Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
though Country Parks have assisted in retaining land for recreation at a time of pressure
for development. Fitton (1979), for example, found that while Country Parks comprised
0.13 per cent of the land surface of England and Wales, they accounted for 4.2 per cent of
trips, a finding supported by Elson (1979) whose analyses of 31 sites visited in south-east
England found that urban fringe sites with a range of facilities were visited more
frequently than other recreational destinations, though patterns of use were related to
distance-decay functions, distance from individuals' home area, other attractions,
individual choice and a range of other factors. As Harrison (1991:103) suggests, Country
Parks 'had not achieved a separate identity but people's experiences of particular sites
within [them]… contributed to their own separate evaluations of what particular locations
offered'. The continual gap between provision and users was evidenced in the
Countryside Commission's (1988) study, which concluded that while 58 per cent of
people had heard of a Country Park, only 26 per cent could name one correctly, reflecting
a lack of promotion and general awareness of their existence.
At a national level, Country Parks appear to have only a minor role to play in diverting
demand from the countryside, with some parks having catchments that are extremely
localised. This was due to the impact of the car in diverting traffic straight to countryside
sites. For example, Harrison (1981, 1983) found that 75 per cent of visitors to south
London's green belt were car users. Their study discovered that inner city residents never
comprised more than 10 per cent of users. Although sites were also accessible to those
not having access to a car over short distances, Groome and Tarrant (1984) found public
transport to Country Parks effective over a 5-8 km distance (i.e. short distance) for a
local population. At an aggregate level, it is clear that Country Parks (and their
forerunner—Regional Parks) in the UK play a vital role in locating recreational resources
near to demand. The somewhat dated 1981 National Survey of Countryside
Recreation found that 40 per cent of destinations were within the urban area or within 1
km (Sidaway and Duffield 1984), with a further 22 per cent in the countryside around
urban areas. Only 16 per cent of destinations were located 10 km from the urban areas.
In 2003, the Countryside Agency argued that these sites still act as focal points for
leisure, acting as honeypots and as gateways to the countryside. The recent interest in
redeveloping the resource base of these sites has been apparent in the serious decline that
has occurred in open space provision in the UK, especially as many of these Country
Parks rely upon local authorities for over 90 per cent of their funding at a time of cuts in
leisure spending and new priorities, such as social inclusion and the problems of inner
city deprivation. PriceWaterhouseCooper (1999) found that in the UK there were 60,000
parks, gardens and designed landscapes that were competing for funding, 33,000 of
which were owned by the local authority. These sites saw expenditure of around £800
million a year, £325 million of which came from the local authority. Yet using economic
techniques of contingent valuation, these sites were deemed to be worth £5000 million to
the people who used them, comprising around 6 per cent of all recreational visits each
year.
The example of Havering in Greater London (Figure 3.2) illustrates how the
development of a management plan by a project officer acknowledged the problems of
multiple use and the legacy of former derelict land. In the case of Havering, the scale of
dereliction
and
the
variety
of
land
agencies
involved
created
problems
for
the
