law enforcement, both in the form of services of peace officers and rangers and in park management techniques, provides security for the individual recreationist. This feeling of security in pursuing his or her recreation interest is a requisite to achieving a fulfilling experience. Similarly, the same security provided to the natural resources and developed facilities maintains a quality of usefulness of the recreation environment which is also essential to satisfaction of the individual.

The study revealed, however, that few lake managers or rangers felt an expanded program of recreation activities would have anything but minimal effect on improving visitor protection and law enforcement. The expression of this attitude was, in one instance, made at a Corps lake surrounded by several overlapping metropolitan areas, with each having local recreation agencies providing organized recreation programs. The juxtaposition of the two obviously different attitudes and philosophies reflects the basic differences between a "resource" oriented and a "people"oriented view of recreation management roles.

Findings of a national survey of crime and violence in park and recreation areas conducted by the American Park and Recreation Society (APRS) revealed the incidence of crime and vandalism as higher in parks than in community centers, playgrounds or other special recreation facil

ities1. The survey further indicated the incidence of crime and van

dalism increased with more intensive use of parks. In most urban park and recreation systems, recreation programming and supervision is generally directed at special activity areas and facilities. Park areas, as such, usually receive little recreation activity service.

Thus looking at this problem from a recreation perspective, there appears to be as much a connection between lack of recreation leadership and crime in park areas as there is between a lack of law enforcement surveillance and crime. Stated more clearly, the incidence of crime and vandalism is lower in areas where recreation programs more actively involve people. While both Corps and APRS surveys revealed the general opinion that the main remedial measure for controlling crime and vandalism involves increased security efforts, the benefits of

increasing recreation program efforts in high crime park and recreation areas still appears to have been overlooked.

It is not the purpose here to criticize the Corps of Engineers from a recreation policy standpoint. In actuality, when considering the overall budget constraints it has been working under, the fragmentation of recreation management in general at the federal level, and the fierce competition recreation still faces against other resource and public works development programs, the Corps tenaciously manages to do a fine job. But, nevertheless, until the Corps and other federal resource management agencies extend their programs into people-related programming and leadership, the federal effort in recreation will remain incomplete.

The Need for a Comprehensive Recreation Goal.

The fundamental importance of the recreation goal in providing law enforcement in park and recreation areas is succinctly expressed by Mr. Jack W. Robinson, Director of the Austin Parks and Recreation Department, in stating the goals of Austin's park rangers:

"Our goal is to maintain a presence in the parks for the se-
curity of park visitors, and to provide public assistance to
insure the maximum visitor enjoyment. Austin Park Ranger ef-
fectiveness is not measured by the number of tickets or cita-
tions issued, but rather, on the rangers' image of friendii-
ness and helpfulness to the park visitor while carrying out
law enforcement action when necessary.

114

The Corps recreation area manager or ranger will need to adjust to different roles and be prepared for even more adjustments in the future. Illustrative of this concept are the following quotes from a recent annual report on the California State Parks System:

". . . Today they (rangers) must be managers of people, with
the responsibility of educating, informing, and keeping from
harm the millions who visit the parks each year. These in-
creased responsibilities have created new recruitment and
training problems that must be solved

pretive programs. In response to public demand, they have de-
veloped campfire programs, nature study walks, slide shows on
a wide range of subjects, and guided hikes and tours--and many
more such programs are needed . . ."

"The importance of the increasing ranger involvement in inter-
pretive programs cannot be over-estimated because such pro-
grams do far more than simply entertain the public. In the
long run, interpretive programs help preserve the park re-
sources by teaching the public their value. In the words of
a veteran park ranger, 'A quality environmental experience
should be our goal. A bored child or his bored family can do
more damage to a park through lack of awareness and ignorance
than we can cope with through regulation and enforcement. We
can either educate the public or we can attempt to regulate
it.

There are not enough rangers, firearms, or patrol vehicles
to protect a park from visitors who do not care about it'3."

Law enforcement and visitor protection services would be more effective and more easily provided if they were part of a more comprehensive recreation program of the Corps. Law enforcement should be viewed as an extension or a component element of an overall program of meeting recreation needs at Corps lakes. It is as much a part of a visitor recreation program as providing campground facilities.

From a comprehensive standpoint, a visitor protection policy associated solely with a program of managing natural resources and facilities for recreation use is doing less than the total job. A recreation program including activity, education and leadership would result in a better understanding and ability for visitors to use recreation areas. The result would be enhanced satisfaction and greater fulfillment of recreation experience, and a decrease in the propensity for antisocial behavior.

Visitor Management

The previous laissez faire philosophy of the Corps towards visitor activity described by Edward C. Crafts in 1970, appeared to be still visable throughout the present study. Crafts stated:

"Prevalent was a practice of lax, indifferent, or loose ad-
ministration founded on the philosophy of leaving people alone
to do what they want. This may be partly a subconscious ex-
tension of Corps "good-guy" philosophy . . . More fundamen-
tally it is failure to appreciate or accept the public-
management responsibility which the Corps has to protect the
resources and facilities entrusted to it, as well as to pro-
tect, lead and service the users of such public property.
In stronger terms, it is an abdication of management respon-
sibility."

"From such permissiveness, indifference or inability to act
stems part of the Corps problems on fees, enforcement, van-
dalism, crowding, exclusive private use, etc. Loose adminis-
tration is believed partly deliberate policy, partly a feel-
ing of helplessness, and partly the result of insensitivity,
frustration, and immobility of Corps personnel.

114

More recreation leadership could be reflected in the design of varied and flexible facilities at heavily used areas. This would also provide a management tool for distributing use to better reflect resource capabilities. The increase in interest and activity may also lessen the propensity of antisocial behavior and improve appreciation for project resources. Such leadership should also include recreation program services, such as interpretative programs with more visitor involvement, and other programs oriented toward and consistent with Corps lake resources.

In planning and designing a recreation area, recreation planners should consider such parameters as kind of activity, density of users, location, and time, in matching recreation uses with the character of project resources. These same parameters may also be used as variables in formulating law enforcement and visitor protection plans. Additionally, recreation areas subject to a history of higher crime rates and disturbances may receive priority attention for allocation of recreation program resources along with more intensive development and management and law enforcement services.

The provision of recreation areas, facilities, and programs, as well as responsive visitor protection service, will require more

attention be given to assessing the recreation needs of existing visitors and potential user populations. The continued development of more picnic sites, campgrounds, boat launching ramps, restrooms and showers, and other facilities alone will not fulfill the rising expectations, or eliminate frustrations, of urban-oriented recreation visitors. Moreover, there will be many instancies where recreation needs may be met through provision of services rather than more expensive capital investment in facilities.

Behavioral Considerations in Visitor Protection Planning

While understanding of antisocial behavior in park and recreation areas is generally limited, several studies and surveys are mentioned in this section to illustrate the kind of insights, park practices, and visitor assistance that may evolve with further exploration.

There is some evidence that suggests a significant portion of antisocial behavior could be ameliarated by increased recreation education and environmental direction by rangers and park police. The APRS national crime survey found that over one-third of the destruction and vandalism reported in parks were caused by accident.

A study of depreciative behavior in forest campgrounds provides some preliminary insights into the nature of such behavior. The observations of vandalism, littering, and other disturbances by campers, in this case, may provide some initial directions for developing control measures at Corps recreation areas where similar acts occur. From a park practice standpoint, responsive control measures may be reflected in planning, design and construction, resource management and maintenance, recreation programs, such as interpretative programs or outdoor education, and activity programs. These practices should be implemented in coordination

with law enforcement efforts.

The distribution of depreciative acts by type is summarized in Table 18-1. This table shows that the majority of depreciative acts were not intentional crime and vandalism.