I have written widely on the importance of ordinary places to a large section of contemporary Britain.

  Public Parks require new objectives because their earlier purpose has been overtaken by new requirements that make their role more important and also transformed in response to changing cultural processes.

—  City parks 20th century history has been distinguished by a predominant intention to provide public space, within certain regulated use, with the intention of exercise, enjoyment and in the interests of providing a pleasant, habitable environment as islands in urban areas.

—  In recent decades there has been a diminution of quality in these parks over large areas (documented by the Comedia Working Party 1995) that has been accompanied, not always coincidentally, by a planned upgrading of centrally-located open spaces translated for tourist and business promotion.

—  At the same time parks have become more important to people in local neighbourhoods, not least as other markers of identity have diminished.

—  There are strong values and meanings popularly attached to Parks and new requirements of urban areas and populations that they may fulfil, as well as continuing service they provide. City parks are now used by a multiplicity of uses by a very wide range of groups, by gender, age, class, ethnicity and so on.

—  City parks provide a sense of community.

—  They are useful in the project of community building.

—  Of multi-cultural participation and respect.

—  Develop environmental responsibility.

—  As well as in health, exercise, "being in the open air", relaxation.

—  Sanctuary for wildlife, to develop personal and social identities (Crouch 1999).

—  They are part of a wider network of open spaces both formal and informal. There is evidence that the value of city parks extends to a much larger population than those actively using them to include those who walk by, who live adjacent to, and so on. In turn, parks are an important part in the range of open spaces from allotments to playing fields and "green wedges" to the city fringe and Community Forests.

—  Moreover especially youth value open spaces that are informal and apparently unsupervised. These they may value as refugees they otherwise do not have in their lives (Willatts 1984, Crouch 1998). There is also an obvious issue of safety. It is important to develop these concerns mutually.

  Country Parks provided focal points for "countryside leisure" partly to reduce pressure on more vulnerable environments but also to improve access to countryside environments for generally urban populations. These parks have been joined by a greater variety of leisure spaces available through the range of agencies private and public now active in leisure provision. However there are important roles that these existing parks can play in response to changing requirements in society.

—  These places have unique public access and management that enables access to people with a range of disabilities. These should be retained.

—  Securing "income" from diversifying uses is inappropriate in this purpose. It may be appropriate to secure short-term Lottery or similar funding to sustain these parks in lieu of a capability of continuing, secure funding.

—  It may be that a range of funding and management/access/maintenance/approaches is appropriate in parks like these. This would benefit from research to investigate alternative methods of funding/management/maintenance/access/content/promotion and best practice.

—  In general terms these parks have lacked appropriate and effective promotion and lack an "image". This again deserves investigative research to reveal best practice.

—  In some cases it may be that "local" populations can participate in their maintenance, but it is often the case that these places are distant from local populations. It may be that particular interest/activity groups are able to contribute voluntary work, but that is almost inevitably in response, fairly, to a pursuant interest that may not sustain their popular appeal and access that should be paramount.

—  However, more participatory contribution to the design and maintenance of these parks is appropriate in order to develop a sense of ownership, care, etc.

  A seriously overlooked component of making places sustainable through popular access and participation is the valuable knowledge and respect that people gain of places through their use of them. This is in addition to what is familiarly called "conservation knowledge/expertise/practice". People in numerous activities in outdoor places develop a respect and knowledge that is a vital resource for policy makers and for people managing sites like these. This should be harnessed.

IT IS FROM THE FOLLOWING THAT NEW OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA FOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PARKS SHOULD BE BUILT

Town/City Parks

—  Parks are important as spaces where people can meet outdoors in informal surroundings for their choice of activities.

—  Places with which people can feel an attachment, a sense of ownership, regard, respect. These meanings inform environmental responsibility and care.

—  Parks are an important component of sustainable cities, in both environmental and cultural/social terms.

—  Parks should be designed with the diversity of uses and users in mind. This may require a retention/provision of different kinds of spaces by size and enclosure and openness, formality and informality.

—  Parks make high-density living bearable.

—  For reasons of safety and security and in order to provide the maximum popular involvement and use of parks in some areas surveillance may be necessary for people such as women, young mothers and younger and also older people to feel empowered to use these places. This requires sensitivity as well as rigour in application [developed with the community].

—  Parks should be designed with "local" people, people, groups using them, in collaboration. This requires a diversity of membership in order to empower the different constituencies.

—  Public participation is a necessary feature of the maintenance/management of public parks. Lessons from popular involvement in "local agenda 21" projects is informative here, and is the experience of allotment holding (Crouch 1998a,b, 1999).

—  Parks provide a means for diverse groups of people to get together and to be themselves, to develop their identities.

Country Parks

—  Country Parks should be developed along the lines of local agenda 21 as community-related spaces. "The community" would be the people who use them, casual and regular visitors. Conservation activity is not the only one through which people derive a deep value of environment and this should be extended to a range of activities.

—  Country Parks comprise a great diversity of spaces, habitats, features, human artefacts and again provide a plural facility for diverse groups. It is an important part of their facility that they provide free access. As such, whatever means of supplying them exists they should be without charge to the user. In this sense they provide an important alternative to charged places. However this requires that they have community-related management and maintenance.

  Crouch D 1998[a], Crouch D 1998[b]. Submission of evidence and supplementary evidence to the Environment Sub-committee on The Future for Allotments.

  Crouch D 1994. The Popular Culture of City Parks, City Parks Project. Comedia Working Paper.

  Crouch D 1998 [c]. The Street in the making of geographical knowledge. in Fyfe N ed. T Images of the Street. Routledge.

  Crouch D 1999. Submission to the Local Government Association Working Group on Allotment Policy.

  Parklife 1995 published by Comedia.