Suchergebnisse

Latest issue consulted: Mar. 4, 1999. ; Title from caption. ; At head of title: U.S. government publications about ., 1994; U.S. government information about ., 1995-1998; U.S. government publications about ., 1999- ; Each issue supersedes previous issue; generally issued annually with some issues not published and two issues published in some years. ; Mode of access: Internet.

(Rev. ed., 1915) [By] Lee F. Hanmer, August H. Brunner. ; 99 p.

Application of the principle of "recreation for all" has led the move ment to areas of service such as programs for the noninstitutionalized ill and handicapped, the hospitalized, the mentally retarded, and the mentally ill. Pio neering on these new frontiers, the recreation worker, a relatively new member of the team in these specialized areas, is called upon for an exceptional degree of professional maturity and staff teamwork. New staff positions being created must be filled by skilled and well-motivated professional personnel. While still in their infancy, specialized recreation services as discussed in this paper are be ginning to develop coherent methodologies and a body of practices which bring not only personal refreshment of the spirit, but therapeutic and educational values as well. Uses of recreation in the treatment of the mentally ill, for example, indicate a recreation therapy which can favorably influence the pre disposition and eradication of symptoms of nonorganic types of mental illness.

Resource planning has undergone transitions over the years from a site to area to regional orientation and from a single function to integrated resource management orientation. Wildlife and recretation resource planning have been part of this evolution, which has been stimulated somewhat by recent land management planning-oriented legislation such as the National Forest Management Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. During the last couple of years, a system for recreation planning within the context of integrated resource planning has emerged. It is called Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) planning and arose as an old idea was made operational through new knowledge from recreation behavior research and through the necessity for designing a system that was integrative with other resource planning systems (e.g., Driver and Brown 1978, Clark and Stankey 1979, Brown 1979, Stankey and Brown 1981). The idea for a recreation opportunity spectrum has been around for a long time. The notion (though not necessarily the label) occurs in the writings of Marshall (1937), J. V. K. Wagar (1951), Burch (1964), Lucas (1964), and J. A. Wagar (1966) among others. The behavioral research that has led to making the idea operational for planning is more recent. For example, in research leading to ROS concepts, Potter et al. (1973) have studied hunters, Driver and Knopf (1976) have studied fishermen, Schreyer and Nielsen (1978) have studied river runners, and Brown and Haas (1980) have studied wilderness backpackers. Based upon the ideas of these and several other authors, the ROS has been made operational for planning. It has been adopted by both the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and thus is being applied on about 30 percent of the land area of the U.S. (Buist and Hoots 1982). What is this planning system, how does it work, and how is it related to other resource outputs such as timber and wildlife?

It is observed that the essential concerns in the econ's of outdoor recreation differ little from those of econ concerns generally. Econ'ts working in this area face the problem of the efficiency of allocation of resources between outdoor recreation facilities & programs on the one hand, & goods & services in general on the other. The pricing system fails to function as a resource-allocator in recreation services. However, the use of fees as a means of rationing scarce resources & as manag tools to redistribute the load among all facilities more appropriately is considered necessary. The question of 'distributive' justice is discussed, ie, the distribution of recreational opportunities among the various segments of the pop. It is in this area that the creative integration of the contributions of econ'ts, soc psychol'ts & sociol'ts is needed in order to introduce the concept of consumer preferences meaningfully into the planning of recreational facilities & programs. While the provision of recreational facilities may be viewed primarily as a local public responsibility, the serious question of local fiscal capability & of state & federal responsibility must be raised. A policy of incentives & restraints might be created which would present more efficient & equitable provisions for recreational services. There is great need for careful stock-taking. Modified HA.