Tega oOo O Nee 8 UG lek tr EN 15 
AN APPROACH TO 
OUTDOOR RECREATION PLANNING 
By Seymour M. Gold 
In the panic to provide more outdoor recreation opportunities or apologize 
for the lack of them, the recreation planner is often held responsible for 
a wide range of problems generally beyond his professional limits. People 
who make these accusations reveal a certain degree of political naiveté, lack 
of genuine contact with professional recreation planners and a possible 
misunderstanding of the planning process to include the role of the planner 
and planning in government. 
There is no right or wrong approach to planning; however, there are 
a number of accepted precedents which merit consideration. Perhaps some 
of the following ideas will help to bring the role of the recreation planner, 
citizen, and government into sbarper focus. 
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING 
Comprehensive planning is the determination of land uses in a given 
area (l1.e., state, region, city) for a given period of time (i.e., 1970, 1980, 
2000, 2020). It is based on an inventory, projection, and analysis of physical, 
social, economic, and political factors. This includes consideration of natural 
and human resources, design, problems, potentials and most important, 
the fiscal, legislative, and educational means to implement a plan. 
Planning is a continuous process subject to changing needs, ideas and 
innovations. A plan should be a starting point for public and private action. 
It is no better than the professional objectivity and citizen subjectivity 
put into it, and no worse than the boldness, imagination and foresight it 
may lack. It is above all, a constantly changing document. 
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 
The power of constructive citizen participation, aroused public opinion 
and the informed voter in the planning process cannot be overstated. Plans 
cannot reflect people’s needs without this type of involvement and, lacking 
it, will probably never be implemented because of voter resistance to 
necessary legislation and financing. 
All too often planning attempts to solve problems when it is almost 
too late, rather than before these problems develop. Hindsight becomes easy 
where foresight has been lacking, and foresight is usually required only 
after complacency or indecision create a “crisis and need” plan for the 
future. 
The well meant, but naive idea, that lay citizens can voluntarily do 
technical planning with only the advice of planners, is a common mis- 
conception. How wonderful it would be were this possible! Unfortunately, 
this method seldom works in today’s complex society of rapid urbanization, 
vanishing resources, pollution, traffic congestion, poverty, federal aid and 
a host of interrelated problems. 
It is far better to have planners develop alternative plans for citizens 
tO approve, reject, modify or improve. This results in each doing what 
they can do best and is a more objective, professional and expedient 
