In developing this type of park, there are several specific principles that work together to achieve a relaxing yet energizing effect upon the viewer or user of the park thanks to a careful blending of the natural and the man-made. The park itself is designed to provide a limited range of possibilities, most geared toward simple enjoyment of nature through the use of trails, greenways and forested regions. The parks combined the manicured and well-defined spaces of the pastoral with the suggestion of the wild open spaces within a limited and confined area. In accomplishing this feat, Olmsted provided perhaps the most succinct breakdown of the important elements based on seven S’s: scenery, suitability, style, subordination, separation, sanitation and service.4 Of particular relevance to the current discussion are the concepts of scenery and service. Scenery refers to the creation of ‘passages of scenery’ which are meant to provide an enhanced sense of space including a perception of indefinite boundaries and the constant opening up of new views.5 It is important to note that this is an impression consciously designed, an illusion of space, rather than the real thing. Service refers to the necessity that the space designed will meet the fundamental social and psychological needs of the people who will be using it.6 Responsible designs, however, incorporated all of the above principles with a careful consideration of how utility can be combined with ornament in such a way as to provide for the safety and maintenance of the space, as well as promote the safety and physical and mental health of the user. Thus, the concept of a park was a carefully maintained and ordered space that was. Recreation & Leisure.
Athearn, L. “The Risks of Mountaineering Put in Perspective.” The American Alpine News. Vol. 11, N. 246, (2004), pp. 10-12.
Betz, Carter J.; Bowker, J.M.; English, Donald B.K.; Mou, Shela H.; Bergstrom, John C. et al. Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore, 1999.
Beveridge, Charles E. “Olmsteadian Principles of Design.” (January 1986). Toward a Definition of Olmstedian Principles of Design. May 14, 2006 <http://www.nps.gov/applications/parks/frla/ppdocuments/ACF27FA.pdf>
Chavez, D. “Geocaching: Using Technology for Outdoor Recreation.” Pacific Southwest Research Station – Wildland Recreation and Urban Cultures Recreation Research Update. Vol. 49, N. 2, (August 2004).
Element 10. “Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails.” (December 6, 2001). May 31, 2007 <http://126.96.36.199/search?q=cache:uRPODN1bIAwJ:www.tucsonaz.gov/planning/plans/genplan/1prost.pdf+recreation+open+space&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a>
Ewert, Alan; Attarian, Aram; Hollenhorst, Steve; Russell, Keith; & Voight, Allison. “Programs That Work: Evolving Adventure Pursuits on Public Lands: Emerging Challenges for Management and Public Policy.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. Vol. 24, N. 2, (Summer, 2006), pp. 125-140.
Fitzsimmons, Allan K. “National Parks: The Dilemma of Development.” Science. Vol. 191, N. 4226, (February 6, 1976), pp. 440-444.
Gager, D.; Hendee, J.; Kinziger, M.; & Krumpe, E. “What Managers are Saying and Doing About Wilderness Experience Programs.” Journal of Forestry. Vol. 96, N. 8, (1998), p. 34-37.
Robertson, J. “ACCESS!” American Whitewater. (2001). May 29, 2007 <http://www.americanwhitewater.org/archive/article/175>
Russell, Ruth V. “Public Park and Recreation Trends: A Status Report.” Department of Recreation and Park Administration. Indiana University, 2002.
Russell, K.C. & Hendee, J.C. Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare: Definitions, Common Practice, Expected Outcomes and a Nationwide Survey of Programs. [Technical Report No. 26]. Moscow, ID: Idaho Forest Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, 2000.
Toland, S. “Access Fund Announces Bouldering Initiative.” Daily Camera. (March 3, 2004). May 29, 2007 <http://www.websearch.dailycamera.com>
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples