- Email: [email protected]
Accessibility issues in park design: The national parks
Landscapeand UrbanPlanning, 26 (1993) 25-33 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam
25
Accessibility issues in park design: The National Parks Abir Mullick Department OfArchitecture,State UniversityofNew Yorkat Buffalo, Hayes Hall, Buffalo, NY 14214, USA
Abstract National Parks in the USA are experiencing a demand to provide access from the rising population of older, disabled Americans. This paper examines some of the important issues of providing equal access and the impact of man-made interventions in the wilderness. Social, demographic and legislative reasoning are used to present the need for increased access and to discuss the effectiveness of the present policies. The economic, ecological and aesthetic implications of providing greater access and of human intervention are discussed. The paper concludes by emphasising that more effective policies are needed to maintain the integrity of the natural environment.
Introduction
Ethical considerations and social, political and economic pressures from the growing disabled community have created a demand for equal access to the National Parks, currently inaccessible to many. In the context of public parks, this implies making access through manmade intervention. This paper studies the social, economic and ecological implications of such intervention in the natural setting. Manmade intervention, for the purpose of this paper, implies human interference in nature to accommodate the needs of human beings. The study of this controversial subject, i.e. human intervention in natural spaces, leads to the complex question of increasing access while giving full attention to the environmental consequences. Accessibility is a modern day, man-made concept, and it is commonly equated with providing ‘convenience’ and making accommodations through human intervention. Generally, the emerging notion of accessibility has social, political, technological, legal, and economic overtones. It is complicated by humanistic concepts of individual empowerment, in-
dependence and freedom of the human spirit and body. Such a multi-faceted issue is further compounded when it must be considered simultaneously with the infinitely varying circumstances of the natural environment, and the innate national pride and passion that typify Americans’ attitude toward the park system. Unlike the objective of the National Parks of conserving nature, urban parks were developed from the “anti-urban ideal that dwelt on the traditional prescription for relief from the evils of the city-to escape to the country” (Cranz, 1982, pp. 3-5). Urban parks, therefore, vary conceptually from National Parks, in that they are vast pleasure grounds that represent the naturalistic landscape of the wilderness. Underneath their wilderness-like facade, urban parks at best are planned landscapes, designed, “ ...to exert civilizing influence on the working class” (Cranz, 1982, p. 5 ). To the naturalist, urban parks are a tamed imagery, a crude representation of the wilderness, a depiction of human superiority and control over nature, and they symbolize the level at which human beings will tolerate and accept the wilderness. Human intervention in public parks, therefore, is not considered undesirable. The
26
need to maximize access through human intervention is the central basis for city park design, and the social, ecological and aesthetic issues arising from human control are far less critical than they are in the case of National Parks. As the conservation-oriented focus of this paper aligns itself closely with the objectives of the National Parks, urban parks are not included in the examination of this issue. The discussion of access to public parks is divided into the following four sections. ( 1) The National Park today: the origin of National Parks, social, legislative and conservation policies of the park administration, and implications of providing too much access. (2) Changing demographics: the ‘graying of America’ and the general characteristics of the elderly population. ( 3 ) Access policies of National Parks: an overview of current policy, and how park designs and accessibility are affected by current laws, guidelines, and the lack of standardized regulations. (4) Critical analysis: the ecological, economic, and aesthetic impact of interaction with the natural environment. The National Park today The Congressional Act of 1872 led to the development of National Parks based on the need “. . . to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein, and to provide for enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (Forster, 1973, p. 15). All National Parks, like Yellowstone, the first to be created as a result of the Act, are considered to be “... the most wonderful, the most incredible, the most fantastic and spectacular geological and scientific features of this wonderful country of ours” (Doe11 and Twardzik, 1979, p. 127). Their pristine quality is too precious to allow any destruction. A review of the operational policies of the
A. MuNick /Landscape and Urban Plannrng 26 (1993) 25-33
National Park Service (NPS) will indicate its dilemma: how to provide access while preserving nature. The NPS is committed to providing maximum access, and it is seriously concerned with preventing the deterioration that may result. Many people feel restricted because of the protectionist attitude of the NPS, and the administration is accused of failing to share the natural resources with the general public. These individuals have demanded that the NPS open up more of the park boundaries, liberalize their enjoyment-oriented policies, and allow greater recreational use of these parks. Some park administrators, in order to show higher use figures and thus to justify greater appropriation of funds, have encouraged more recreational use of the parks. In so doing, they have concentrated on higher visitor use and have ignored the conflicts over perpetuation and natural destruction. In fact, the balance between preserving the natural environment and providing maximum use of the natural landscape is not easy to strike. The reality is that the NPS has done a superior job of balancing the two-fold need to preserve the environment and to maximize access for recreation and enjoyment. Various problems are likely to result from the upsurge in the number of individuals wanting to visit the national parks. First, the increasing number of park visitors and their eagerness to explore the natural territories is likely to add to the burden of the already fragile ecology of the National Parks. Then, the demand for enhanced recreational possibilities will have numerous unknown social and environmental implications, and threaten the preservation policies of the NPS. Lastly, serious problems are likely to arise from human activities in natural areas, and this will seriously impact the natural quality of the landscape, which is the reason for people wishing to visit the National Parks in the first place. Accessibility to the National Parks becomes even more critical considering the steady usage and increasing population of persons with disabilities. This is not
A. Mullick /Landscape and Urban Plannrng 26 (I 993) 25-33
to imply that disabled individuals demand greater recreational opportunities and are, therefore, more likely to threaten the delicate balance of preservation. Instead, the concern is over providing access through man-made interventions and to minimize negative social, ecological, and economic consequences. Changing demographics The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research estimates that there are 34 million Americans (over 14% of the total population) with some type of major disability that “severely limits them in one or more major activities” (Ficke, 1992, p. 5). Currently, there are about 3 1 million persons over the age of 65. This group accounts for 91% of all persons with disabilities or 11.5% of the total population. Based upon the factors currently influencing life expectancy, it is predicted that by 2030, older Americans will account for 15% of the total population (60 million) (Spencer, 1990, p. 21). Continuous advancements in medical technology are enabling people to live longer and live well; it is conceivable that lower death rates will push the number of those over 65 to 100 million, or 25% of the total population by 2030. Even a more conservative estimate, based on life expectancy as it was calculated in the 197Os, is 80 million or 20% of the total population in 2030. In this burgeoning elderly population, women currently outnumber men by 2 : 1. Although there is very little truth in the popular belief that older people are infirm, feeble or senile, most older Americans have at least one chronic health condition which affects their ability to function in their environment, In the US today, 95-96% of older people live in the same kind of places (4-5% are institutionalized) (Pirkl, 1990, p. 150). They use the same kinds of consumer products and express the same desires to remain independent, as do younger people. Aging is a lifelong process. The changes associated with it are “indiscrimi-
27
nate”, “irreversible” and “inevitable” (Pirkl, 1990, p. 15 1). The slowness of the aging process allows the aging person to adapt themselves to declining capabilities. Consequently, their physical abilities and mental conditions vary significantly from younger disabled individuals who may have suddenly become impaired from an illness or an accident. The gerontology literature indicates that it is a misconception that all older persons are alike. In fact, there is no age group that is more diverse in physical abilities, personal preferences, and individual tastes and desires (Koncelik, 1982, p. 2). The US Bureau of Census (August 1988 ) reports that, at present, about 50% of people over 65 have a high school education, and 10% are college graduates. The future elderly person is likely to have had many more years of formal education than his/her counterpart today. It is possible that by 2030, about 85% of those over the age of 65 will be high school graduates and about 25% will have received a college education (Spencer, 1990, p. 23). The educated senior citizens are more likely to have had well paid jobs and greater discretionary incomes, and to have taken better care of themselves. As a result it is expected that they will live longer, and their quality of life and health will be superior to that of elderly people today. Americans over the age of 50 are the group with the strongest buying power. They account for 42% of total consumer demand, control 77% of the total financial assets held by American families, and have a combined income of $800 billion. Economic statistics concerning the elderly demonstrate their consumer power: they purchase 43% of all new domestic cars, 48% of all luxury cars, 80% of all luxury goods, and 25% of all alcoholic beverages. Older Americans spend more capital in the grocery store, join more auto clubs, watch more television, and read more newspapers than younger Americans. Many lead luxurious lifestyles. They purchase 37% of all spa memberships, eat out on an average of three times a
-1 MUI/KAI/Landscape and Urban Planning 26 (1993125-33
28
week, and spend more money on travel and recreation than any other age group (Dychtwald and Flower, 1990, pp. 268-269). It is expected that as the elders of America change, their definition of recreation will also change. They are expected to be progressively more active and adventurous, and to be intellectually active (Dychtwald, 1990, p. 115). Access policies of National Parks
The passage of federal laws, such as the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) in 1968 and the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) in 1990, insures a new set of standards for equal access to accommodate disabled Americans. The ADA is particularly noteworthy because it: “provides a clear and comprehensive national mandate to end discrimination against individuals with disabilities; brings persons with disabilities into the economic and social mainstream of American life; provides enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities; and ensures that the federal government plays a central role in enforcing these standards on behalf of individuals with disabilities” (Ficke, 1992, p. 177 )
The Act provides standards for addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities in employment, transportation, telecommunications and public accommodations, even when no federal funds are involved. The mandate requires that public accommodations be made in many situations, including equal access to parks and outdoor recreation. This requirement necessitates making programmatic and facilities design changes to accommodate access needs for people with disabilities. According to the Architectural Barriers Act “all buildings and facilities, built in whole or in part with federal funds, be accessible and usable by physically disabled persons” (Park, 1989, p. 3 ). The ABA empowered four federal agencies to develop four different accessibility standards, causing much confusion in overlapping areas. The Uniform Federal Accessibility Standard (UFAS) incorporated many of the
regulations of the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) in 1984, and was adopted by the four federal agencies. The usefulness of these standards to provide access to parks and wilderness remains limited since they were designed to promote access to the built, man-made environment, and did not contain specific criteria for making park facilities accessible. The US Department of National Park Service is commended for its voluntary commitment to provide equal access to persons with disabilities. The accessibility movement in the US has its roots in the post World War II era with the return of a large number of disabled veterans. As these honored men and women joined the work force and pursued independent lives, accessibility standards developed. Growing public demand for a more accommodating environment generated laws, building codes and standards in the early 1960s. Gradually, some of these laws were applied to parks, parklands and the wilderness when it interacted with mankind. However, generally accepted accessibility guidelines, as applied to the naturally occurring environment, have never been officially standardized or written into law. To combat the lack of specific design criteria, the National Park Service formulated its own park accessibility guidelines to reflect the new legislative requirements and technological advances, and the “changing attitudes that have led to expanding equal opportunities”. ‘The Design Guide for Accessible Outdoor Recreation’, prepared by the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the US Department of the Interior National Park Service ( 1990), is a 75 page reference book outlining guidelines for many indoor and outdoor facilities. Included in its comprehensive coverage are trails and pathways, picnic areas, camping grounds, facilities for fishing, boating and water sports, toilet facilities, playgrounds, and historic sites. Very detailed design specifications, based on UFAS codes have been employed to specify the physical design of these outdoor
A. Mullick /Landscape
29
and Urban Planning 26 (1993) 25-33
areas and facilities. The design of accessible trails, for example, is based on access to trails and access of trails, and it utilizes Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS ) codes for parking space, passenger loading zone, routes to trails, and signage, trail width and surface, running and cross slope, edging type, and head room clearance. Specifically, the National Park Service has innovatively created different challenge levels to meet individual needs. Three ability levels offer an array of recreational opportunities and allow individuals with disabilities a challenge somewhat similar that experienced by skiers. The first level (indicated by a round green symbol) offers complete access and a trail which meets all UFAS requirements; the second (a square blue symbol) provides a Challenge 1 or more difficult access that generally meets most UFAS requirements; the third (indicated by a black diamond) equates to Challenge 2 or the most difficult opportunity that does not meet UFAS codes, although there are some safety features. Another significant recommendation is that physical accessibility must be governed by the feasibility of site alteration. This relies on the degree of modification consistent with providing access to recreational opportunities. Three types of modifications are considered. ( 1) Developed sites: these are fully accessible to persons with mobility impairments, including sites such as open picnic areas, administrative set-up and visitor services, (2) Underdeveloped sites: these are naturally occurring, not normally modified areas, and they do not ensure access to persons with disabilities. (3) Threshold areas: this term applies to undeveloped areas with scenic or other merit, and the extent to which they are developed for accessibility is dependent upon topography and the overall attraction of the site. Finally, the National Park system recommends following the universal design approach when providing access. Universal design implies offering a range of design solutions
consistent with users’ capabilities. It is a new concept that recognizes the notion that all people possess disabilities; it celebrates the differences between ages, sexes, races, nationalities, and disabling conditions and provides a viable integration through design. Universal design is as much about designing for the disabled as it is about designing for able-bodied people, and it universalizes design by being concerned with issues of safety, dignity, utility, independence, comfort, convenience, and aesthetics (Mullick, 1992 ) . Critical analysis With respect to park usage, older people are as eager to enjoy the outdoor environment as are their younger counterparts, and perhaps more so since retirees often have greater leisure time at their disposal, The demand for park use, therefore, is likely to increase significantly, along with the increasing elderly population. As mentioned earlier, senior citizens may make up 20% of the total US population by 2030. The increase in demand for use of National Parks will exceed this predicted increase for the following reasons: ( 1) older persons, especially those with disabilities, will not visit parks on their own but will be accompanied by members of their families; (2) older people have more time at hand, and are likely to visit more frequently. However, whether or not the senior citizens will be able to enjoy the National Parks will be determined by the type and quality of access. In its handbook ‘Interpretation for Disabled Visitors’, the National Park Service ( 1985 ) has outlined a wide variety of access plans for disabled visitors. Access for persons with one or more impairment (mobility, hearing, or learning) requires making special accommodations through human intervention. Interventions for the mobility and visually impaired are generally physical in nature, necessitating architectural modifications and/or altering the landscape to meet physical limitations. For
30
example, this may involve the creation of parking spaces, access routes, and entryways to buildings or other recreational facilities. Public amenities, such as rest rooms, bathing facilities, restaurants, trash receptacles, park benches and telephones would also need to be accessible. To offer possibilities for these persons to enjoy the outdoors, open-air spaces such as trails, beaches, shores, swimming pools, boating facilities, fishing facilities, and equestrian activities have to be made accessible. Human intervention in the natural setting is a critical issue to those concerned with maintaining the integrity of the natural environment. The absence of effective policies to guide environmental planners could cause negative and irreversible damage to the environment. It needs to be made clear that the author’s apprehensions are not based upon disagreement with providing access for persons with disabilities; in fact, the possibility of doing so is greatly applauded. Rather, the concern expressed here originates from the implications of instituting poorly developed access-oriented plans or making unnecessary interventions in the natural environment. It is essential that accessoriented schemes be well developed before they are employed. This will ensure that these schemes provide maximum empowerment in the natural areas, and that they will not negatively affect the environment. For example, most design guidelines outlined in ‘The Design Guide for Accessible Outdoor Recreation’ utilize the ANSI standards that ensure access to built, indoor environments. These standards have not been tested for their safety, adequacy and value when used in natural, outdoor situations. Unless these standards are thoroughly tested for usefulness, it is likely that there will be disastrous results in terms of safety, and ecological and aesthetic implications. It is essential that design guidelines for persons with disabilities must be compatible with their physical and mental capabilities. It is well known that people age differently-biologically, psychologically and socially. Physical de-
.I .Mullrck/Landscape and Urban Plannq
26 (1993) 25-33
terioration takes place with age. Hearing begins to decline in the 30s vision problems begin in the 40s and the sense of touch begins to diminish from the time people are born. There are numerous other aspects of aging, including declining strength, slowness in performing tasks, problems with grasp, movement and force application, incidence of arthritis, and fear of falling. The environmental design for the disabled, therefore, must encompass plans that are responsive to declining capabilities, the social characteristics and cultural values of senior citizens. These designs must be in the form of developed plans that are sensitive to the functional needs of the users; aesthetic requirements of the surroundings, and ecological compatibility with the immediate environment. In the absence of a coordinated effort to develop well rounded plans, numerous concerns have emerged, some of which are as follows. ( 1 ) Fear of poorly designed architectural hardware. Trails, outdoor ramps, gangways, docks, and piers made of architectural hardware such as handrails, grab bars, precast slabs, precompacted surfaces, and gates. The implications for safety are obvious unless these are compatible with users’ capabilities. They must also withstand the weather conditions of the outdoors and support the ecology and aesthetics of the immediate surroundings. (2 ) Fear of improper use of access codes. As explained earlier, like most other ANSI standards, the design guidelines for ramp grades, wheelchair clearance and wheelchair turning radii were developed for use in the indoor, built environment. When applied to the outdoor, natural situation, the effectiveness of these guidelines will vary tremendously, based on the capabilities of the individuals, and the quality of the environmental conditions. It is essential that new access codes specifically for providing access to the non-built, outdoors environment be developed and tested. These standards must ensure that maximum access and
A. Mullick /Landscape and Urban Planning 26 (1993) 25-33
greatest safety are provided to users in the natural setting. (3 ) Fear of utilizing unsuitable building materials. As in considering access codes, the suitability of materials used to provide access in the natural environment also needs to be tested. Environmental planners must be made aware of the functional, ecological and aesthetic consequences of using materials such as concrete, asphalt, crushed stone or wood chip on trails, gangways, and docks. New forms of disability tolerant, aesthetically sensitive and environmentally friendly materials must be developed to insure their overall compatibility. (4) Fear of using poorly designed amenity products. Poorly designed amenity products such as trash receptacles, park benches, outdoor signs and telephones, when used in natural settings, can jeopardize the objectives of preservation and enjoyment. These products need to be evaluated for their value, safety, aesthetics, and ecological compatibility. A new design approach, best described as ‘userfriendly, nature-oriented and eco-centric’, needs to be adopted to insure overall compatibility. Public awareness should be included in all planning facets to control the undesirable effects of increased access. The development and dispersion of relevant information, and involvement of the public in developing use-oriented policies will restrict the majority of negative impacts. The following discussion on ecological, economic and aesthetic impact is not specific to persons with disabilities. Rather, it focuses on the implications of increased access in general. Ecological impact Our National Parks provide an important means of experiencing the ecological system of which we are part. Access to the outdoor environment allows the opportunity to observe and participate in the ecological process, and
31
thereby develop a sensitivity and a greater appreciation for it. The policy for providing access to National Parks has already had numerous negative ecological effects, and this raises questions about the conflicting ideals of resource perpetuation and tourism development. Often it is poor planning and the lack of effective policies that have caused the imbalance between environmental preservation and commercial interests. Many landscape ecologists are disturbed by the state of the natural environment in the National Parks, and they believe that, if the destructive trend continues at the present rate, the highly valued ecological balance and scenic qualities of the outdoor environment will soon disappear. Examples of abuses and destructive influence on National Parks through excessive access may be found nationwide and include the over-saturation of visitors to Yosemite and other National Parks, the deterioration of coral reefs, and the demise of the manatee in Florida. In the case of people with disabilities, it is conceivable that the severity of ecological impact can compel the NPS to seriously limit access for all, including those with disabilities. The conveniences and kinds of recreational opportunities that the public has come to expect from the National Parks often conflict with the overriding goal of perpetuation and maintenance of the local ecosystem upon which the National Park concept was based. Many environmental ecologists have spoken out against access because of the type and magnitude of the destruction that has resulted from it. Generally, able-bodied park visitors require minimal access-oriented interventions. In the case of those with disabilities, the harshness of the wildness necessitates instituting varying degrees of man-made interventions that will empower them to enjoy the natural surroundings. Park organizers need to be sensitive to the issues of environmental degradation that may result from instituting improperly developed access plans. It is essential that eco-friendly de-
32
signs be developed to compensate for the rising demand for use of National Parks. Economic impact
The economic implications of access to National Parks is a mixed bag involving profit and loss. The experience people will gain from access to the natural environment is not protitable in economic terms, but the sensitivity people develop from interacting with nature, and their interest in the protection of the environment is a rich and potential gainful commodity. One of the important economic benefits which may develop in the near future is the creation of jobs in the environmental preservation sector of the economy, a priority of the Clinton-Gore administration. Another tangible economic benefit would be derived from the increase in revenue which adjoins the increase in access to National Parks. Greater access to National Parks will expand new fee-oriented sports, such as fishing, hunting and boating. Licensing of these sports will not only generate revenue, but it will help moderate enthusiasm and/or control usage. There is also the potential for creative new fee policies and new services capable of opening up new vistas for revenue generation. Since the National Parks are low on financial resources, the increased revenues could assist in sponsoring many new and future developments, such as construction of exhibit centers and production of high quality educational films. Aesthetic impact
It is widely believed that the primary reason that people come to National Parks is to enjoy the ‘natural’ or ‘untouched’ aesthetics of the environment. Yet millions of people from all over the world visit Niagara Falls, a natural wonder located in a completely commercial setting. Is there something wrong about interfering with natural aesthetics through manmade interventions? Many think there is. Most
A. Mullrck /Landscape and C’rban Plannrng 26 (1993) 25-33
urbanites who visit natural settings do this as a way of returning to the natural beauty. These individuals are in search of pristine environments where tourism is forbidden, and they value experiences that are evoked only through aesthetics of nature. The term ‘environmental aesthetics’, often used in relation to the visual appeal of an environment, is an encompassing term that extends beyond the visual aspects of nature. It includes all our sensibilities, such as sound, smell, taste, and touch, and also experiences that are affected by temperature, time and seasons. There are also cultural implications in the concept of ‘aesthetics’. The enjoyment an individual experiences from participating in the aesthetics is the result of the natural heritage, meaning, uniqueness, identity, emotional reaction, and feelings about a place (Lyle, 199 1, p. 63). It is important to realize that both man-made forms and the natural environment that is free of human involvement, have aesthetic components capable of providing unique and personal experiences. Even though some may vehemently argue that the beauty of natural forms supersedes that of man-made forms, the truth of such an argument becomes questionable when one examines the effect of public art and sculptures that adorn city squares. The question is not about the aesthetic superiority of either man-made objects or natural forms, but the quality of aesthetics that results from the interaction of the two. In the natural environment, interactive aesthetics are critical to maintaining the harmony of the outdoors because even mildly unpleasant aesthetics become highly noticeable and cause visual pollution. Many believe that unpleasant interactive aesthetics can be so visually disruptive that it can affect the personal well-being of the viewers. Conclusion
What made America a great nation is its nat-
A. Mullick /Landscape and Urban Plannmg 26 (1993) 25-33
Ural resources. There is no reason why the usage of natural areas must be restricted to able-bodied people, and it is illogical to assume that providing access to persons with disabilities will lead to excess exploitation. However, the need to develop policies to prevent misuse, abuse and waste of natural resources is urgent. Eflicient ecological, economic and aesthetic policies are needed immediately. These policies must not only maintain the natural environment in the National Parks, but continue to offer the highest level of satisfaction to park visitors. In recent years, increased access to National Parks has increased the installation of objects and architecture. Long before this process goes too far and the difference between the manmade and the natural setting becomes indiscernible, we are obligated to develop a sound set of policies and regulations, based on the issues eloquently presented by J. Ise ( 1973) in ‘Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks’: “the national parks are primarily, and should remain, natural areas for the enjoyment of men and other animals, and should be managed for this in mind. Man, the visitor, must be looked upon as an introduced species in the ecosystems of the parks, capable of interfering with natural processes. Visitors must be accommodated and developments planned in such a way that overall management of the parks will result in preservation of the unique natural features and habitat.”
The man-made environment in which we live ensures certain types of physical comfort. As increasing numbers of people become inclined to access the natural environment, and accessibility becomes a result of human intervention, we must find answers to the following questions. ( 1) Should there be a detinable limit on human intervention that will maintain the aesthetic integrity of the natural environment? (2 ) Can man-made objects in the natural environment be designed to complement the aesthetics of nature? (3 ) Is there a tolerable limit of human intervention in the natural environment?
33
(4) Can the natural environment be made fully accessible, without damaging it permanently? ( 5 ) What is the minimum level of human intervention that can empower people with disabilities to make independent use of the natural environment?
References
Cranz, G., 1982. The Politics of Park Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Doell, C. and Twardzik, L., 1979. Elements of Park and Recreation Administration. Burgess, Minneapolis, MN. Dychatwald, K. and Flower, J., 1990. Age Wave. Bantam Books, New York. Ficke, R., 1992. Digest of data on persons with disabilities. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education, Washington, DC. Forster, R. (Editor), 1973. Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Merges, Switzerland. Ise, J., 1973. In: R. Forster (Editor), Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Morges, Switzerland. Koncelik, J., 1982. Aging and the Product Development. Hutchinson Ross, Stroudsburg, PA. Lyle, J., 199 1. The utility of semi-formal models in ecological planning. Landscape Urban Plann., 21: 47-60. Mullick, A., 1992. What did I learn after all: Students’ view of a universal design project. In: IDSA Education Committee Proceedings, 1992. National Park Service, 1985. Interpretation for disabled visitors. US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Park, D., 1989. Accessible outdoor recreation facilities. Design. Publ. Park Practice Program, Washington, DC. Pirkl, J., 1990. Transgenerational design and industrial design imperatives. In: IDSA Education Committee Proceedings, 1990. Spencer, G., 1990. Demographics implications of an aging United States population structure during 1990 to 2030 period. Futures Res. Q. US Bureau of Census, August 1988. Educational attainment in United States: March 1987 and 1986. Current Population Reports Series p-20, No. 428, p. 25. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and US Department of Interior, National Park Service, 1990. Design Guide for Accessible Outdoor Recreation. Interim Draft prepared by Interagency Guidelines Task Group for Accessible Outdoor Recreation (Chairperson, John Costello), Washington, DC, 75 pp.
25
Accessibility issues in park design: The National Parks Abir Mullick Department OfArchitecture,State UniversityofNew Yorkat Buffalo, Hayes Hall, Buffalo, NY 14214, USA
Abstract National Parks in the USA are experiencing a demand to provide access from the rising population of older, disabled Americans. This paper examines some of the important issues of providing equal access and the impact of man-made interventions in the wilderness. Social, demographic and legislative reasoning are used to present the need for increased access and to discuss the effectiveness of the present policies. The economic, ecological and aesthetic implications of providing greater access and of human intervention are discussed. The paper concludes by emphasising that more effective policies are needed to maintain the integrity of the natural environment.
Introduction
Ethical considerations and social, political and economic pressures from the growing disabled community have created a demand for equal access to the National Parks, currently inaccessible to many. In the context of public parks, this implies making access through manmade intervention. This paper studies the social, economic and ecological implications of such intervention in the natural setting. Manmade intervention, for the purpose of this paper, implies human interference in nature to accommodate the needs of human beings. The study of this controversial subject, i.e. human intervention in natural spaces, leads to the complex question of increasing access while giving full attention to the environmental consequences. Accessibility is a modern day, man-made concept, and it is commonly equated with providing ‘convenience’ and making accommodations through human intervention. Generally, the emerging notion of accessibility has social, political, technological, legal, and economic overtones. It is complicated by humanistic concepts of individual empowerment, in-
dependence and freedom of the human spirit and body. Such a multi-faceted issue is further compounded when it must be considered simultaneously with the infinitely varying circumstances of the natural environment, and the innate national pride and passion that typify Americans’ attitude toward the park system. Unlike the objective of the National Parks of conserving nature, urban parks were developed from the “anti-urban ideal that dwelt on the traditional prescription for relief from the evils of the city-to escape to the country” (Cranz, 1982, pp. 3-5). Urban parks, therefore, vary conceptually from National Parks, in that they are vast pleasure grounds that represent the naturalistic landscape of the wilderness. Underneath their wilderness-like facade, urban parks at best are planned landscapes, designed, “ ...to exert civilizing influence on the working class” (Cranz, 1982, p. 5 ). To the naturalist, urban parks are a tamed imagery, a crude representation of the wilderness, a depiction of human superiority and control over nature, and they symbolize the level at which human beings will tolerate and accept the wilderness. Human intervention in public parks, therefore, is not considered undesirable. The
26
need to maximize access through human intervention is the central basis for city park design, and the social, ecological and aesthetic issues arising from human control are far less critical than they are in the case of National Parks. As the conservation-oriented focus of this paper aligns itself closely with the objectives of the National Parks, urban parks are not included in the examination of this issue. The discussion of access to public parks is divided into the following four sections. ( 1) The National Park today: the origin of National Parks, social, legislative and conservation policies of the park administration, and implications of providing too much access. (2) Changing demographics: the ‘graying of America’ and the general characteristics of the elderly population. ( 3 ) Access policies of National Parks: an overview of current policy, and how park designs and accessibility are affected by current laws, guidelines, and the lack of standardized regulations. (4) Critical analysis: the ecological, economic, and aesthetic impact of interaction with the natural environment. The National Park today The Congressional Act of 1872 led to the development of National Parks based on the need “. . . to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein, and to provide for enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (Forster, 1973, p. 15). All National Parks, like Yellowstone, the first to be created as a result of the Act, are considered to be “... the most wonderful, the most incredible, the most fantastic and spectacular geological and scientific features of this wonderful country of ours” (Doe11 and Twardzik, 1979, p. 127). Their pristine quality is too precious to allow any destruction. A review of the operational policies of the
A. MuNick /Landscape and Urban Plannrng 26 (1993) 25-33
National Park Service (NPS) will indicate its dilemma: how to provide access while preserving nature. The NPS is committed to providing maximum access, and it is seriously concerned with preventing the deterioration that may result. Many people feel restricted because of the protectionist attitude of the NPS, and the administration is accused of failing to share the natural resources with the general public. These individuals have demanded that the NPS open up more of the park boundaries, liberalize their enjoyment-oriented policies, and allow greater recreational use of these parks. Some park administrators, in order to show higher use figures and thus to justify greater appropriation of funds, have encouraged more recreational use of the parks. In so doing, they have concentrated on higher visitor use and have ignored the conflicts over perpetuation and natural destruction. In fact, the balance between preserving the natural environment and providing maximum use of the natural landscape is not easy to strike. The reality is that the NPS has done a superior job of balancing the two-fold need to preserve the environment and to maximize access for recreation and enjoyment. Various problems are likely to result from the upsurge in the number of individuals wanting to visit the national parks. First, the increasing number of park visitors and their eagerness to explore the natural territories is likely to add to the burden of the already fragile ecology of the National Parks. Then, the demand for enhanced recreational possibilities will have numerous unknown social and environmental implications, and threaten the preservation policies of the NPS. Lastly, serious problems are likely to arise from human activities in natural areas, and this will seriously impact the natural quality of the landscape, which is the reason for people wishing to visit the National Parks in the first place. Accessibility to the National Parks becomes even more critical considering the steady usage and increasing population of persons with disabilities. This is not
A. Mullick /Landscape and Urban Plannrng 26 (I 993) 25-33
to imply that disabled individuals demand greater recreational opportunities and are, therefore, more likely to threaten the delicate balance of preservation. Instead, the concern is over providing access through man-made interventions and to minimize negative social, ecological, and economic consequences. Changing demographics The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research estimates that there are 34 million Americans (over 14% of the total population) with some type of major disability that “severely limits them in one or more major activities” (Ficke, 1992, p. 5). Currently, there are about 3 1 million persons over the age of 65. This group accounts for 91% of all persons with disabilities or 11.5% of the total population. Based upon the factors currently influencing life expectancy, it is predicted that by 2030, older Americans will account for 15% of the total population (60 million) (Spencer, 1990, p. 21). Continuous advancements in medical technology are enabling people to live longer and live well; it is conceivable that lower death rates will push the number of those over 65 to 100 million, or 25% of the total population by 2030. Even a more conservative estimate, based on life expectancy as it was calculated in the 197Os, is 80 million or 20% of the total population in 2030. In this burgeoning elderly population, women currently outnumber men by 2 : 1. Although there is very little truth in the popular belief that older people are infirm, feeble or senile, most older Americans have at least one chronic health condition which affects their ability to function in their environment, In the US today, 95-96% of older people live in the same kind of places (4-5% are institutionalized) (Pirkl, 1990, p. 150). They use the same kinds of consumer products and express the same desires to remain independent, as do younger people. Aging is a lifelong process. The changes associated with it are “indiscrimi-
27
nate”, “irreversible” and “inevitable” (Pirkl, 1990, p. 15 1). The slowness of the aging process allows the aging person to adapt themselves to declining capabilities. Consequently, their physical abilities and mental conditions vary significantly from younger disabled individuals who may have suddenly become impaired from an illness or an accident. The gerontology literature indicates that it is a misconception that all older persons are alike. In fact, there is no age group that is more diverse in physical abilities, personal preferences, and individual tastes and desires (Koncelik, 1982, p. 2). The US Bureau of Census (August 1988 ) reports that, at present, about 50% of people over 65 have a high school education, and 10% are college graduates. The future elderly person is likely to have had many more years of formal education than his/her counterpart today. It is possible that by 2030, about 85% of those over the age of 65 will be high school graduates and about 25% will have received a college education (Spencer, 1990, p. 23). The educated senior citizens are more likely to have had well paid jobs and greater discretionary incomes, and to have taken better care of themselves. As a result it is expected that they will live longer, and their quality of life and health will be superior to that of elderly people today. Americans over the age of 50 are the group with the strongest buying power. They account for 42% of total consumer demand, control 77% of the total financial assets held by American families, and have a combined income of $800 billion. Economic statistics concerning the elderly demonstrate their consumer power: they purchase 43% of all new domestic cars, 48% of all luxury cars, 80% of all luxury goods, and 25% of all alcoholic beverages. Older Americans spend more capital in the grocery store, join more auto clubs, watch more television, and read more newspapers than younger Americans. Many lead luxurious lifestyles. They purchase 37% of all spa memberships, eat out on an average of three times a
-1 MUI/KAI/Landscape and Urban Planning 26 (1993125-33
28
week, and spend more money on travel and recreation than any other age group (Dychtwald and Flower, 1990, pp. 268-269). It is expected that as the elders of America change, their definition of recreation will also change. They are expected to be progressively more active and adventurous, and to be intellectually active (Dychtwald, 1990, p. 115). Access policies of National Parks
The passage of federal laws, such as the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) in 1968 and the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) in 1990, insures a new set of standards for equal access to accommodate disabled Americans. The ADA is particularly noteworthy because it: “provides a clear and comprehensive national mandate to end discrimination against individuals with disabilities; brings persons with disabilities into the economic and social mainstream of American life; provides enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities; and ensures that the federal government plays a central role in enforcing these standards on behalf of individuals with disabilities” (Ficke, 1992, p. 177 )
The Act provides standards for addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities in employment, transportation, telecommunications and public accommodations, even when no federal funds are involved. The mandate requires that public accommodations be made in many situations, including equal access to parks and outdoor recreation. This requirement necessitates making programmatic and facilities design changes to accommodate access needs for people with disabilities. According to the Architectural Barriers Act “all buildings and facilities, built in whole or in part with federal funds, be accessible and usable by physically disabled persons” (Park, 1989, p. 3 ). The ABA empowered four federal agencies to develop four different accessibility standards, causing much confusion in overlapping areas. The Uniform Federal Accessibility Standard (UFAS) incorporated many of the
regulations of the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) in 1984, and was adopted by the four federal agencies. The usefulness of these standards to provide access to parks and wilderness remains limited since they were designed to promote access to the built, man-made environment, and did not contain specific criteria for making park facilities accessible. The US Department of National Park Service is commended for its voluntary commitment to provide equal access to persons with disabilities. The accessibility movement in the US has its roots in the post World War II era with the return of a large number of disabled veterans. As these honored men and women joined the work force and pursued independent lives, accessibility standards developed. Growing public demand for a more accommodating environment generated laws, building codes and standards in the early 1960s. Gradually, some of these laws were applied to parks, parklands and the wilderness when it interacted with mankind. However, generally accepted accessibility guidelines, as applied to the naturally occurring environment, have never been officially standardized or written into law. To combat the lack of specific design criteria, the National Park Service formulated its own park accessibility guidelines to reflect the new legislative requirements and technological advances, and the “changing attitudes that have led to expanding equal opportunities”. ‘The Design Guide for Accessible Outdoor Recreation’, prepared by the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the US Department of the Interior National Park Service ( 1990), is a 75 page reference book outlining guidelines for many indoor and outdoor facilities. Included in its comprehensive coverage are trails and pathways, picnic areas, camping grounds, facilities for fishing, boating and water sports, toilet facilities, playgrounds, and historic sites. Very detailed design specifications, based on UFAS codes have been employed to specify the physical design of these outdoor
A. Mullick /Landscape
29
and Urban Planning 26 (1993) 25-33
areas and facilities. The design of accessible trails, for example, is based on access to trails and access of trails, and it utilizes Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS ) codes for parking space, passenger loading zone, routes to trails, and signage, trail width and surface, running and cross slope, edging type, and head room clearance. Specifically, the National Park Service has innovatively created different challenge levels to meet individual needs. Three ability levels offer an array of recreational opportunities and allow individuals with disabilities a challenge somewhat similar that experienced by skiers. The first level (indicated by a round green symbol) offers complete access and a trail which meets all UFAS requirements; the second (a square blue symbol) provides a Challenge 1 or more difficult access that generally meets most UFAS requirements; the third (indicated by a black diamond) equates to Challenge 2 or the most difficult opportunity that does not meet UFAS codes, although there are some safety features. Another significant recommendation is that physical accessibility must be governed by the feasibility of site alteration. This relies on the degree of modification consistent with providing access to recreational opportunities. Three types of modifications are considered. ( 1) Developed sites: these are fully accessible to persons with mobility impairments, including sites such as open picnic areas, administrative set-up and visitor services, (2) Underdeveloped sites: these are naturally occurring, not normally modified areas, and they do not ensure access to persons with disabilities. (3) Threshold areas: this term applies to undeveloped areas with scenic or other merit, and the extent to which they are developed for accessibility is dependent upon topography and the overall attraction of the site. Finally, the National Park system recommends following the universal design approach when providing access. Universal design implies offering a range of design solutions
consistent with users’ capabilities. It is a new concept that recognizes the notion that all people possess disabilities; it celebrates the differences between ages, sexes, races, nationalities, and disabling conditions and provides a viable integration through design. Universal design is as much about designing for the disabled as it is about designing for able-bodied people, and it universalizes design by being concerned with issues of safety, dignity, utility, independence, comfort, convenience, and aesthetics (Mullick, 1992 ) . Critical analysis With respect to park usage, older people are as eager to enjoy the outdoor environment as are their younger counterparts, and perhaps more so since retirees often have greater leisure time at their disposal, The demand for park use, therefore, is likely to increase significantly, along with the increasing elderly population. As mentioned earlier, senior citizens may make up 20% of the total US population by 2030. The increase in demand for use of National Parks will exceed this predicted increase for the following reasons: ( 1) older persons, especially those with disabilities, will not visit parks on their own but will be accompanied by members of their families; (2) older people have more time at hand, and are likely to visit more frequently. However, whether or not the senior citizens will be able to enjoy the National Parks will be determined by the type and quality of access. In its handbook ‘Interpretation for Disabled Visitors’, the National Park Service ( 1985 ) has outlined a wide variety of access plans for disabled visitors. Access for persons with one or more impairment (mobility, hearing, or learning) requires making special accommodations through human intervention. Interventions for the mobility and visually impaired are generally physical in nature, necessitating architectural modifications and/or altering the landscape to meet physical limitations. For
30
example, this may involve the creation of parking spaces, access routes, and entryways to buildings or other recreational facilities. Public amenities, such as rest rooms, bathing facilities, restaurants, trash receptacles, park benches and telephones would also need to be accessible. To offer possibilities for these persons to enjoy the outdoors, open-air spaces such as trails, beaches, shores, swimming pools, boating facilities, fishing facilities, and equestrian activities have to be made accessible. Human intervention in the natural setting is a critical issue to those concerned with maintaining the integrity of the natural environment. The absence of effective policies to guide environmental planners could cause negative and irreversible damage to the environment. It needs to be made clear that the author’s apprehensions are not based upon disagreement with providing access for persons with disabilities; in fact, the possibility of doing so is greatly applauded. Rather, the concern expressed here originates from the implications of instituting poorly developed access-oriented plans or making unnecessary interventions in the natural environment. It is essential that accessoriented schemes be well developed before they are employed. This will ensure that these schemes provide maximum empowerment in the natural areas, and that they will not negatively affect the environment. For example, most design guidelines outlined in ‘The Design Guide for Accessible Outdoor Recreation’ utilize the ANSI standards that ensure access to built, indoor environments. These standards have not been tested for their safety, adequacy and value when used in natural, outdoor situations. Unless these standards are thoroughly tested for usefulness, it is likely that there will be disastrous results in terms of safety, and ecological and aesthetic implications. It is essential that design guidelines for persons with disabilities must be compatible with their physical and mental capabilities. It is well known that people age differently-biologically, psychologically and socially. Physical de-
.I .Mullrck/Landscape and Urban Plannq
26 (1993) 25-33
terioration takes place with age. Hearing begins to decline in the 30s vision problems begin in the 40s and the sense of touch begins to diminish from the time people are born. There are numerous other aspects of aging, including declining strength, slowness in performing tasks, problems with grasp, movement and force application, incidence of arthritis, and fear of falling. The environmental design for the disabled, therefore, must encompass plans that are responsive to declining capabilities, the social characteristics and cultural values of senior citizens. These designs must be in the form of developed plans that are sensitive to the functional needs of the users; aesthetic requirements of the surroundings, and ecological compatibility with the immediate environment. In the absence of a coordinated effort to develop well rounded plans, numerous concerns have emerged, some of which are as follows. ( 1 ) Fear of poorly designed architectural hardware. Trails, outdoor ramps, gangways, docks, and piers made of architectural hardware such as handrails, grab bars, precast slabs, precompacted surfaces, and gates. The implications for safety are obvious unless these are compatible with users’ capabilities. They must also withstand the weather conditions of the outdoors and support the ecology and aesthetics of the immediate surroundings. (2 ) Fear of improper use of access codes. As explained earlier, like most other ANSI standards, the design guidelines for ramp grades, wheelchair clearance and wheelchair turning radii were developed for use in the indoor, built environment. When applied to the outdoor, natural situation, the effectiveness of these guidelines will vary tremendously, based on the capabilities of the individuals, and the quality of the environmental conditions. It is essential that new access codes specifically for providing access to the non-built, outdoors environment be developed and tested. These standards must ensure that maximum access and
A. Mullick /Landscape and Urban Planning 26 (1993) 25-33
greatest safety are provided to users in the natural setting. (3 ) Fear of utilizing unsuitable building materials. As in considering access codes, the suitability of materials used to provide access in the natural environment also needs to be tested. Environmental planners must be made aware of the functional, ecological and aesthetic consequences of using materials such as concrete, asphalt, crushed stone or wood chip on trails, gangways, and docks. New forms of disability tolerant, aesthetically sensitive and environmentally friendly materials must be developed to insure their overall compatibility. (4) Fear of using poorly designed amenity products. Poorly designed amenity products such as trash receptacles, park benches, outdoor signs and telephones, when used in natural settings, can jeopardize the objectives of preservation and enjoyment. These products need to be evaluated for their value, safety, aesthetics, and ecological compatibility. A new design approach, best described as ‘userfriendly, nature-oriented and eco-centric’, needs to be adopted to insure overall compatibility. Public awareness should be included in all planning facets to control the undesirable effects of increased access. The development and dispersion of relevant information, and involvement of the public in developing use-oriented policies will restrict the majority of negative impacts. The following discussion on ecological, economic and aesthetic impact is not specific to persons with disabilities. Rather, it focuses on the implications of increased access in general. Ecological impact Our National Parks provide an important means of experiencing the ecological system of which we are part. Access to the outdoor environment allows the opportunity to observe and participate in the ecological process, and
31
thereby develop a sensitivity and a greater appreciation for it. The policy for providing access to National Parks has already had numerous negative ecological effects, and this raises questions about the conflicting ideals of resource perpetuation and tourism development. Often it is poor planning and the lack of effective policies that have caused the imbalance between environmental preservation and commercial interests. Many landscape ecologists are disturbed by the state of the natural environment in the National Parks, and they believe that, if the destructive trend continues at the present rate, the highly valued ecological balance and scenic qualities of the outdoor environment will soon disappear. Examples of abuses and destructive influence on National Parks through excessive access may be found nationwide and include the over-saturation of visitors to Yosemite and other National Parks, the deterioration of coral reefs, and the demise of the manatee in Florida. In the case of people with disabilities, it is conceivable that the severity of ecological impact can compel the NPS to seriously limit access for all, including those with disabilities. The conveniences and kinds of recreational opportunities that the public has come to expect from the National Parks often conflict with the overriding goal of perpetuation and maintenance of the local ecosystem upon which the National Park concept was based. Many environmental ecologists have spoken out against access because of the type and magnitude of the destruction that has resulted from it. Generally, able-bodied park visitors require minimal access-oriented interventions. In the case of those with disabilities, the harshness of the wildness necessitates instituting varying degrees of man-made interventions that will empower them to enjoy the natural surroundings. Park organizers need to be sensitive to the issues of environmental degradation that may result from instituting improperly developed access plans. It is essential that eco-friendly de-
32
signs be developed to compensate for the rising demand for use of National Parks. Economic impact
The economic implications of access to National Parks is a mixed bag involving profit and loss. The experience people will gain from access to the natural environment is not protitable in economic terms, but the sensitivity people develop from interacting with nature, and their interest in the protection of the environment is a rich and potential gainful commodity. One of the important economic benefits which may develop in the near future is the creation of jobs in the environmental preservation sector of the economy, a priority of the Clinton-Gore administration. Another tangible economic benefit would be derived from the increase in revenue which adjoins the increase in access to National Parks. Greater access to National Parks will expand new fee-oriented sports, such as fishing, hunting and boating. Licensing of these sports will not only generate revenue, but it will help moderate enthusiasm and/or control usage. There is also the potential for creative new fee policies and new services capable of opening up new vistas for revenue generation. Since the National Parks are low on financial resources, the increased revenues could assist in sponsoring many new and future developments, such as construction of exhibit centers and production of high quality educational films. Aesthetic impact
It is widely believed that the primary reason that people come to National Parks is to enjoy the ‘natural’ or ‘untouched’ aesthetics of the environment. Yet millions of people from all over the world visit Niagara Falls, a natural wonder located in a completely commercial setting. Is there something wrong about interfering with natural aesthetics through manmade interventions? Many think there is. Most
A. Mullrck /Landscape and C’rban Plannrng 26 (1993) 25-33
urbanites who visit natural settings do this as a way of returning to the natural beauty. These individuals are in search of pristine environments where tourism is forbidden, and they value experiences that are evoked only through aesthetics of nature. The term ‘environmental aesthetics’, often used in relation to the visual appeal of an environment, is an encompassing term that extends beyond the visual aspects of nature. It includes all our sensibilities, such as sound, smell, taste, and touch, and also experiences that are affected by temperature, time and seasons. There are also cultural implications in the concept of ‘aesthetics’. The enjoyment an individual experiences from participating in the aesthetics is the result of the natural heritage, meaning, uniqueness, identity, emotional reaction, and feelings about a place (Lyle, 199 1, p. 63). It is important to realize that both man-made forms and the natural environment that is free of human involvement, have aesthetic components capable of providing unique and personal experiences. Even though some may vehemently argue that the beauty of natural forms supersedes that of man-made forms, the truth of such an argument becomes questionable when one examines the effect of public art and sculptures that adorn city squares. The question is not about the aesthetic superiority of either man-made objects or natural forms, but the quality of aesthetics that results from the interaction of the two. In the natural environment, interactive aesthetics are critical to maintaining the harmony of the outdoors because even mildly unpleasant aesthetics become highly noticeable and cause visual pollution. Many believe that unpleasant interactive aesthetics can be so visually disruptive that it can affect the personal well-being of the viewers. Conclusion
What made America a great nation is its nat-
A. Mullick /Landscape and Urban Plannmg 26 (1993) 25-33
Ural resources. There is no reason why the usage of natural areas must be restricted to able-bodied people, and it is illogical to assume that providing access to persons with disabilities will lead to excess exploitation. However, the need to develop policies to prevent misuse, abuse and waste of natural resources is urgent. Eflicient ecological, economic and aesthetic policies are needed immediately. These policies must not only maintain the natural environment in the National Parks, but continue to offer the highest level of satisfaction to park visitors. In recent years, increased access to National Parks has increased the installation of objects and architecture. Long before this process goes too far and the difference between the manmade and the natural setting becomes indiscernible, we are obligated to develop a sound set of policies and regulations, based on the issues eloquently presented by J. Ise ( 1973) in ‘Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks’: “the national parks are primarily, and should remain, natural areas for the enjoyment of men and other animals, and should be managed for this in mind. Man, the visitor, must be looked upon as an introduced species in the ecosystems of the parks, capable of interfering with natural processes. Visitors must be accommodated and developments planned in such a way that overall management of the parks will result in preservation of the unique natural features and habitat.”
The man-made environment in which we live ensures certain types of physical comfort. As increasing numbers of people become inclined to access the natural environment, and accessibility becomes a result of human intervention, we must find answers to the following questions. ( 1) Should there be a detinable limit on human intervention that will maintain the aesthetic integrity of the natural environment? (2 ) Can man-made objects in the natural environment be designed to complement the aesthetics of nature? (3 ) Is there a tolerable limit of human intervention in the natural environment?
33
(4) Can the natural environment be made fully accessible, without damaging it permanently? ( 5 ) What is the minimum level of human intervention that can empower people with disabilities to make independent use of the natural environment?
References
Cranz, G., 1982. The Politics of Park Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Doell, C. and Twardzik, L., 1979. Elements of Park and Recreation Administration. Burgess, Minneapolis, MN. Dychatwald, K. and Flower, J., 1990. Age Wave. Bantam Books, New York. Ficke, R., 1992. Digest of data on persons with disabilities. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education, Washington, DC. Forster, R. (Editor), 1973. Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Merges, Switzerland. Ise, J., 1973. In: R. Forster (Editor), Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Morges, Switzerland. Koncelik, J., 1982. Aging and the Product Development. Hutchinson Ross, Stroudsburg, PA. Lyle, J., 199 1. The utility of semi-formal models in ecological planning. Landscape Urban Plann., 21: 47-60. Mullick, A., 1992. What did I learn after all: Students’ view of a universal design project. In: IDSA Education Committee Proceedings, 1992. National Park Service, 1985. Interpretation for disabled visitors. US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Park, D., 1989. Accessible outdoor recreation facilities. Design. Publ. Park Practice Program, Washington, DC. Pirkl, J., 1990. Transgenerational design and industrial design imperatives. In: IDSA Education Committee Proceedings, 1990. Spencer, G., 1990. Demographics implications of an aging United States population structure during 1990 to 2030 period. Futures Res. Q. US Bureau of Census, August 1988. Educational attainment in United States: March 1987 and 1986. Current Population Reports Series p-20, No. 428, p. 25. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and US Department of Interior, National Park Service, 1990. Design Guide for Accessible Outdoor Recreation. Interim Draft prepared by Interagency Guidelines Task Group for Accessible Outdoor Recreation (Chairperson, John Costello), Washington, DC, 75 pp.