IS VANDALISM REALLY NECESSARY?
INTRODUCTION
One of the strange things about vandalism is that although it is an extremely costly problem, there can be few aspects of human behaviour upon which less research has been carried out. Vandalism adds $2 million per annum to our collective telephone bills; several further million to the costs of our schools, roughly $3 million to our collective losses on public transport systems; and another million or so to our Council rates. In spite of all this, there is little more real knowledge about vandalism and its causes than there was when Eve got herself into trouble for despoiling flora in a national park.
However, we can now make a number of generalisations, based upon simple observation and on social science theory. A recent book on the subject, the only one of significance, does just this, drawing almost entirely upon the urban situation. 1
Vandalism is primarily a problem of big cities, but we all know it is not confined to cities. The purpose of this paper is threefold:
- to outline some of the general evidence about vandalism
- to relate this to management of the natural environment, and suggest ways in which vandalism may be minimised, and
- to encourage others to share their own observations and so help to build up knowledge of the problem and how to best handle it.
WHAT WE KNOW
The first and most important thing is to recognise that the word "vandalism" describes a variety of quite different kinds of behaviour, most of which may occur for a variety of quite different reasons. This makes generalisations both difficult and suspect.
Some vandalism is an expression of direct resentment, or even of simple revenge. Much of the damage done to schools is of just this kind. However, much more of it is merely vague, undirected aggression. The person who smashes up a railway carriage probably has no direct grudge against the railways, but just against society as a whole. Still other acts constitute what has been called "predatory" vandalism smashing a public telephone to steal the money, or even the world-wide and highly respectable pastime of souvenir collecting.
Graffiti-writing is two things — the personal urge to leave one's own mark (even if only in a public toilet!) and now as a popular means to express a political viewpoint. Littering is perhaps a separate kind of problem, but in the natural environment, certainly constitutes vandalism. Thoughtlessness, ignorance and plain stupidity play their part, particularly in the natural environment. One sees this latter problem exemplified by the city-dweller who destroys natural vegetation without a second thought (or the engineers and electricians who have developed show caves)
This brings me to the problem of perspective. It has been said that one man's development is another man's vandalism! It is very difficult to see real sense in the efforts to restrict trail-bike use while thousands of hectares of forest are being bulldozed into woodchips. Similarly, why should cave visitors refrain from stealing a few fragments of stalactite when they see the wholesale destruction wrought during cave development, or even by a nearby quarry? I know there are logical answers to such questions, but I would suggest that perhaps many so-called "vandals" may have a different perspective, and hence a different sense of logic.
Secondly, we know that different kinds of people carry out different kinds of vandalism. For instance, nearly all damage to trains is done by young teenage boys; most damage to public telephones seems to be done by adults; a great deal of the damage at certain tourist resorts is done by visiting groups of footballers or the like, and so on. Interestingly, I do not think we know very much at all about which people do what kind of damage in parks and other natural environment areas. Probably a lot of us have hunches and prejudices, but we have very little real evidence.
Thirdly, we know that very little vandalism is genuinely "meaningless" behaviour. There is always some reason for human behaviour, and if we knew enough, we might be surprised at how much vandalism not only has a clear reason, but may even be relatively logical. Some months ago, I encountered four consecutive telephones which devoured my money but delivered nothing. As my last coins disappeared into the fourth, I came very close to being a minor vandal — and if I had, I would challenge anyone to argue that as an irrational and meaningless bit of behaviour
I believe that a lot of vandalism in the natural environment is simply a continuation of our cultural tradition. When white men first came to Australia, they came here from out of the bowels of Britain's big cities, and found an environment which they saw as savage and frightening. They tamed it, basically by destroying it and building cities on it, and even reshaped the farmlands into a copy of their familiar countryside. It is no accident that Australia is, and has been since 1788, the most thoroughly urbanised country in the world.
So, we are a nation of city dwellers. We find the natural environment frightening or confusing, and we try to re-structure it to be more like what we know. It is therefore legitimate and natural to destroy trees replacing them with empty beer cans.
Of course, not all vandalism in natural areas can be explained in this way. Let me just suggest some other mechanisms. Many people in our society have a relatively low opinion of themselves (which results from all the messages they get from other people) and yet all of us want to feel significant — so one way of feeling significant is to do something which we can recognise as our own thing -— which may well be destructive. All of us also get angry at times, and when we get angry, we may hit out at what makes us angry — some of the signs which I have seen in parks are an obvious target.
Fourthly, and perhaps this is very close to my last point, we know that much vandalism is created by society rather than by the individual person. Thus, as a society, we place a high value on toughness, challenge and masculinity, yet provide very few ways in which these characteristics can be expressed. Vandalism provides an outlet for all these. Similarly, we believe in everyone having a right to leisure and recreation, then we build housing estates where there are no adequate services for many sectors of the population.
Fifth, we know that most people feel uncomfortable about their vandalism. One of the most effective strategies in reducing vandalism of public telephones has simply been to make them more visible, so that the potential vandal cannot operate unseen. One simple example of the way in which this applied to caves and other parks is that we know damage is more likely on quiet days than busy days. 2
Sixth, we know that in various ways, vandalism is contagious. A littered camp site will rapidly become more littered; a damaged building will rapidly become mare damaged, and so on. There is even a school of thought that argues for a "law of diminishing vandalism" in that continuing rapid repair of damage leads to reduction or even elimination of damage — valid where the same people are involved, but not true of sites with a constantly changing visitor population.
Probably, I could continue this list a little further, but it would become increasingly uncertain. As I emphasised at the beginning, we know very little. Let me now turn to what this knowledge means for prevention (especially in the natural environment) and to what we know about the success or otherwise of various approaches to prevention.
WHAT WE MIGHT DO
I have chosen to talk about the tactics which might be adopted to reduce or eliminate vandalism under five headings. Doubtless there are a number of other points which will arise from discussion and the suggestions here are merely put forward as a starting point for constructive thinking about the problem.
1. Vandalism is a problem of human behaviour and a primary line of attack must be to improve the quality of the relationship between people, specifically between those responsible for a public facility such as a cave park and those who use the facility.
I have already suggested that the problem relates to at least some extent to the lack of self-esteem which many people feel. This has some very obvious implications. If we treat people as hooligans, it merely increases the likelihood that they will behave as hooligans. If we treat people as responsible individuals it increases the likelihood that they will behave responsibly. This seems to be one of the factors which makes for a very low rate of vandalism in self-guided show caves.
We would also do well to avoid things which make people angry. For instance, a rude or unpleasant ranger/guide will almost certainly find more damage occurs in a park under his control than a polite and pleasant ranger/guide. Similarly, the way in which signs are worded may have a major influence. I can see absolutely no justification for the stupidity of erecting signs which merely reprint formal regulations. Signs should carry out an interpretive function, and again, should treat the public with courtesy and respect.
It seems to me there are also good reasons for endeavouring to avoid large groups with whom communication is difficult or impossible, particularly if such large groups are in a mood where some of the normal social inhibitions are lowered. Organised school tours and football club picnics are two examples where this may be a factor.
2. The solution to many social problems is often seen as education. Unfortunately, it is very hard to know whether or not any particular bit of education will really change human behaviour. The success claimed for some educational programmes is often more simply explained by better on-site supervision which goes hand-in-hand with education.
However, there is no question that education does have an influence provided it is adequately planned and executed. Part of this certainly involves treating the "pupil" with courtesy and respect. Another part of it involves understanding the simple fact that the amount of information we give to the learner is not the issue — the real issue is how much of the information provided will be absorbed.
3. The design of public spaces can have a major influence upon the extent or otherwise of vandalism. Well designed features suffer far less damage than badly designed features. We can see this in parks all over Australia in such features as sign-posting and track making. Again it is important to emphasise that good design is not simply a matter of making things more rugged or avoiding hidden corners (although these are important) but it is also one of developing design which treats people with dignity and respect.
The extent to which vandalism is more likely to occur on quiet days has implications for the scheduling of traffic through the park. It may be very difficult to achieve but if smaller numbers of people can be discreetly channelled rather than allowed to scatter, it may be helpful.
An obvious factor is adequate provision of litter bins and the like. My own hunch about some educational campaigns to stop littering is that the funds would have been far better spent on more litter bins rather than more exhortation.
4. I have also referred to the extent to which vandalism tends to be contagious. Proper maintenance and cleaning of a park or cave will pay dividends. If damage is quickly repaired it is far less likely to recur. We know from experience of clean-up campaigns organised in various caves and cave areas, that these do work — the rate of littering or damage definitely reduces following such a clean-up.
5. The last question is that of legislation and regulation. The obvious major problem in Australia is that we have no legislation which is designed purely for the protection of caves. 3 The only caves covered by protective legislation are generally those in national parks or other forms of governmental reserves. Even this legislation is generally inadequate in its provisions, and in particular does not set adequate safeguards upon developmental works which are undertaken.
Even if more adequate legislation were developed, there are still major problems of enforcement. The present legislation in respect to national parks and similar reserves is all too rarely enforced even when offenders are detected. There seems little point in even having legislation if it is not adequately enforced and policed. This area alone warrants considerable further discussion in Australia and a serious look at the feasibility of developing more adequate laws.
REFERENCES
1. WARD, Colin (ed.), 1973. Vandalism. Architectural Press: London.
2. VAN CLEAVE, Phillip F., 1976. Existing Cave-related Plans and Programs at Carlsbad Caverns National Park, National Cave Management Symposium, Albuquerque, N.M., p. 138.
3. STITT, Robert R., 1976. State Cave Protection Laws and Their Enforcement, National Cave Management Symposium, Albuquerque, N.M., PP. 91-97. Some other papers in this volume are also relevant to this question.