Park Governance Models – Government Tax Centric View

There are 6 examples of what are predominately Government controlled and Tax driven governance models.  They are:

  1. The Public Sector – Consolidated Revenue: the typical National Parks Service (eg: USA NPS)
  2. Public-Rate – Parks Victoria
  3. Traditional Owner – Tax (Indigenous Protected Areas – Australia)
  4. Trust –Tax: Centennial Parks (Australia)
  5. Local Government/Authority – Rate
  6. Aggregated Local – Lee Valley (UK), Regional District (USA)

As I work through various examples that use this framework (lens) and demonstrate the different and varied governance model, I will with each example briefly describe their key attributes and limits. The limits aren’t to be viewed as a criticism or a weakness of any given example but to highlight where and when this type of governance should be used and when another type of governance maybe more preferred.

A Summary of the Government-Tax Centric models:

Public – Consolidated Revenue

Features:

  • Consolidated Revenue
  • Public Ownership
  • National Parks legislation
  • Large Scale
  • Public Sector Management

Limits:

  • Reach with community
  • Commercial
  • Scale – either too large or small
  • Component of a larger entity

Examples:

  • State or National Park Service

 

USA NPS

https://www.nps.gov/index.htm

 

Public – Rate

Features:

  • Rate (property tax plus consolidated revenue)
  • Public Ownership (generally by Central Government)
  • Large Scale
  • Legislative based
    • Organisational legislation
    • Natural Resource legislation
  • Statutory Authority – with Board

Limits:

  • Restricted by legislation
  • Central Government oversight
  • Limited commercial basis
  • Lack of authority and thus responsibility

Examples:

Parks Victoria

http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/

 

Traditional Owner – Tax

Features:

  • Plus Consolidated Revenue
  • Mixed Ownership
  • Large – Small Scale
  • Legislation– generally National Parks legislation
  • Co-management usually Advisory to Boards (with limited control)
  • Management generally by another park agency

Limits:

  • Restricted by legislation, especially rights
  • Departmental control
  • Policy context

Examples:

IPA’s – Indigenous Protected Areas

Co-Management – various forms

Aboriginal Joint Management of Parks (NSW Australia)

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/jointmanagement/index.htm

Trust – Tax

Features:

  • Consolidated Revenue- commercial
  • Public Ownership – Local Scale
  • Legislation –
    • Organisational – Western Sydney Parklands Act 2006 or
    • Resource – Botanical legislation
  • Statutory Authority

Limits:

  • Restricted by legislation
  • Departmental control
  • Small patch

Examples:

Centennial Park (NSW Australia)

http://www.centennialparklands.com.au/places_to_visit/centennial_park

 

Local Government – Rate

Features:

  • Rate
    • Plus Grants
    • Commercial – Innovation
  • Public/Social Ownership
  • Regional to local Scale
  • Legislation
    • LG Act
  • Community Centric
  • High degree of Integration

Limits

  • Rate caps
  • Limited control over public domain land
  • National Parks in control of others

Examples:

Auckland Parks (NZ)

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/parksfacilities/Pages/Home.aspx

 

Aggregated Local

Features:

  • Common in USA
  • Rate
    • Commercial
    • Propositions
  • Public/Social Ownership
    • Multiple LG areas
  • Large Scale
  • Legislation
    • Lee Valley Regional Park Act
    • By-law / Joint Venture (Regional District Model)
  • Board Governance
    • Some publicly elected
  • Integrated

Limits

  • Government over-ride – Olympics
  • Ownership views

Examples:

Lee Valley Regional Parks Authority (UK)

http://www.leevalleypark.org.uk/

 

East Bay Park District (USA)

http://www.ebparks.org/

 

On the spectrum:

ParkGov2