Why Does the Government Lock Public Parks when the Citizens Pay for them - Literature review Example

Why does the government lock public parks when the citizens pay for them? Public parks are a part of daily life. People pass through parks on their way to school and work. People go to parks to relax, run or walk their dogs. Public parks offer a great view in high-rise buildings. Travellers navigate with public parks as landmarks and travel routes. In the U.K., there are at least 27,000 thousand public parks that cover 143,000 hectares of land. These parks offer spaces for leisure, recreation, sports, entertainment and business. Some parks are open and very accessible while other parks are walled with gated entrances. Around 1.5 billion people visit these parks each year. With many people using parks, upkeep is necessary. The government spends £630 million of taxpayer’s money for the upkeep of these parks. Every visit costs 42 pence. In the last 10 years, spending on public parks has decreased. (Urban Parks Forum, 2001) With decreased spending, the trend is good parks are becoming better and bad parks continue to deteriorate (Urban Parks Forum, 2001). The state of the park has a direct relationship with visits. Deteriorating parks mean lower number and frequency of visits. Decrepit public parks become spaces for antisocial activities and crime. These parks are evaded by residents, with the effect of further facilitating the use of these parks for unwanted activities. In an effort to control the deterioration of public parks, given budget cuts, a measure being done is using gates and locking parks. The park can be accessed only during certain hours, such as from 6 am to 7 pm. All people inside will be asked to leave when the parks close. This practice has spurred the issue of limiting people’s access to public parks when they are paying for the upkeep. Importance of Public Parks Public parks are important. Public parks benefit people. These benefits justify the development of public parks and government spending on upkeep. Public parks support environmental sustainability. Green spaces facilitate the development of urban ecosystems (Zhou & Rana, 2012). Public parks support biodiversity, including plants, animals and insect that plays a role in sustaining the natural environment. At the same time, public parks are green spaces that allow people to interact with the natural environment and become part of the ecosystem. (Barbosa et al., 2007) Trees and vegetation in parks regulate temperature by providing a cooling effect. Trees provide shade in hot weather and absorb heat. This prevents the urban heat island effect from happening. Without trees and plants, heat would be absorbed by concrete, which is capable of retaining heat for long hours. When heat accumulates in concrete, temperatures in the area rises. Park greenery also lowers air pollution by absorbing carbon dioxide to create oxygen and providing barriers to noise. (Millward & Sabir, 2011) When it rains, trees and plants in public parks absorb water to prevent runoffs that cause floods (Dolesh, 2011). Public parks improve the aesthetic quality of neighbourhoods and city centres (Millward & Sabir, 2011). The greenery balances the monotonous visual effect of concrete and asphalt in cities (Salazar & Menendez, 2007). Landscaping in public parks is intended to provide a pleasant view to visitors and passersby. Public parks also promote health and safety. Interaction with nature can improve physical and psychological well-being. Public parks encourage physical activity (Salazar & Menendez, 2007). Parks provide various opportunities for physical activity as a way for people to get their required doses of physical exercise to prevent health conditions, such as heart problems and obesity (Bedimon-Rung, Mowen, & Cohen, 2005). Public parks provide social, economic and political benefits. Public parks provide a good place for social interaction (Barbosa et al., 2007). Social interaction happens when people engage in leisure, recreational or sports activities in public parks. Public parks also create employment, which ranges from the upkeep of the park to work at business establishments operating inside the park (Kilbourne, 2009). Parks are spaces to exercise free speech. Public parks have been used as forums for meetings and rallies. (Salazar & Menendez, 2007) Public Parks as Public Service and Public Goods The diverse benefits to people of public parks make parks an essential public service. The government develop parks as part of community development. As communities develop, so do public parks. A significant portion of government revenues go to the development and upkeep of parks. In effect, public parks are built and maintained on taxpayers’ money (Prichard, 2010). In Britain, the mid-1800s marked what is called the park movement. Britain was a model of the industrial revolution. Population growth was rising. Industrial complexes and business establishments were being built in and around towns. The landscape was changing. Public parks were developed to address some of the problems of urbanisation, such as pollution and aesthetic issues. It was in Britain that the idea of developing public parks in each municipality flourished. At the same time, public parks were used to ease political, socio-cultural and economic tensions that were affecting the morale and psychological well-being of citizens. Large parks were built on lands in the peripheral part of town, where real estate prices are lower. Initially, people travelled a long way to visit the parks. Eventually, with nothing new to offer and the high cost of travel, people lost interest. (Conway, 2000) The idea then shifted to providing people with greater access to public parks. Local governments shifted park development efforts to building smaller parks in the town or city centres in the late 19th century. The use of public parks to people improved. Rising levels of air pollution and poor visual quality of the towns or cities improved. (Conway, 2000) After the two world wars, government effort focused on rebuilding and renewing public space. Public parks were built to beautify and renew the urban landscape and create new towns. In the mid-20th century, the garden city movement emerged. Parks were built on abandoned industrial grounds and reclaimed lands that were located on the outskirts. Initially, natural parks appealed to car owners and people who are curious about the parks. However, these distant public parks alienated those with limited access, such as people without cars and the elderly. Park visitors dwindled. (Conway, 2000) With economic priorities, public spending on public parks decreased. This resulted to the deterioration of the large public parks. In 1996, the green movement picked up again. With the government thrust towards public welfare, park development focused again on town and city public parks. Today, the focus of park development remains on town and city parks, which are nearer and more accessible to the public. Around 8 million people visit public parks every day. (Conway, 2000) Public parks, which are built through taxpayers’ money, are also public goods. Public goods are services characterised by non-excludability and non-rivalry in consumption (Prichard, 2010). Nobody can be excluded from the benefit of public goods, even if they have not paid for it. Children and indigents cannot be excluded from public parks even if they do not pay taxes. As public goods, the maximum utility of public parks is achieved with use by as many people who want to visit public parks. Moreover, use by an individual of the park does not limit its availability to other people. Many people can use the park at the same time without decreasing the benefit to any user. As such, public parks are green spaces open to everyone. Regulation of Public Parks As a public good for everyone, public parks must be maintained to ensure continuous benefit the public. Like all public goods, public parks are also susceptible to natural and man-made wear and tear. People sit and walk on the grass. Parks generate trash. Structures decline. People vandalise and do other unwanted activities in parks. If public parks are not maintained and secured, then parks will deteriorate to a point where these are no longer useful to the public. The government takes responsibility for developing and maintaining public parks through the doctrine of public trust. This doctrine states that city lands owned by the government or purchased using the city’s money that are allocated or acquired for the purposes of building parks are held in trust for the public. The city or municipal governments serve as public trustees who hold the parks in trust for the public. As trustees, the local government has a duty of loyalty to the public as the beneficiaries of the trust as well as a duty of care over the trust asset, which is the public park. (Williams, 2002) Upkeep of public parks forms part of the duty of care of municipal and city governments. Park maintenance is largely a collaborative effort. A park authority or a department of the local government could be assigned the role of maintaining public parks. Employees of the park authority do the routine tasks of trimming, collecting garbage and providing security personnel. Civic groups and private citizens contribute funds and help in upkeep. (Low, Taplin, & Scheld, 2005) However, the maintenance of landscape depends on available funds and comprises only part of the maintenance work involved in public parks. In addition, security measures are also part of park maintenance to ensure the safety of park goers. Police officers, in addition to park security, do routine checks in and around the parks. Sufficient lighting and CCTV cameras are also security features in some parks. To prevent or curtail unwanted behaviour inside parks, open parks are easier to secure because of visibility, provided there are people who see what happening. Attracting many people to the park is the key. The greater the visibility, the more secure is the public park, especially during the night (Jorgensen, Ellis, & Ruddell, 2012). In walled and gated parks, visibility is lesser, which means the park is less secure during the night. As a security measure, these parks may be closed for the night and opened again in the morning. Gates are locked and security personnel guard against unauthorised entry. In walled public parks, locking parks is a means of preventing the use of the park for unwanted or illegal activities, such as vandalism, selling of illegal drugs or robbery. Securing public parks is a persisting problem for city and town governments. In the United States, stealing of metal from parks is a growing problem in open public parks. Copper is priced at $4 per pound, which make it the top metal stolen in public parks. Bronze is used in sculptures and memorial plaques. Aluminium and other metals are used in park signs, bleacher planks, ladders, fountains and fire hydrants. Park authorities report that employees weld metal materials, place grates around metal water regulators, and place locks in installations. Even so, thieves bring metal saws and other equipment. Thefts have been reported during the day and night. (Dolesh, 2011) This problem has two negative effects. First, theft of metal in parks deteriorates the conditions of parks by affecting aesthetics as well as diverting limited funds to security. Second, theft in parks means the public space has attracted people with criminal intent, which could extend metal theft to crimes against person. If security is a problem in open parks, this is more so in walled or low visibility parks. A study investigated the impact of concealment, visibility and gender on fear of crime in public parks. The results showed that concealment is an environmental cue, visibility is a social cue, and gender is an individual characteristic that affect the fear of crime in public parks. Parks with abundant locations for concealment contribute to the fear of crime. Limited people in the parks also heighten the fear of crime. More women are concerned about concealment and visibility in public parks. (Jorgensen et al., 2012) If women no longer go to high concealment and low visibility parks, then less people go to parks in general. Lesser visitors provide more opportunities for crime that would further deteriorate the use of parks. Locking public parks is a way of regulating the use of public parks to ensure safety and prevent unwanted activities (Bedimon-Rung et al., 2005). By securing public parks, city and town governments ensure the continuity of the use of parks by the public. Locking public parks is part of the duty of care of the local government towards public parks and the public. The local government cannot allow public parks to deteriorate by allowing security problems to persist. Public parks are considered scarce natural resources. Once, parks deteriorate, these are difficult to replace or renew and will be forever be removed from public use. (Williams, 2002) While access to public parks is important, limited use at certain times is a small sacrifice in order for the public to continue enjoying the benefits of public parks for many more years. Conclusion Public parks provide ecological, health and safety, economic, social and political benefits to the public. Public parks are an essential public service and public goods that are provided through the taxpayer’s money. As such, public parks are open to everybody. The use of parks leads to deterioration through wear and tear. People with ill intention also take advantage of opportunities to commit unwanted or illegal activities in public parks. Deterioration and security problems are factors that lessen visits to parks. Security is a bigger problem in walled or low visibility parks that provide more crime opportunities. To address this problem, low visibility parks are locked, especially at night, to secure the public and ensure continued public use. References Barbosa, O., Tratalos, J., Armsworth, P., Davies, R., Fuller, R., Johnson, P., & Gaston, K. (2007). Who benefits from access to green space? A case study from Sheffield, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(2-3), 187-195. Bedimon-Rung,A., Mowen, A., & Cohen, D. (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2S2), 159-168. Conway, H. (2000). Parks and people: The social function. In J. Woudstra & K. Fieldhouse (Eds.), The regeneration of public parks (pp. 9-20). London: E & FN Spon. Dolesh, R. (2011). A role for parks: The case for a long-overdue approach to flood control. Parks & Recreation, 46(9), 16-18. Jorgensen, L., Ellis, G., & Ruddell, E. (2012). Fear perceptions in public parks: Interactions of environmental concealment, the presence of people recreating, and gender. Environment & Behavior. doi:10.1177/0013916512446334 Kilbourne, C. (2009). Real value of greens space. Municipal World, 119(5), 17. Low, S., Taplin, D., & Scheld, S. (2005). Rethinking urban parks: Public space and cultural diversity. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Millward, A., & Sabir, S. (2011). Benefits of a forested urban park: What is the value of Allan Gardens to the city of Toronto, Canada? Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(3), 177-188. Prichard, W. (2010). Taxation and state building: Towards a governance focused tax reform agenda. IDS Working Papers, 2010(341), 1-55. Salazar, S., & Menendez, L. (2007). Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: Does proximity matter? Land Use Policy, 24(1), 296-305. Urban Parks Forum. (2001). Public park assessment: A survey of local authority owned parks focusing on parks of historic interest. Retrieved from http://www.green-space.org.uk/downloads/Publications/PPA.PDF Williams, S. (2002). Sustaining green spaces: Can public parks be protected under the public trust doctrine? S.C. Environmental Law Journal, 10, 23-52. Zhou, X., & Rana, M. P. (2012). Social benefits of urban green space. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 23(2), 173-189. Read More