Please rate my AOI 
************************
"Some people claim that in order to protect national parks and historical sites, public access to them should be
greatly restricted. Others argue that there should be few restrictions, if any, because such places were intended for
everyone to use."
Explain your position on this issue. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience,
observations, or reading.
************************
National parks and hisorical sites provide many benifits to the community. The nature of these sites vary in many ways. Some offer undeveloped greenspace, others offer preserved historical sites, and still more offer access to recreational activites. The issue at hand is whether or not access to these sites should be highly or lightly restricted. I side with the group that argues for restrictions. Restrictiosn for access to these sites should be based strictly on the different types of services they provide. The services parks and historical sites provide can be broken down into two categories: public access and public benefit.
The public beneifit of parks and historical sites is spread across all people in a community, whether or not they utilize the sites. The benefits derived include, but are not limited to, greenspace that negates carbon emissions and the option for citizens to utilize the park or historical site. This figure can be difficult to measure, however it is highly intertwined with the second service provided, public access.
Public access is the benefit derived when people visit the park or historical site. This is a measurable figure that can be used to determine an optimal number of visitors based on the capacity of the site. Using standard cost benefit analysis, one can determine a threshold for volume of visitors that is sustainable for the given park or historical site.
A case can be made for low, or no restrictions. However, this case is only vaild when the measured cost of increasing public access does not negatively affect the public benefit. An example of this may include the issuance of camping permits in a large national forest in montana that averages less than one hundred visitors per year.
In sum, if a park becomes overcrowded due to low fees for entry, public benefit is decreased in two ways. Primarily it decreases because the park is a less good option for potential visiotrs. Secondarily, the park may become run down and provide less public benefit in the way of greenspace. For these reasons, restrictions on parks and historical sites need to be carefully addressed. Too many, or too few, restrictions can severely affect the benefits derived.
************************
"Some people claim that in order to protect national parks and historical sites, public access to them should be
greatly restricted. Others argue that there should be few restrictions, if any, because such places were intended for
everyone to use."
Explain your position on this issue. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience,
observations, or reading.
************************
National parks and hisorical sites provide many benifits to the community. The nature of these sites vary in many ways. Some offer undeveloped greenspace, others offer preserved historical sites, and still more offer access to recreational activites. The issue at hand is whether or not access to these sites should be highly or lightly restricted. I side with the group that argues for restrictions. Restrictiosn for access to these sites should be based strictly on the different types of services they provide. The services parks and historical sites provide can be broken down into two categories: public access and public benefit.
The public beneifit of parks and historical sites is spread across all people in a community, whether or not they utilize the sites. The benefits derived include, but are not limited to, greenspace that negates carbon emissions and the option for citizens to utilize the park or historical site. This figure can be difficult to measure, however it is highly intertwined with the second service provided, public access.
Public access is the benefit derived when people visit the park or historical site. This is a measurable figure that can be used to determine an optimal number of visitors based on the capacity of the site. Using standard cost benefit analysis, one can determine a threshold for volume of visitors that is sustainable for the given park or historical site.
A case can be made for low, or no restrictions. However, this case is only vaild when the measured cost of increasing public access does not negatively affect the public benefit. An example of this may include the issuance of camping permits in a large national forest in montana that averages less than one hundred visitors per year.
In sum, if a park becomes overcrowded due to low fees for entry, public benefit is decreased in two ways. Primarily it decreases because the park is a less good option for potential visiotrs. Secondarily, the park may become run down and provide less public benefit in the way of greenspace. For these reasons, restrictions on parks and historical sites need to be carefully addressed. Too many, or too few, restrictions can severely affect the benefits derived.
