Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
that few recreational activities make use of resources solely designed or in existence for
recreational purposes.
As Pigram and Jenkins (1999:59) argued, 'identification and valuation of elements of
the environment as recreation resources will depend upon a number of factors (e.g.
economics, social attitudes and perceptions, political perspectives and technology'. As a
result, Pigram and Jenkins (1999:59) recognised that outdoor recreational resources may
encompass a wide range of settings associated with space, topography and climatic
characteristics. This expands upon Hart's (1966) early notion of the 'recreation resource
base', which were the natural values of the countryside or respective landscape. Such a
notion was clarified in specific terms by Clawson and Knetsch (1966) thus:
There is nothing in the physical landscape or features of any particular
piece of land or body of water that makes it a recreation resource; it is the
combination of the natural qualities and the ability and desire of man to
use them that makes a resource out of what might otherwise be a more or
less meaningless combination of rocks, soil and trees.
(Clawson and Knetsch 1966:7)
However, such resources are not static, since new trends or cultural appraisals can lead to
new notions of the environment as a recreational resource.
Recreation in rural contexts (Chapter 6) often occurs alongside agriculture, forestry
and water supply functions (Goodall and Whittow 1975). In this respect, the
identification of recreational resources needs to recognise the management implications
of multiple use, a feature discussed below. While Glyptis (1989a) also outlined the
demands of many forms of recreation which have few land needs, this analysis is
concerned with recreational forms that have a land use component given the geographers'
interest in how human activities and phenomena are interrelated and occur on the earth's
surface. Yet even Glyptis' (1989a) review pays little explicit attention to the resource
base—the supply dimension—beyond highlighting Patmore's (1983)
perspective [which] is specifically geographical, but with full recognition
of the interplay of social, economic and political factors, and with a
wealth of data. … The bulk of the text concerns [sic] contemporary
patterns of recreational activity and the demands they place on the land
and water resources, with myriad references to management issues and
solutions.
(Glyptis 1989a: 137)
But this still does not illuminate the approaches, concepts and specific skills the
geographer brings to the analysis of recreational supply issues.
The wanton absence of such studies within the published literature and the tendency
for writers to step sideways and develop simplistic descriptions of recreational resources
confirms two of the weaknesses which S.L.J.Smith (1983a:184) argued confronted the
study of recreation: 'recreational geography is still at the stage of naive phenomenology
and induction in the 1980s.' What this statement means is that as researchers discover
more recreational phenomena, they classify it and develop specialist areas of study,
Search WWH ::




Custom Search