Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
O'Riordan (1971:4) still remains the most quoted definition of a resource: 'an attribute of
the environment appraised by man to be of value over time within constraints imposed by
his social, political, economic and institutional framework'. The recreational research by
Clawson et al. (1960) still remains the popular conceptualisation of recreational
resources, particularly in a rural context. Clawson et al. (1960) identified one of the
standard approaches to recreational resources which has been developed and modified by
geographers since the early 1960s: what constitutes a recreational resource, and how can
you classify them so that effective planning and management can be developed? Clawson
et al. (1960) distinguished between recreation areas and opportunity using a range of
factors: location, size, characteristics, degree of use and extent of artificial development
of the recreation resource. The result was the development of a continuum of recreational
opportunities from user-orientated to resourcebased with rural areas falling into resource-
based and intermediate areas (i.e. the urban fringe). While geographers have reworked
and refined such ideas, the resource use remains one of the underlying tenets of the
analysis of recreational resources (I.G. Simmons 1975). For example, Hockin et al.
(1978) classified land-based recreational activities into:
• overnight activities (e.g. camping and caravanning)
• activities involving shooting
• activities involving a significant element of organised competition (e.g. golf)
• activities involving little or no organised competition (e.g. angling, cycling, rambling,
picnicking and wildlife observation).
This has moved on a stage from the continuum zoning concept of Clawson et al. (1960)
to recognise the diversity of demand and how it did not necessarily fit into any one
particular zone.
Coppock and Duffield (1975) outlined their principal contribution in terms of
understanding what resources were used and consumed by recreationalists, the levels and
volume of use, the capacity of resources to absorb recreationalists, the range of potential
resources available, the role of resource evaluation and the techniques of resource
evaluation developed by geographers, though their own experience was largely confined
to major studies undertaken in Lanarkshire and Greater Edinburgh. By comparing
Coppock and Duffield's (1975) synthesis with Patmore (1983), assessment of the
geographer's principal concern with recreational resources may be seen to concentrate
around three themes.
First, there is the visual character of the resource itself, the very quality that gives
stimulus and satisfaction. So much of the quality is intertwined with the theme of
conservation and the composition of the rural landscape as a whole: for all its importance,
however, that aspect is marginal to our purpose and will receive comparatively scant
attention. The second theme is recreational opportunity, the direct use of the rural
environment for recreational pursuits, both on sites with a uniquely recreational purpose
and on those pursuits which recreation must compete directly and indirectly with other
uses. The third theme is recreational variety, the variety of rural landscapes and the
variety of recreational opportunity that each affords. It is this variety that is the
geographer's concern; the frequent imbalance of recreational demand with resource
supply, and the consequent compromises and patterns that such imbalance engenders
(Patmore 1983:164).
