 |
|
Dialogues@RU is published annually
by the
Writing Program at
Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey
Volume One
Spring 2002
The Commons
and Environmental Rights Issues
in Relation to Urban Open Spaces - Page 3
by Isaac B. Daniel
In some respects, open space acquisition and preservation is a means to avoid the tragedy of the commons. This is done, as previously illustrated, through both governmental and privatization techniques. In both cases, administrative management is the key component in avoiding common open space depletion. The success of both governmental and privatized interventions can be attributed to following Hardin's suggestion that "Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all" (Hardin 109). Therefore freedom of participation in park activities is still viable but individual freedoms on how the park can be used (and subsequently abused) have been modified to preserve the characteristics of the landscape. If freedom to develop the landscape is removed, the landscape can be preserved. These freedoms are removed in a relatively voluntary manner. This is in opposition to Hardin's suggestion that the main way to get the public to concede to losing freedoms is through coercion. Conversely, it supports his ideas that if coercion is to be used, it should be a "mutually agreed coercion" (Hardin 116). In virtually all cases people will voluntarily give up their personal freedoms, regardless of whether it is done coercively or not, for the benefits that are received both socially and personally. Such is the case with Bryant Park. The city's administration and the park's patrons acknowledged that the park would be better managed and maintained if it were privately controlled. This has undoubtedly proven true.
Public lands, regardless of who manages them, have vast significance to residents of urban areas. Thus we arrive at the question as to why urban residents desire, or on some level, need, open spaces to interact with? One can easily see that limited open space access due to safety concerns and the like, can stifle its significance, but that is a topic for further discourse.
It can be asserted that open spaces are what Shari Collins-Chobanian deems an environmental right. Environmental rights, she concludes, are "rights to clean air, water, and soil… and they carry a duty for all people and groups to not interfere with others' clean air, water, and soil" (Collins-Chobanian 145). Open space is not, in itself, one of these basic rights, but it acts as a means to promote these rights through its inherent qualities. Generally, if open space is preserved, environmental rights are preserved. This statement excludes issues that arise from management or mismanagement, but generally it is a valid argument.
Take Bryant Park for example. Through proper management, it provides space for people to interact and relax in a peaceful setting. Furthermore, it provides people with a haven of clean air to breathe. Other larger and less trafficked parks, like Warren Park in London, England not only provide a haven for cleaner air but also possess an area of community gardens, providing the community with clean soil (Gobster 206). Environmental rights are the basis of the ecological significance of open space. "Plants and trees actively filter air as well as providing oxygen and storing carbons. They also help to improve water quality and run-off" (Nicol and Blake 202). If an open space were plagued with mismanagement, a great deal of validity to preservation would be lost. Open spaces that have been degraded by mismanagement or no management at all can actually produce a number of negative effects. Among those effects are pollution, waste, clutter, and eyesores. These negative attributes act as a strong push for dynamic and effective management. Regardless, it becomes apparent that open spaces, when properly managed, actively contribute to clean air, water, and soil. Therefore open space can indeed be deemed an environmental right.
However large, the ecological significance of open space is just one reason why people desire it. Social, economic, and psychological/personal benefits are among the other motivations to preserve open space. As noted previously, "Neighborhood open spaces can provide recreational and aesthetic values to residents as well as serving a variety of deeper psychophysiological and spiritual values related to nature…" (Gobster 200). Recreation is the most tangible of open space benefits. Parks and the like provide areas for people to participate in a wide variety of recreational activities. Recreation and places of peace and quiet are often cited as the key proponents to psychological well being of residents (Shomon 48). It becomes apparent that open spaces that are not properly managed often contain features that reduce the attractiveness of the space. This stands as another vote of confidence for proper management.
Other social and personal reasons for open space preservation relate to economics. "Open spaces, including parks, tend to enhance an area's socioeconomic desirability. As well as enhancing property values, they also confer positive psychological benefits on owner-occupiers and tenants" (Nicol and Blake 203). In a market-based system, if a program like open space preservation provides economic benefits, such as raising property values, it is viewed as successful. Such is the case with many of New York's redeveloped parks, notably Bryant and Central parks. Again, as with most economic ventures, issues involving inequity and exclusion become apparent. In this case, higher property values limit low-income families from becoming residents, which consequently limits their access to open space.