CABE have published Urban green nation, which 'assembles the national evidence about the quantity, quality and use of publicly owned urban green space in England and ... examines the significant impact of local green spaces on people's health and well-being'. It all makes sense, but it is worth giving a thought as to whether we should fund parks because they are good for health (an instrumental benefit)? Or just because people like them and a rich country should be able to provide them for that reason alone (intrinsic)? This is a question we have asked in our work about sport in the past and now in some new work we are starting on museums.
Sport and art have been claimed to be the answer to many health, crime and education problems in a way that never really stood up to scrutiny. People like our friends Substance have demonstrated that things like sport can be a tool to engage and help start a relationship, which eventually can lead to positive improvements for particpants. But, it is not the sport alone that provides the instrumental benefit.
So to preserve museums/parks etc what should be done and why? Should they justify and shape themselves as potential service providers to the education/criminal justice world? Or should they focus on their core business and purpose and attract commissioners by the quality of what they do? The choice is probably not so clear cut, but the leisure and culture sectors need to think about these issues as public spending cuts loom. If NHS and Schools budgets are protected all other funding streams are going to be squeezed very tightly.
The CABE publication is an interesting document that is covered by the Guardian too, who make the following observations:
- That good urban green spaces make local people feel good about where they live.
- Council investment in green spaces often translates into votes, says the study, Urban Green Nation, by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.
- The historic decline in our parks has been reversed and they are used and valued more frequently, by more people.
- Not everyone is benefiting: the 20% most affluent wards have five times as much green space as those in the poorest 10%, and areas with high enthinc minority populations have fewer parks.
your comments
Write a comment
- Required fields are marked with *.
