We live in uncertain, challenging times, in which the issues of the nature and purpose of leisure are more complex than they were thirty years ago. Old convictions about the capacity of science and technology to solve our leisure ills and produce the leisure society have given way to fresh anxieties about the risks involved in some leisure forms, especially forms which are perceived to be deviant such as the recreational use of illicit drugs, and illegal downloading of music, film and software from the internet. The traditional confidence with which those in paid employment, their dependants and owners of capital asserted their right to leisure is now festooned with new worries. These include the casualization of paid employment and its implications for health and pension contributions, the environmental costs of leisure practice, various dietary risks, sexually transmitted illnesses and the persistence of inequality and the role of leisure multinationals in intensifying the development gap. The Charter for Leisure approved by the World Leisure board of directors in July 2000 submitted that ‘provisions for leisure for the quality of life are as important as those for health and education’.1 Yet scarcely any government has taken heed in respect of its public spending programme and, at the state level, the relationship between leisure and the quality of life generally remains poorly understood.
KeywordsOzone Income Carbon Monoxide Smoke Defend
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.