functions. De Grazia stated that these religious duties took about four or five hours each day. The rest of the day was devoted to manual labors. 1 By observing the monks at labor the peasants found new ways to improve their own agricultural production. That, coupled with the fact the monks actually worked with their hands, undoubtedly had a significant influence on the labor classes. The church policy that all forms of amusement were sinful because they turned men' s minds away from God did not affect the life of the upper classes. 2 Nobles and church officials enjoyed play activities comparable to their predecessors. The exploits of adventurous knights were actually continuations of the gladiator I contests seen in Rome. The element of "play at war" and war itself continued as a popular pastime throughout the Middle Ages. 1De Grazia, op. cit., p. 37. 2Millerand Robinson, op. cit., p. 47. 26 During the early Middle Ages the noble class realized the advantages of cooperating with the religious concepts of industry and sobriety. Through cooperation, nobles were. able to maintain a pro— ductivelower class. Consequently, both the church and lords began working together against the play element of their subjects. Despite resistance, play continued as a necessary element in the lives of all people. The Middle Ages were gradually replaced by the Renaissance Period. Commonly associated with that period was the rebirth of culture. Music, art, architecture, philosophy, and literature, traditionally associated with the church alone, began to enjoy renewed popularity amongst the populace. It appears that the renaissance reflected a reaffirmation of man' s desire and need for plan and culture in his everyday existence. Three significant events hindered the influence that feudal lords maintained over'their constituents. The rise of science and learning weakened the bonds between serf and master. Economic production, resulting in part from science and in part from city development, gave rise to a third element, that of a growing middle class. 1 Together, the three forces wrested power away from feudal 1Ibid. , p. 59. 27 lords and placed it in the hands of those actually involved in economic production. Eventually the kings and other powerful nobles realized the feudal system was destined to decline. Consequently, the most powerful lords joined forces with the financially rich middle class. Together the middle class and lords developed a system that was commonly associated with the present system, of nation -states. Early European Trends In Italy private parks were elaborately designed and main- tained. Park design assumed a formal style. Emphasis on squares and rectangles was the dominant geometric pattern. The use of water in the form of canals and ornate ponds in parks grew in popularity. Formal sculpture appeared in the parks. Plant mate- rials also assumed an ornate, sculptured appearance. The formal park concept was adapted in other parts of Europe, including England. . However, in England formal parks were soon supplemented by parks of informal design. "Informal" parks stressed the natural landscape rather than man' s construction. Gone were the formal ponds, sculpture, plants, andrigid shapes; in their place appeared the gentle curving line accented by natural contours, open spaces, and native plant materials. It was that informal influ— ence that found its way across the ocean to North America. 28 England was credited with a second significant development in park history, that of the first public parks. While it was true that parks in France were open to the people, they were, nevertheless, still the property of a particular individual, and as such, were often closed to the public. In 1824 Germany followed the pattern established in England when the small town of Magdeburg established a public park. In the words of the designer Lenne: It is nothing new to me that princes and wealthy private persons should spend large sums on the beautiful art of the Garden. But an undertaking of this kind, which from a rough computation will cost, exclusive of buildings, no less than $18, 000, undertaken by the town authorities, is the first example I have ever en- countered in my whole life as an artist. Concurrent with the development of informal parks in England was the development of the county as a unit of government. The first counties were actually developed by William the Conqueror to pro- vide for greater means of central control. Over time the county grew in importance. It was, in fact, the main unit of local govern- ment at the time the first British colonists landed in Virginia. 2 llbid. 2H. S. Duncombe, County Government in America (Wash— ington, D.C.: National Association of Counties, 1966), pp. 18-19. 29 American Movement The development of parks and recreation in the United States was composed of several concurrent, though separate move- ments. One of the earliest influences on recreation in North America was attributed to the Puritans. The first Puritan settlers in the United States opposed any form of apparent joy and merry -making. Their reasoning held a twofold approach: First, life was too hard in the new frontier land not to be occupied by constant toil. Second, the Puritans rejected the "sinful" ways of their English brothers for religious reasons. Recreation and idleness were not tolerated. Often, severe punish- ment was meted out to those caught in activities which we now consider to be play. In contrast to New England life, life in the southern United States was easier due to a milder climate and the early introduction of slave labor. Southern plantation owners developed a highlevel of cultural attainment very early in history. It has beenassumed that one of the untold reasons for the Civil War was attributed to the jealousy northerners had for their southern counterparts. As Americans pushed westward the Puritan influence lost much of its hold on the people. New recreational activities centered around group c00peration. The now -famous "husking bees" and 30 ”barn -raisings” were legendary examples of neighbors from throughout an area gathered to help build a home or barn. Follow- ing the day' s labor, a dance complete with fiddler and sumptuous repast generally ensued. Activities such as hunting and fishing were popular recreational pursuits in addition to being valuable utilitarian activities. Gay and boisterous dancing in combination with other activities further hastened the weakening of religion' 3 Puritanical influence. As the nation grew, the cities grew with it. Soon the people clamored for open space and play areas, the provision of which necessarily became a duty of democratic governments. That was the situation when, in 1858, the city of New York held an open com- petition for the design of Central Park. Permitted a brief excursus concerning the development of Central Park, we may gain a valuable insight into original county park planning. Over time, Central Park has been completely surrounded by the city of New York. . However, in 1858 Central Park was a large tract of open space situated on the edge of New York City. At its origin Central Park possessed several of the characteristics now associated with county parks. The "Olmstedian" principles followed in Central Park included: 31 1. Preserve the .natural scenery and .if necessary restore and emphasize it. 2. Avoid all formal design except in very limited areas with- out buildings. 3. Keep open lawns and meadows in large central areas. 4. Use native trees and shrubs, especially in heavy. border plantings. 5. Provide circulation by means of paths and roads laid in widesweeping curves. 6. Place the principal road so that it will approximately cir— cumscribe the whole area. 1 Olmsted saw Central Park as an attempt to provide a country setting for harried city dwellers. The park' 8 design empha- sized the natural qualities of the quiet countryside following the general criteria established years before in England. In a sentence, Olmsted summarized the philosophy behind early American park design: . The kind of recreation that these. large parks supply, and that nothing but these large parks supply, near a city, is that which a man insensibly obtains when he puts the city behind him and out of his sight and goes where he will be under the undis - turbed influence of pleasing, natural scenery. In that single sentence, Olmsted clearly depicts a phiIOSOphy for most county parks. Whether the statement should be further construed, as Doell and Fitzgerald contend, to represent all Ameri - can parks was questionable. 3 They negate the value of smaller city 1Doell and Fitzgerald, op. cit. , p. 33. 2Ibid., p. 32 31bid., p. 33. 32 parks which, due to limitations of size and location, contribute a different, though equally valuable, recreational experience. Active playground recreation actually occurred afterwhat may be termed the horticultural phase of park development. From the beginnings in Brookline and Boston, 1872 and 1885 respectively, emphasis on active recreation was held in direct conflict with pas - sive recreation. That factor in recreational history created a con- flict for both groups that has continued to a certain extent even up to the present day. Historically, the origin of county parks appeared to have been the lawns of the county courthouses. During the 1800' s the beautiful gardens around the courthouse were the only source of maintained public areas available for the people. Somewhat later, the advent of county fairs caused county government to take a greater involvement in parks and recreation. Both the courthouse and the fairground were of relatively limited value as recreation areas. It was not until 1895 that Essex County, New Jersey, began what was considered the first county parks system. 1 A short seven years later, the adjacent county of Hudson began a program to emulate Essex County. 1G. D. Butler (editor), County Parks (New York: Play- ground and Recreation Association of America, 1930), p. 1. 2Ibid. 33 The first county parks in the mid -west were established in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, in 1910. Within five years Cook County and Du Page County established forest preserves, serving essentially the same purpose as county parks. That same year, 1915, Muskegon County, Michigan, established the first county park in the State. 1 Prior to 1920 county parks were relatively uncommon. Be- tween the years 1895 and.1920 a mere twenty new county parks were reported. It was likely that the adverse effect of World War One had much to do with that precarious beginning. However, soonafter the war, interest in county parks increased rapidly. Table 1, below, depicts the number and size of county parks through the year 1929. TABLE 1. --Number of County Parks and Total Acreage Increases from 1900 to 1929. Year Number of Parks Total Acreage Before 1900 6 904.70 1900 -1910 12 994. 89 1910-1920 2 20, 681. 56 1920-1929 160 46, 564.60 Source: G. 8. Butler (editor), County Parks (New York: Play- ground and Recreation Association of America, 1930), p. 1. 11bid. 34 The next ten years, 1920 to 1930, showed a continued increase in county park development and acquisition, Table 2, taken from a later publication by the National Recreation Associa- tion, indicated that increase. TABLE 2. --Number of County Parks and Total Acreage Increases from 1900 to 1940. Year Number of Parks Total Acreage Before 1900 21 781 1901 ~1910 20 1, 396 1911-1920 22 2, 169 1921 -1930 159 49, 497 1931 -1940 308 39, 537 Split 26 19, 156 Source: G. D. Butler (editor), Municipal and County Parks in the United States, 1940 (New York: National Recreation Association, 1942), p. 49. The differences between the figures in Tables 1 and 2 were undoubtedly due to the different means of reporting; Table 1 referred to the actual numbers of parks, while Table 2 referred to the date of acquisition. Neither of these tables were inclusive for all counties. Table 2, for example, reported only three -fourths of the actual number of parks, and slightly over one -half the total acreage. The "split" category at the end of Table 2 apparently indicated park acquisition between 1935 and 1940. 35 The depression could have had a significant adverse effect on county park development. However, various assistance programs, such as the Civilian Conservation Corps, and Works Project Assis- tance, actually aided the county park development during the 1930' s. The effect a second world war had on domestic development programs was exemplified by the county park example. In the five years after the depression the United States gradually showed signs of recovery. However, very quickly the entire world was once again forced to prepare for the possibility of a second world war. The money and manpower once directed toward conservation and development was reallocated for purposes of war. For example, despite the return to a semblance of prosperity in the late 1930' s, only twenty -six new county parks were established. A second source for county park statistics was the book compiled by Marion Clawson, Statistics on Outdoor Recreation. Clawson' 3 survey, inclusive through the year 1950, reported the increase in county parks shown in Table 3 on the following page. There appeared to have been some discrepancy between the findings reported by Marion Clawson and the earlier findings credited to Butler. For example, in the year 1940 there was a difference of 249 reported parks and 120, 057 acres reported in the two sources. Whether one used Butler's or Clawson' 3 figures, at least one 36 general characteristic held true for both: county parks received their-initial major impetus during the 1930' s and grew in numbers and size ever since. TABLE 3. --Number of County Parks and Total Acreage Increases from 1925 to 1950. Year Number of Parks ' Acreage Increases 1925 135 67, 465 1930 415 108, 485 1935 526 159, 262 1940 779 197, 350 1950 933 213, 437 Source: Marion Clawson, Statistics for Outdoor Recreation (Wash- ington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, April, 1958), p. 82. In Clawson' 3 data we again encountered the detrimental influence of a world war on the development of county parks. Between 1930 and 1940, 364 new county parks were established, compared to only 154 in the next ten'war years, 1940 to 1950. Since the end of 1950 a marked increase in every aspect of county park development occurred. Today, approximately 4, 149 county park areas totaling 691, 042 acres have been reported. 1J. E. Arles, "County Government, " Parks and Recreation (April, 1969), PP. 30—32. 37 County park expenditures increased from an annual average expenditure of $7. 6 million in 1957 to $195 million in 1965. In 1960 county parks employed 7, 990 people, compared to 11, 912 in 1965. 1 A Review of Recreation' 3 Development and Effect on the Present Society The objective of this chapter has been to present a brief history of significant historical developments of recreation up to the present time. It is now necessary to reflect on what has passed before us in order to create a setting for the present and future. One of the earliest points, that man has always engaged in play activities in some form, undoubtedly held true for as long as man inhabited the earth. As previously indicated, play activities varied from time to time. The nature and extent of recreation depended on the values of social institutions for that period. It can be generally stated that social institutions, here referred to as all formal group relationships, largely governed the nature and extent of the play activities. Though the institutions changed or altered their philosophy over time, many of the old ideas continued to influence contemporary thought. One factor instigated by the church during the Middle Ages continued to influence play activities for many years after. Play, llbid. 38 or recreation, came only after work and was participated in as a means of re -creating oneself for the rigors of future work. In the United States that belief was carried to an extreme by the early Puritan settlers. The "work before play" attitude continued to dominate the lives of a large proportion of the American peOple. However, the reasoning behind that attitude probably resulted more from an economic than a religious significance. The religious influence, termed Puritan Ethic, gradually declined. In its place a new concept developed. Americans slowly began to recognize the influence of Aristotle. It was Aristotle who said: "Leisure is preferable to work; it is the aim of all work. "1 Like a few people in Greek history, Americans have been relieved from the necessity of working long hours. If it was said the Greek citizens had twelve slaves each, it can also be said we now possess ninety. Man now has more free time. But how do we spend our free time? Like the Romans, many Americans are a nation of spectators more content to watch television at home than actively participate in an activity themselves. When asked what would be 1Miller and Robinson, op. cit., p. 42. 39 America's greatest concern in the future, commentator Eric Severide replied, ”the use of leisure time. ”1 Today society needs a balance. Man must work at some productive pursuit to prove his worth in society. More importantly, man must engage in personally and socially productive pursuits in order to develop himself and society to their greatest potential. One of these pursuits is recreation. That recreation should be a function of government was previously indicated by De Grazia. It may not be the function of government to teach values. It is, however, govern- ment' 3 duty to provide reasonable access to, and reinforcement of, those things people require in order to express their own values. We have seen from ChapterII that recreationwas an integral part of man' s life. It was further emphasized that a society "owed" the people access to recreational opportunities. Therefore, the initial hypothesis that recreation is a valid responsibility for county government within the context of the previous discussion has been substantiated. In its unique position between the city and the State, the county faced ever greater demands for recreation from a greater number of people. Are counties meeting this demand? A means of analyzing methods of determining an answer to that question has been developed in Chapter 'III. 1Comment was made by Mr. Severide on the television program "Meet the Press, " March 20, 1967. CHAPTER III COUNTY RESPONSIBILITY AND A DETERMINATION OF RELATED STANDARDS What parks and recreation goals should the county have established for itself? How much park and recreation area was enough? How did one county compare with another? These ques- tions, and many others like them, have undoubtedly beenthe dis - cussion topic of county officials for some time. To answer these questions one had to understand what was to be accomplished, which approach or technique best met that objective, and how to measure adequacy or inadequacy, of the current situation in order to reach the acceptable level of accomplishment. The previous discussion has indicated county government' s need for policy clarification. Once a policy was formulated, addi — tional information was required relating to acceptable standards. A Policy for County Park and Recreation Systems In the past, questions of policy —direction created consider- able concern .for county officials. Realizing the need for clarification, 40 41 the National Association of County Officials adopted a national policy for county parks and recreation. That policy suggested: The special role of the county is to acquire, develop and main- tain parks and to administer public recreation programs that will serve the needs of communities broader than the local neighborhood or municipality, but less than state —wide or national in scope. In addition the county should plan and coordinate local neighbor- hood and community facilities with the cooperation of the cities, townships, and other intra -county units, and should itself cooperate in state and federal planning and coordinative activi - ties. Where there is no existing unit of local government except the county to provide needed local neighborhood or municipal facilities and programs, the county should provide such facilities and programs, utilizing county service districts, local assess- ments and other methods by which those benefited will pay the cost. Coordination with local boards of education should include the park -school concept of building park sites adjacent .to schools. The county recreation policy indicated that the county played a role in both an urban and a rural environment. It was further sug - gested that the county had to work with both the municipality and the state to fill the vacancy. found between the two. In a few cases the county was further thought to have assumed responsibilities generally designated to the state or local governments. The flexibility inherent within,any park system was aptly stated by Doell: 1Philip Warren (editor), County Parks and Recreation . . . A Basis for Action (Washington, D. C. : National Association of County Officials and National Recreation Association, 1964), p. xiii. 42 parks, however established, are for the recreation of the pe0ple and that a system of parks and its administration must be flexible enough to adjust to changing conditions and so alter its functional policies to meet those changes. However, equally obvious was the realization that the county couldnot, nor should, attempt to provide all recreational services for all peOple. Throughout the history of recreation' 8 development as a governmental function certain types of facilities have been found more advantageously administered by certain levels of government. Nature of County Park Systems Lynn Rodney explained: "A county park and recreation system has as its prime purposes the giving of recreation services as well as the provision of recreation opportunities to people within the county. "2 Rodney' 8 statement was interpreted to have suggested the county was first responsible for the recreational needs of those living within that county. Only when that responsibility had been completely fulfilled was thecounty free to begin providingservices for nonresidents. Those recreational activities andareas that 1Charles E. Doell, Elements of Park and Recreation Administration (Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company, 1964), p. 47 . 2Lynn Rodney, Administration of Public Recreation (New York: Ronald Press Company, 1964), pp. 177-178. 43 constituted a "greater than county significance" were thought to have been functions of the federal, state, or regional government. For the county, the greatest difficulty in definition appeared to be that of determining what was regional in purpose, and what was county -orientated. In the policy statement for Genesee County, the county -regional park was defined as: a land and/or water site, scenic in character andlarge enough to serve at the inter -city, county, or inter-county level. The regional park conserves a large natural open space for-the use and enjoyment of people. Developments are concentrated so as not to destroy the character of the land. The park is used by1 persons residing or working in a radius of 30 to 40 miles. . . . Similarly, Rodney suggested regional parks were: A recreational area that, by its unusual development or unique features, gives people of anentire region an opportunity to enjoy certain types of recreation activities. It possesses natural features and is intended to give peOple a chance to get away from an urban environment, but its primary purpose is to provide pleasant surroundings for'engaging in a variety of special recrea- tion activities that lend themselves to the park setting. County parks in Michigan have been defined as: The county park is a recreation facility designed and intended for use by citizens of the county ormetropolitan sub -region in which the park is located. 3 1Genesee County Parks and Recreation Commission, Policy Statement (R. Ammerman, Chairman, Flint, Michigan), p. 11. 2Rodney, op. cit., p. 330. 3Detroit Metropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission, Guidelines for Levels of Functions and Responsibility for'Public Out- door Recreation in Southeastern Michigan (Detroit: Paul Reid, Director, 1966), p. 7. 44 Among the preceding definitions there appears to be a very slight difference in what has been termed county, and what has been termed regional. From these definitions the assumption was made that regional and county parksystems served essentially similar recreational functions. The difference between the two has been generally attributed to the pervasive influence distance had on the service areas of each. 1 Regional parks were considered to have a service area of more than one county. County parks, then, were thought to be those parks predominately used by residents of that county. It was necessary to make the distinction between county and regional service areas because park planning has been dependent on certain defined human characteristics of park users. The distinctions between users of county and regional parks may vary greatly when considering group socio-economic characteristics for a multi —county region or asingle county. A second reason for determining regional or county respon— sibility has been the factor of the cost and benefit attributed to each park. It has been generally. stated that each unit of government had the responsibility of providing services for its constituents. These 1John Friedmann, Regional Development and Planning (Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1964), p. 62. 45 constituents, in turn, were then charged for that service. When people from one area used, or received benefits, from another area, it was assumed that they should also be assessed for that privilege. Therefore, regional parks would normally be paid for by regional residents. County parks were similarly assumed to have been paid for by county residents. It has been shown that county and regional parks provided comparable services. From these definitions used to distinguish between county and region it was further possible to determine the type of service being rendered. County parks have generally been thought of as extensions of Olmsted' s principle of large parks near the city. 1 These parks were to be places where county residents could engage in active and passive recreational pursuits within a pleasing natural environment. The need for that type of ”day -use" recreational area has been well documented. For example, in Oakland County the major recreation need was defined as: . Every activity in day —use facilities. There is a tremendous urgency for land to be acquired and held in public trust to meet the recreational needs of ALL of our people. The objective is to provide opportunjzties for a wide variety of activities for groups and all individuals. 1Doell, op. cit., p. 45. 2George C. Lacey, The Creation of Recreation (Pontiac, Mich. : Oakland County Park and Recreation Commission, 1968). 46 The type of services normally provided in county parks have been characterized as being relatively unstructured, individual or group day -use experiences. Facilities for picnicking, horseshoes, softball, tennis, baseball, shuffleboard, and campingwere character- istic of existing county parks. Often the counties actually broke the types of parks down into major functions. In Kent County the Road and Park Commission suggested county. parks served the following purposes: 1. County —Urban Parks to augment the needs of urban fringe areas and outlying communities; 2. County -Wide Parks designed for varying classes of use to serve the needs of the entire county; 3. County Forests to administer the preservation, control, and supervision of forests under county jurisdiction; 4. Open Space Developments to provide for preservation and development of large open areas for general recrea - tional uses. Throughout the previous discussion the effort has been directed toward defining certain general characteristics. The first of these indicated that county park and recreation systems were 1Kent County Road and Park Commission, Kent County . Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (Grand Rapids, Michigan, June, 1968), p. 58. 47 closely attached to "land areas" as a base for recreational functions. A second factor was that the counties often provided a wide range of possible-services, depending on the need and policy of the adminis - tration. The quality of any system appeared to have been dependent on intuitive and practical experience related to land and services. Using the knowledge and experience garnered from numerous sources, the following standards were suggested to have been major factors in any county park system. Standards for County Park and Recreation Systems Courgy park and recreation administration It has been generally stated that every county park and recreation system required a governing body to establish policy. While county parks and recreation was in its infancy as a govern- mental responsibility, various agencies assumed the county's responsibility for developing recreation areas and activities. In Michigan, the most common "external" type of control was the County Road Commission. The correlation between county parks and county roads probably was rather significant when county parks were relatively unused rest areas along travel routes. However, it has been 48 generally assumed that the combined department concept has since outgrown its usefulness. County Road Departments have been said to serve one purpose, i. e. , the building and maintaining of county roads. 1 County parks serve strictly a recreational function. There- fore, in order to best meet the challenge of providingjadequate county roads and county recreation programs, the view generally. taken has been one of encouraging separate agencies for each activity. Prior to 1965 county government lacked the legislative authority to authorize separate County Park and Recreation Com- missions. Apparently, many people thought that the counties needed the separate commission form; consequently they encouraged adoption of that type of enabling legislation. For example, one committee suggested the following: . that state enabling legislation be enacted. This legislation would ”permit" counties to establish park facilities through a separate County Park and Recreation Commission. One of the recommendations adopted by the Recreation Advisory Committee, of the Detroit Regional Planning Commission, stated the desire for separate recreation agencies as follows: 1C. A. Elliot, "Advanced Road Planning for Recreational Development, ” County Parks and Recreation. . . A Basis for Action (Washington, D. C. : National Association of County Officials, 1964). 2Detroit Metropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission, Recreation in the Detroit Region (Detroit: Regional Planning Comm. , 1958), p. ii. 49 They should integrate their parks and recreational land programs with the regional and state agencies that already have or may have parks and recreational facilities within their borders. To this end it is recommended that counties establish within their governmental framework separate agencies whose sole responsibility is that of parks and recreation. A basic premise of Chapter II was that recreation has been an integral and necessary part of man' s existence. As such, Meyer stated, "It should receive an identity and prestige which sets it on a plane with education, health, welfare, and other public services con- 2 cerned with the needs of the people. " All the public services indi - cated by Meyer have been generally governed by separate agencies. Therefore, it was further assumed that recreation required a comparable type of governing agency. The creation of a separate park and recreation commission does not impair interagency cooperation. Act 261 actually encourages contact between agencies and interested lay people by requiring the following membership on the board: chairman of the county road, drain, and planning commissions, and seven members appointed by the board of supervisors. 1J. F. Miller, Park User Survey (Detroit: Detroit Metro- politan Area Regional Planning Commission, April 25, 1959). p. 5. 2Brightbill and Meyer, op. cit., p. 92. 3Twardzik, loc. cit. 50 From the preceding statements, and from the position taken by many others, it appeared that each county could be measured by evaluating the type of administrative control employed. Therefore, it was suggested that an essential component of adequate county park systems included the nature of the governing body. Whether a county did or did not have a separate park and recreation commission was thought to be an indication of how that county valued parks and recrea - tion. Those counties with a favorable attitude were assumed to have a separately administered county park and recreation department. On the basis of the preceding analysis, the first standard was adopted. That was, each county park system was to be admin- istered by a separate county park commission. County park size The county park has been termed one of the most integral factors in the county park and recreation system. The acquisition and use made of each park has generally been determined by the local County Park Commissions. . However, there have beencertain general criteria on which new county parks were normally acquired. Oakland County, for example, used the following criteria: 1. Availability of land 2. Amenities of the land in relation to park development a. water size of acreage b c . terrain d horticultural material 51 3. Economic feasibility a. cost of land b. cost of improvements present c. cost of projected improvements 4. Location of land a. relation to roads b. relation to population These factors largely determined whether one site was to be acquired rather than another, other factors being equal. However, in order to adequately meet the requirements placed on that park, some knowledge of its recreational carrying —capacity had to be known. In the analysis of county park carrying -capacity various human and environmental factors have been suggested as being the most critical determinants. These factors included: Geology and soils, topography and aspect, vegetation, climate, water, fauna, policy, management, and user characteristics. For the county, probably the most significant determinants were'those of policy, management, and user characteristics. As has often been the case, much of the land previously acquired for passive recreational purposes has been more intensively developed. That development was necessary to satisfy greater user demands 1Lacey, op. cit. 2Michael Chubb-and Peter Ashton, Park and Recreation Standards Research (East Lansing, Mich. : Michigan State Univer- sity, Recreation'Research and Planninngnit, January, 1969), pp. 18-29. 52 for active recreation. 1 In those instances the factors of policy, management and user characteristics became the predominant influences. It has been a fairly common assumption that the counties must acquire more land areas, or as the previous reference indicated, develop what they have more intensively. Undoubtedly most urban counties will be forced into the latter position. In those cases, the State government may be called upon to supply more of the needed "primitive" or natural areas. The stance taken by most county park agencies and author- ities suggested that county parks should not be less than one hundred acres in size. The basis for a minimum acreage criteria was indicated by Mr. Palmer, long -time head of Kent County' s Recrea - tion Department: A County park nowadays should have a minimum of 80 acres, historical or scenic value, good sanitation, water supply and daily maintenance if it is to be a real recreation area . . . any acreage smaller than 80 is difficult to develop properly because some recreational facilities could not be included, thus creating a second or third rate park. Other minimum space standards included: 1R. B- Habben, Regional Recreation Lands Plan Interim Report (Detroit: Detroit Metropolitan Area Regional Flaming Com - mission, March, 1966); p. 29. 2 David Barnes, "Developing County Parks, " Parks and Recreation (April, 1963), p. 150. 53 Agency or Authority Size 1. South Carolina Wildlife Resources Dept. 1 Over 100 acres 2. Flaming Commission of Lackawana Co. 2 Minimum 200 acres 3. G. D. Butler3 100 to 300 acres 4. Multnmach County4 500 to 1, 000 acres 5. Vancouver, Washington5 150 to 1, 000 acres 6. Forest Grove, Washington6 Several hundred 7. Luzerne County Planning Comm. 7 400 acres plus 8. Berk County Planning Comm. 8 100 to 400 acres 9. San Diago County9 Not less than 100 10. Dept. of Parks and Rec. , Div. of Rec. , Calif. 10 200 to 500 acres 1South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department, Outdoor Recreation in South Carolina (Columbia, South Carolina, 1966), pp. 3-5. Lackawana County. Planning Commission, Recreation and Open Space Plan (Lackawana County, Penn.: Candeub, Cabot, and Assoc., 1963), p. 20. 3George Butler, Introduction to Community Recreation (New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1959), p. 166. 4"Pacific Northwest Park and Recreation Studies, " Park Maintenance (April, 1966), p. 17. 5Ibid. 61bid. Luzerne County Planning Commission, Recreation Report (Part of the Comprehensive Plan for the Wilkes -Barre/Hazelton Metropolitan Area, 1960). P. 30. 54 The purpose of county parks, as previously indicated, was to generally serve as scenic areas where men could engage in recreational activities. It was further suggested that county parks served the entire county. These factors dictated the need for sizable areas. Generally that size was thought to have been greater than large municipal parks and less than regional parks. Standards sug- gested for large municipal parks generally range up to one hundred acres; regional parks, in turn, should have been at least four hundred acres. Therefore, county parks were thought to have been a median size. Based on the logic of the preceding discussion and the recommended standards of various agencies and authors, standard number two suggested that county parks range between one hundred and four hundred acres in size. Parks found to have been less than one hundred acres in area were termed too small to adequately serve the purposes of a county park. 8Berks County Planning Commission, Open Space and Recreation, Comprehensive Plan #4, February, 1963, p. 21. 9"Regional Parks, " Recreation, The San Diago County Regional Plan, Objectives and Policies, Part 4, 1960, p. 12. 10County Regional Parks and Recreation Areas, A Planning Guide, Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Division of Recreation Resources Agency, California, 1964, p. 6. 55 The actual size of parks was of little significance if the parks were not readily accessible to users. Therefore, the follow- ing section considered service areas for county parks. County park location-- as related to time -distance County park activities have been termed to be in Milstein and Reid' 8 group one activities, that is, high distance resistance with little or no minimum time requirement. 1 That classification indicated people using county parks were not as concerned with time expenditures as they werewith the distance it took to reach their destination. Therefore, to ensure maximum use, county parks were best located as close to the user's home as possible. In an analysis of nonparticipation, the Outdoor Recreation Resources Commission2 Report Number Nineteen found that many people desired to participate in more outdoor recreational activity; however, they were largely prevented from doing so primarily 1D. N. Milstein and L. M. Reid, Michigan Outdoor Recrea- tion Demand Study, Volume One, "Methods and Models" (Michigan Dept. of Commerce, Tech. Report 6, June, 1966), p. 44. 2The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission .(0. R. R. R. C. ) was responsible for a national study of Outdoor Recreation-in the United States. The proceedings were published in twenty -five volumes in 1962. 56 because they lacked time, and to some extent lacked the money enabling them to participate. 1 The promise of more free time in the future has been a well documented factor affecting the greater demand for more recrea - tion. Therefore, that factor was not developed further here. Probably of much greater significance to county park systems was the actual time or distance county park users were willing to travel in order to reach their destination. There have been certain inherent problems involved in the study of time-distance factors at the county level. Probably the most significant of these factors was the availability of park areas within any given region varied. Therefore, attempts to compare time expended to reach county parks largely depended on the traveling distance or time required to reach existing county parks. Despite these inherent problems in time -distance analysis, there have been some significant studies conducted in the area. One study, the Park Users Study, conducted in the Detroit region, made the following analysis: 1. On weekdays, park users travel about 12 miles from home. 2. On weekends, park users travel 18 miles from home. 3. Families select a more distant park, in preference to a 1Eva Mueller and Gerald Gurin, The Demand for Outdoor Recreation (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, April, 1961), p. 22. 57 closer one, if access to that park permits traveling on less congested traffic arteries. A second source of average distance traveled in typical county park situations was the 1965 Bureau of Outdoor Recreation study. In that study, recreationoutings, defined as an outdoor occasion occupying the better part of a day, were studied to deter- mine trend characteristics. The significant findings included: 1. The average distance between home and destination was 31 miles. . 2. Sixty -three percent of the outings were less than 50 miles round trip. 3. Only four percent were to destinations more than one hundred miles round trip. 4. Fifty -three percent were one -half hour or less from home. The National Resources Planning Board studied factors related to county park use. On the subject of time-distance the Board suggested: The kind and quality of available resources will frequently determine the usefulness of nonurban recreation resources. . . . The distance people can and will travel for an outing is determined by, factors of time, cost, and available means of travel. Numerous studies of attendance and use of parks in the Southeast supplemented travel surveys indicate that by far a majority of southern people are confined to within 10 to 15 miles of their homes for-weekday outings, 15 to 20 miles for holiday outings, a hundred miles for extended week -end outings, and three hundred miles for vacation outings. 1Miller, op. cit., p. 6. 2Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, The 1965 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Activities, October, 1967, pp. 35 -36. 3Meyer and Brightbill, op. cit., p. 14. 58 These studies indicated a general criteria on which location of county parks should have been based. When county parks were located at distances greater than fifteen miles from the user' 3 home, excessive distance limited use. Therefore, standard number three suggested that county parks were to be located within at least fifteen miles, or thirty miles roundtrip, of the user' 3 home. At this point three standards have been suggested. These standards were termed essential ingredients for any county park system. However, probably the most perplexing component in county park research has been the attempts to relate supply to demand. It was that factor that would enable county government to determine current deficiencies and future requirements. Supply -demand analysis At the county level several different techniques have been employedwith limited success. Some of these techniques included: A straight acres -per -thousand population approach; acres -per- thousand or five percent of the total county land area;1 or, "go thou and locate thy park next to thy school and thereby reap rich rewards for thy citizens. "2 1Meyer and Brightbill, op. cit., p. 103. 2Jack Urner, "An Area -Wide Approach to Park and Recrea- tion Planning," County Parks and Recreation . . . A Basis for Action (Washington, D. C. : National Association of County Officials, 1964), p. 125. 59 Recreation professionals generally realized the critical ' Even more important, shortcomings inherent in "educated guesses. ' legislators and other groups controlling park budgets required more accurate standards for future planning purposes. Due, however, to the limitations of finances and staff, the county was probably the least prepared of all governmental units to develop acceptable stan- dards. Standards themselves were considered of little value unless they were actually utilized. Therefore, standards devised for county parks had .to be developed within those limitations under which county systems operated. For the study of supply -demand analysis the following initial considerations were suggested as principles on which a standard was to be developed: 1. The new standard had to be an improvement over older methods. 2. The standard had to be relatively easy to obtain by county officials. 3. The standard had to be relatively inexpensive to obtain. 4. The result of the standard had to be updated periodically to consider changes in the county system and demand characteristics. Probably the foremost criticism of the commonly used acres-per—thousand approach was that it did not consider variations 60 between areas. A recent article on recreation standards explained: . The commonly used acreage or population standard has been proven by many municipalities to be inapplicable because of varying local factors, primarily socio-economic, which have a direct influence on the amount and kind of recreation programs and areas which are necessary to meet local needs and interests. In other words, the acreage and/or population standard does not possess the degree of flexibility necessary to make its applica- tion valid in municipalities which possess vastly different physical, economic and social characteristics. Essentially, what was needed was a means of more closely relating local supply to local demand. Demand, the-appraisal of recreation standards article indicated, was partially determined by social and economic characteristics of a p0pulation. Therefore, if counties continued to use an acres -per-thousand approach, as it appeared‘likely they would, that approach had to be more closely related to county socio-economic characteristics. Generally there have been numerous social and economic characteristics suggested as having some influence on recreation participation; the O. R. R. R. C. Reports reviewed twenty -nine characteristics. However, some variables tended to have more I influence than did others. From the O. R. R. R. C. Reports the fol- lowing variables were selected as being primary indicators of social 1A. H. Mittlestaelt, R. G. Ward, and R. F. Lowery, "An Appraisal of Recreation Standards," Parks and Recreation (July, 1969), p. 20. 61 relationships and demand: Age, sex, income, education, race, and place of residence. The general influence of these variables were as follows: 1. Age had a strong influence on participation in all activities. The younger groups tended to be far more active than older groups. With few exceptions, each succeeding advance in age resulted in a decrease in activity level. Men tended to be more active than women. There were exceptions to that trend; but they were not enough to nullify the overall validity. As income increased, so did participation. A peak was reached around the $10, 000 mark. Further mone - tary increases over $10, 000 did not result in greater recreational participation. Whites had a higher level of participation than non- whites. .That trend was especially evident in water- orientated activities. The higher the level of education, for both sexes, the greater the participation rate. There was one excep- tion. Apparently college educated people had a lower level of participation in public outdoor recreation 62 activities than did those with only a high school education. That characteristic was probably due to the more advanced age of the college educated when they finished school. 6. People living in metropolitan areas were more active participants than nonurban residents. Exceptions were noted for a few sports, such as hunting, not commonly found in county parks. There was the possibility that these characteristics had been significant for only one period‘in time. Therefore, it became necessary to search for other more current evaluations as a check. In 1965 the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation did a follow -up survey to determine the change in recreation patterns found in the O. R. R. R. C. Reports. Though the B. O. R. Survey reported a slightly lower overall activity rate, the six socio-economic variables continued to act in their previous pattern. 1 A third study, conducted in the Detroit region, employed . , 2 four variables: Income, age, race, and auto ownership. Once 1Bureau of Outdoor-Recreation, 1965 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Activities (October, 1967), p. 161. 2J. B. Lansing and G. Hendricks, Livingl’atterns and Attitudes in the Detroit Region (Detroit: Detroit Metropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission, January, 1967), pp. 28-30. 63 again the trends found in the O. R. R. R. C. and B. O. R. Reports for «age, income, and race were confirmed. Finally, a fourth source entitled Outdoor Recreation Research1 considered the differences in participation between farm and urban respondents. In that study of eleven selected activities, urban residents indicated a higher participationresponse than did the rural residents in nine of the eleven activities. Only in the cases of hunting and gardening did rural respondents have'higher participation rates. These activities were assumed to havealmost negligible representation in most county parks. Consequently, they were negated. Using the results of the four studies as a guide, it was then a matter of breaking the six variables down into sub -classes based on their influence on participation. To make the results applicable in Michigan, that meant some modification of the original groupings used in the O. R. R. R. C. Reports was necessary. Each variable was based on a five -point scale. Three, the medianscore, was equated withrthe median social or economic characteristic for the State. When a county indicated a variation above or below the median, it 1R. J. Burdge, J. H. Sitterly, and F. S. So, Outdoor Recreation Research (Columbus, Ohio: Natural Resources Institute, Ohio State University, 1962), p. 12. 64 received an adjusted score for that variable. Five was assumed to have the greatest influence on participation, one the least. Table 4 indicated how the variables were eventually broken down for Michigan. One additional step was necessary before the six factors could be utilized. As O. R. R. R. C. Report Number Nineteen indicated, there was not a direct one -to -one relationship between the six vari - ables and demand. 1 In O. R. R. R. C. Report Number Nineteen, each variable was weighted according to the influence it had on participa- tion. A value of one was given to place of residence, since it had the least "weight" of the six variables. The other five were then assigned values in relation to place of residence. The final weights applied were as follows: Place of Residence 1. 00 Income 1. 14 Sex 1.46 Race 1. 56 Education 1. 58 Age 3. 77 TOTAL WEIGHT 10. 51 Utilizing characteristics derived from the 1960 Census of Population, each county received a score for each variable. The 1Mueller and Gurin, op. cit., p. 64. 65 31E cannon .393 s 2: 28.». 2 83.» mm 82a 3823 SN m o EH mumsvm gene- S e... .3 meme» : memes mm coo: L323 8m 4 m an 3.36m. $3-2. so .8 meme» 3 23% mm 89% L323 9: m . 038 3.95m see. a. s... .3 23.... a meme» m. 2.. 82% E8821 2: N wig mumzwm e3- 3 ea .8 33s a 23» mm 253 $8221 on H Aofimfiucmouoav AmaEBEmouoE Afiwmqog Mom comm soflmozpm ow< @8005 ooamgmmm L 350m .dofimouoom .3350 no.“ panama .wfluommoz 5 comb moEmEm> oflfiosoom- owoom 83m 93 mo :Bomexmoam I .v madman. 66 score was then multiplied by the weighting factor for that variable. The six scores, one for each variable, were then totaled and divided by the total weighting factor (10. 51), resulting in an average socio -economic score for that county. The county average was assumed to have represented demand. On the supply side there has been no clear indication as to what constituted a desirable standard for a particular type of county. Generally the procedure followed has been one of looking at what other counties were suggesting. These suggestions were then adapted to fit what that particular county believed best suited their own situation. As an example, Cape May County, New Jersey, established its standard by noting that the National Recreation Association recommended a county park standard of ten acres -per- thousand. 1 It was then decided that standards should vary in applica - tion between different areas. Cape May County officials noted several factors that could modify the standard, including: Size, natural and physical features, age, income level, social character— istics, and density, of residential development. But in the final analysis they selected a standard of ten acres —per -thousand, which indicated the factors mentioned were not used in, the determination of'a standard. 1Public Open Space and Recreation (Cape May County, New Jersey: Cape May County Parks and Recreation Commission, 1966), p. 21. 67 Certain general trends appeared during the review of numerous standard proposals for counties. Generally, county park standards were found to vary between five and twenty -five acres- per-thousand population. The most commonly quoted standard was fifteen acres for every thousand persons. Using the range and mean as a guide, it became possible to divide acres -per-thousand into five general classes. The classes, as indicated below, presented a range from five to twenty —five acres- per-thousand, with fifteen acres -per-thousand as the median. Value Acres -per -thousand Population 1 5 acres 2 10 acres 3 15 acres 4 20 acres 5 25 acres The demand score for each county would be somewhere between zero and five. When that score was inserted into the supply scale, the resulting supply criteria was interpreted as being an acceptable acres -per-thousand standard. For example, if County A had a socio-economic rating of 2. 5, that rating would indicate a standard of thirteen acres—per-thousand. Similarly, if County B had a socio-economic rating of 3. 6, it received a standard of eighteen acres -per -thousand. 68 There were several inherent problems with this type of approach to development of standards. For example, there was no basis for using acres -per-thousand as a standard, other than the measure has been the most commonly used method in the past. An alternative solution would have been to develop standards for each activity until all activities offered. in the county system have been included. An example of that approach would suggest two acres of picnicking for every thousand persons, one golf course for every twenty thousand persons, etc. That idea was discarded because it did not allow for variation in natural land features and facilities between sites. By using the straight acres —per-thousand approach, the county assumed greater freedom to structure park facilities to meet local requirements. A second alternative would have been ‘to use some of the many mathematical and statistical devices employed in other related areas. Maricopa County, Arizona, was one of the first counties to use a mathematical model. Maricopa County hired a consulting firm, Sam L. Huddleston and Associates, to develop a predictive model for attendance. However, as Dr. Chubb stated, the mathe- matical aspects of the planning procedure were lengthy and complicated. 1 Generally it may be stated that county park systems 1Mi chael Chubb, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a Systems Analysis Approach (East Lansing, Mich. : Michigan State University, February, 1968), p. 47. 69 in Michigan, with few exceptions, were not in a position to utilize that type of approach because of the cost involved. The study of demand has been limited to the analysis of a limited number of influences on recreation demand. Other factors which might influence demand were not investigated. It might be added that some of the recent, more elaborate attempts at measuring demand have been only partially successful. The difficulty leads one to believe that human nature was too complex to enable researchers to make accurate predictions of demand at this time. The measure of demand used in this study considered a small portion of the total factors influencing participation and demand. The lack of comprehensive analysis of all factors was the greatest weakness of the approach. However, when compared to the tech- niques employed in developing most county standards, the suggested method was an improvement. The demand method was thought to have been a more accurate appraisal of county requirements, while retaining a simplicity in approach. Standards Summary It has been suggested that county parks and recreation systems should be evaluated based on the previously suggested 70 county park standards. To review, the following list indicates the standards utilized in the evaluation: 1. Each county park system was to be under a separate county park commission as provided for in the Public Acts of 1965, Act 261. County park facilities were best located within at least fifteen miles one way of the user' s home. County parks, excluding roadside parks, were to be between one hundred and four hundred acres in size, depending on the nature of use. Total county park acreage was to be determined by the suggested approach equating demand with supply. CHAPTER IV RESULTS OF COUNTY PARK FINDINGS Data Collection Knowledge of government' 8 contribution to recreation in Michigan has been hindered by a lack of information concerning facilities and programs supplied. In an attempt to provide better understanding of what counties were doing, the Michigan State Association of Supervisors mailed a park and recreation question- naire to each county. The completed forms were returned in April, 1969. Since the questionnaire supplied all the necessary data required in the study, it was decided to utilize them rather than ask the county officials to complete a second questionnaire. To minimize the possibility of errors being present in the questionnaire, numerous other‘sources of recent county information were also reviewed. The County Recreation Potential studies con- ducted by representatives of the Soil Conservation Service provided a cross -reference for about ten of the eighty -three counties. It was also possible to check the data from Kent, Genesee, and the five 71 72 Southeastern Michigan counties in the Huron -Clinton Authority through perusal of their Recreation Master Plans. v In total, seventeen of the eighty -three counties were cross -referenced. With few exceptions the information supplied in the Michigan State Association of Super- visors' questionnaires coincided with the information found in the other sources. County Park Administration As indicated in Chapter-III, the local county Board of Supervisors were given legislative permission to establish separate Park and Recreation Commissions in 1965. ~ In the four'years since the authority was granted, seventeen counties have taken advantage of the law. Twenty -eight counties have retained the County Road Commissions as the supervisory authority. It was found that there were nine counties that held county parks under a variety of admin- istrative agencies. In addition, twenty -eight counties reported no county parks or commissions of any kind. In analyzing the distribution of the various forms of admin- istrative agencies, the most significant factor appeared to have been the wide, heterogeneous distribution. No single region had a sig— nificantly larger proportion of one type of authority than did any other region. Distribution was also characterized by the lack of consistency between urban counties and nonurban counties. For 73 example, the three urban counties of Muskegon, Kent, and Wayne have had extensive county park systems under the direction of the County Road Commissions. In contrast, Genesee, Kalamazoo, and Jackson Counties had significant county park systems directed by Park and Recreation Commissions. One factor found in the survey tended to substantiate the need for county parks. The Huron -Clinton Metropolitan Authority, composed of Wayne, Washtenaw, Oakland, Macomb, and Livingston Counties, provided regional recreation services comparable to portions being provided by county parks. It was interesting to note, however, that of the five member counties, four maintained separate county park authorities. The reason for ”overlap" was that the regional system supplied but one of the necessary county park and recreation products. Washtenaw County, for example, suggested that county parks "provide those recreational facilities that can be used by the residents of the county as a unit and that are generally not provided by the local units of government, Huron -Clinton Metropolitan Authority, and the Michigan Conservation Department. 1 If future Regional Park Authorities were to provide both county and 1Illustrative Statement of Goals and Objectives, op. cit. , 74 regional recreational services, 2 then the need for county park systems would not be as evident. Analysis of why one county created a separate county com - mission while another has not was difficult to determine. Generally, there were two significant factors involved. First, counties such as Wayne, Kent, and Muskegon have been under the control of the County Road Commissions for as long as 40 years. Conversion to a new system would necessitate the breaking of long political ties. The problem of political situations at the county level undoubtedly played a significant role in many of the county' 3 decisions. The second factor dealt with those counties having no county parks at all. Several of these counties were already characterized as having State and Federal lands within their boundaries. With extensive land areas already eliminated from the tax roles and dedicated to public use, why allocate more for county parks? Further discussion of this problem and a possible alternative have . been included in Chapter V. However, it is sufficient to note here that counties having no county parks, or alternatives to county parks, did not recognize the value inherent in county park recrea- tional experiences. 1Referencewas made to the nature of county park services in Chapter III, the second section, entitled "Nature of County Park Systems. " 75 fiUndoubtedly, other counties will create separate Park and Recreation Commissions in the future. This movement will probably gain emphasis as more counties, primarily urban, recognize the value and need for county park services. The map on page 76 depicts the distribution of county park and recreation authorities as of April, 1969. County Park Space Requirements In April, 1969, there were 21, 765 acres of reported county park land in Michigan. In addition, there were seventeen parks in seven counties for which acreages were not obtained. To the county supply could be added 17, 698 acres of park land operated by the Huron- Clinton Authority. Together there was a combined county -regional supply of 39, 453 acres of park land. The demand for county park space, developed by the supply- demand standard, showed a need for 12 9, 237 acres of county park land. Using the county supply by itself, a deficit of 107, 472 acres was shown. When the county -regional supplies were combined, the need dropped to 89, 784 acres. Even if the latter deficiency figure was used, it showed that current supply had to more than double to meet the demand. 1 1 The study did not consider township or State parks serving recreational functions comparable to county parks. It was assumed 76 :wct : 0 I""'R.c. ' ‘ IRT'C r _ _I I ””13“ ° umunn'..__-.'., b , ,ucxmm' r--- -41 NO Inc-nu 6'- _ _ _‘ IR (1" IQ‘LT. ' N t ‘ I ° .- 43d. SUP. . & I“: '1 R O I JR'C'I ‘ ”\Vi,‘ l nun 0 pneu- R$o ‘L--: m---:-- Q11 -rfm” mar-0a.:le u Bd. S RC :NO I 'nuulu - ------- o "Kc-0'04.I ' - - - Legend “':T¢‘o-;.:uu.| :clm: I «can P@R —- Park and Recreation Commission R. C. -—Road Commission I 110-13.“) .Rc INO I B. S. -- Board of Supervisors NO--No Commission I NO. ,3 S IR C I NO .m C. D. C. -- County Development Com - on...:l-nno-Z;£:o:n-Efi‘;'t:3:;u:n;1 miSSion 'P@R 'P@R IR. C.'P@R _I--_._, N. R. C. --Natural Resources Com- m7: #555"-1.;m;,f.;'..... "I: P@R 3 R.C. mission - . "n V. T.C. --Village, Township, City R' :CI:":' 1.1.313.°I.N0..-...'R 93;.“ 35“.: WRITE};- ? -- Form Unknown "uu' In.“ inmyflfimm I IP@R I R'C°I 3.3. R. c.I R. c_.; R. c_. ' _N9-I_B__S_I__‘,;,‘;,:,’,'éo3-‘. 11:15};- F3; (770. mum in” II P@ I P@R 'P@R INo IR, c. I No 1P3?" ;.-.,;I:: ILL-ii 75:“;0: Incas. raga-"fun: I I R. C. c. DHCINO :No :R.C.I FIGURE 1. --Distribution of Forms of County Recreation Commissions. 77 .Only five counties met or exceeded the local standard. Those counties were Genesee, Huron, Alcona, Antrim, and Iron. The graph presented on page 78 indicates a general numeral distri — bution of county deficiencies. The acreages of Muskegon County' s eight parks and Bay County' 5 one park were not supplied. However, unless the acreages totaled at least 700 to 800 acres, these counties would have been included in the ”Over 1000" groups as well. It was found that the greatest regional need for county parks was in the southern portion of the State. 1 From the Indiana border northward to a line from Oceana to Sanilac Counties, most counties required substantially greater county park, acreage. Counties in the northern half of the lower peninsula and the entire upper peninsula displayed an extremely varied, though less extensive, demand for additional parks than was found in the southern counties. Generally, the lowest block of demand for counties was in the center of the northern half of the lower peninsula. These that these parks were not too significant to alter the overall deficit substantially. However, in local instances the parks probably did have a significant influence. lNote map on page 79 showing the general distribution of deficiency. 78 Over 4000 1 Over 3000 1 Over 2000 4 Over 1000 6 901 -1000 1 801 --900 3 701 -800 0 601 -700 5 501 -600 7 Deficiency in Acres 401-500 3 301 -400 2 201-300 9 101-200 13 0—100 11 lllllll II III - 012345673911011121‘3 Number of Counties FIGURE 2. --The Number of Counties Requiring Specific Acreage Increases. Acreage Requirements W 800+ m 3,- 83:33:32: . .- _ .. 555::::::::::: ‘-=‘-;-'-‘. ~‘-’.~=' L:::5§EEEEEE“‘ 3'5" 7 ”an: ::: 601 -700 53'1'3533 79 FIGURE 3. --Distribution of County Acreage Deficiencies. 80 counties included: Montmorency, Otsego, Oscoda, Crawford, Kalkaska, Missaukee, and Roscommon. On the State as a whole there were thirty -three counties within at least 300 acres of the suggested supply. There were twenty -one counties in the less desirable position of requiring from 300 to 1000. acres. The twelve counties requiring more than 1000 acres were assumed to have been in an extremely poor position. The preceding graph did not include the five counties in the Huron -Clinton Authority. Four of the five member counties main- tained separate county park systems. Therefore, it was necessary to consider eachcounty separately, and as a unit. The total acreage requirement for the five counties was 57, 585. The county -regional supply was 23, 701 acres, indicating a deficiency of 33, 884 acres. The following table separates supply and demand by county; the total supply and the total demand indicate regional characteristics. Deficiencies in park acreage tended to correspond directly to the size of the pOpulation of a county. However, the relationship was not a constant ordinal -scale correlation since county socio- economic characteristics and current supply tended to alter the actual deficiency. An example of the influence supply had on defi - ciencies has beenshown on page 82 for ten of the most deficient counties. 81 vmm .mmI “3.6m mmmfim mocofiofimn 5396 #308 988mm H308 mam .H I 2” mg .H mam .m 55533 m5 .H + o Ea .fi H S :BmmcFE mmmé I o mmm.v mvmfi £80032 mmm .m I Em .H mum .m NS .2 6:2wa mmm .3- H: .v is .v 23 .mm 3.33 manganese. .3550 cmanoaofimz H308 neaczuI noun—m 28300 .3550 madam .mmugou umnEoE can huwuofisdw cfiflomofioz :ofifiUI sonsm no.“ panama paw Emma II .o WJm