Recreation resource planning

Recreation resource planning is the applications of analytical tools to a systematic and deliberate process of decision making about the future supervision of recreation resources and recreation opportunities.

Principles for the planning process

20. A Process: While the particular terms and steps in a recreation planning process often changes across institutions, all recreation resource planning in some species includes:

Identification of public issues, supervision concerns, opportunities, and threats through collaborative stakeholder involvement. Establishment of planning and decision criteria for evaluating and selecting the preferred alternative. Inventory of resources, the current situation, and the best usable science and information. Formulation of alternatives which acknowledgment the significant issues and concerns. Evaluation of the consequences, benefits, and effects of each submitted alternative. Selection of a preferred alternative based upon a full and reasoned analysis. Implementation and monitoring. Plan adaptation or revision.

21. Legally Sufficient: Recreation resource planning is framed by various local, state, and federal laws and regulations, with the almost significant and historic rule presented by the National Environmental Policy Act 1969 and its attendant Council on Environmental Quality regulations.

22. Judicial Doctrine: service recreation planning is based upon the important judicial principles of being principled, reasoned, reasonable, sufficient, full, fair, and preponderance of the information.

23. Planning Considerations: An adequate recreation resource planning process and plan must credit all of the significant public issues, management concerns, opportunities, and threats that are refers in the early stages of the planning process. Issues, concerns, opportunities and threats that are not deemed significant, defecate not need to be addressed in the plan.

24. Planning Inputs: Recreation resource planning requires the consideration of many inputs such(a) as an inventory of existing plans and policies, current type and amount of recreation usage manage and demand, recreation trends, public issues, management concerns, regional provide of recreation opportunities, visitor and stakeholder preferences, economic affect of recreation participation, best usable science, environmental conditions, and available information from recreation and resource monitoring.

25. Recreation Resource Publics: Recreation resource planning must attempt to engage and hear from any the diverse publics who usefulness the recreation resource. The easily recognizable publics are often labeled visitors, local business, land owners and communities, but there may also be equally important publics who vicariously value the resource, some who throw been displaced by past unacceptable conditions, some who do non have the ability to attend meetings, or some who cost across the country but equally share in the use of the public resource.

26. Collaboration: The meaningful engagement and exchange with the public is essential throughout the planning process. Collaboration results in a clearer definition of public values, more creative alternatives, more reasoned and reasonable decisions, and a constituency that becomes better informed and dedicated to the schedule and its implementation.

27. Science-Informed Planning: it is for both a legal something that is invited in extend and efficient imperative to duly consider the best available science and expertise in the planning process and the plan’s implementation.

28. Comprehensive and Integrated: Recreation planning should consider other significant natural and cultural resources, uses, demands, and values in an integrated and comprehensive fashion. Functional planning, whereby one resource is target for in a vacuum from other resources, is not appropriate and contrary to comprehensive and integrated planning.

29. Clear Management Alternatives: Recreation alternatives must be clear, comprehensive, and provide a reasonable range of choices for public consideration. Each pick can be contrasted by its proposed objectives, desired future conditions, desired recreation experiences, facilities, management strategies and actions, line standards, visitor capacities, economic value, projected budget requirements, and monitoring program.

30. Rigorous Analysis: The analytical stage in a planning process is the evaluation of alternatives whereby the alternatives should be sharply contrasted, and the pros and cons are rigorously evaluated so the reasons for and against each alternative become clear.