Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
S.L.J.Smith (1983a:1) argued that the 'description of location is the study of differences'
which can be classified in terms of description of facility of recreational resource
location, where the distribution of resources pertinent to the specific activity may be
enumerated and mapped. Within this context the inventories of recreational resources has
attracted a great deal of attention, which arguably underpins much of the preliminary
research undertaken to establish recreational supply features in quantity and quality.
Resource inventories, such as the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission
(Chubb and Chubb 1981; see also Chapter 7), typify this approach, whereby the quantity
and number of designated public recreation areas were tabulated and mapped by area
along US coastlines. A more complex method is to develop a typology of resource types
and uses such as Clawson and Knetsch's (1968) widely cited model of recreational
resources which can be classified as urban and rural resource-based, intermediate and
user-oriented. Additional variables which might be added to such classifications include
human-modified and natural resources; formal and informal; intensive and extensive;
fragile and resistant; while public and private ownership may also be included (Wall
1989). The Canada Land Inventory (Department of Regional Economic Expansion 1972)
is a useful example of one such inventory that set out to provide an overview of 'the
quality, quantity, and distribution of natural recreation resources within the settled points
of Canada; to indicate comparative levels of recreation capability for non-urban lands
based upon present preferences; to indicate the types of recreation and land use'. The
classification is illustrated in Table 3.1. While there are criticisms of this approach related
to the consistency of data collection and interpretation, it provides a valuable synthesis on
the potential of Canadian land resources to support recreational activity. S.L.J.Smith
(1983a) also explores more advanced methods used to classify recreational resources,
including deglomerative methods (where resources are subdivided into distinct groups)
and agglomerative methods (where resource types are grouped into general categories).
An interesting example of a deglomerative study is Filoppovich's (1979) assessment of
recreational development around Moscow. In contrast, Dubaniewicz's (1976)
examination of the Lodz Voivodiship in Poland explored aggregate patterns of
recreational development, having located, mapped and defined biotic and abiotic
resources and human resource patterns at a regional level. Deglomerative studies remain
more widely used than the latter. Yet such methods of analyses pay less attention to the
importance of human (i.e. subjective) evaluations of resources for recreation (e.g.
Coppock and Duffield's 1975 assessment of recreational potential in the countryside).
One of the notable debates in resource studies for recreation in the late 1960s and early
1970s was the evaluation of recreation environments (Duffield and Owen 1970) related to
preferential descriptions of recreational resources, namely aesthetic studies which
measure human preferences and how they respond to landscape alterations. According to
Pigram and Jenkins (1999:76) the multifaceted nature of landscape, personal preferences
and individual perception make evaluation a highly subjective activity. In the assessment
of scenic landscape elements, two fundamental elements exist: the character of the
landscape (i.e. the components of the landscape which are visual and part of an inventory
such as vegetation, water, human occupation) and quality which is a comparative-
evaluative concept, in part determined by landscape characteristics. Unwin (1976)
identified landscape quality as a three-stage process:
