Open Space, Green Space, and Land Conservation

The readings tie in well together this week to bring up a very important point. In Mazmanian and Kraft, we read about movements across the country to improve, expand, and manage our open spaces. Furthermore, we also learn that all tasks concerning the sustainability of these spaces fluctuates, often in accordance with population density, urban vs. rural areas, and socioeconomic levels in communities.

In Kraft, we explored the various missing components that leave many evaluations of environmental policies incomplete or unreliable. Some policies (like Clean Air) have easily measured progress since their enactment, while others (like those concerning park usage and sustainability) suffer from loopholes where measurements provided still do not accurately demonstrate progress.

So, as proposed by Mazmanian and Kraft, I began to understand that many places across the country are working towards preserving their current open/green spaces and making sure that further development is discouraged or highly monitored. Yet, the success of many policies concerning these open spaces are on the local level. Herein lies what seems to be the most salient point in this week's readings: Top-down policy from Federal to local has become extremely difficult. As Kraft points out in chapter 7, there are an abundance of studies/evaluations the recommend new regulations on all sorts of environmental threats, with conclusions that are widely supported. They are hung up, however, in Congress, where legislators cannot agree on how to rewrite statutes.

So, we are left with encouragement for action on a local level, because it works and works almost immediately whereas federal legislation concerning the environment these days is often far too overarching and overachieving to be realistically passed with its original intent. What irks me about this though, is that the combination of readings in my perspective begin to suggest that federal legislation is near worthless (at least in the present) and it really shouldn't be. Government should be responsible for setting a good example in environmental policy. It is good that local governments have been effective (as have many private/public partnerships), but the government needs to take a hint from the actions occurring across the country.

Where the government can step in, is in more densely populated areas that do not have the same level of affluence that many towns and small cities achieve in suburban areas. Following the lead of the towns that have taken it upon themselves to preserve open/green space, the federal and state governments could help facilitate the same sorts of partnerships. Thus policy would be dictated by the people and not by the people in power, but perhaps here this is a necessary step for this particular issue.