Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Despite images to the contrary, rurality is no longer dominated by concepts of food
production, and new uses of the countryside, particularly related to recreational and
tourism activities, are redefining the idea of what constitutes the rural landscape. In
Britain, as in many other industrialised countries, these uses are placing extreme
pressures and creating new conflicts not only in terms of rural policy-making and their
relationship to agriculture but also between themselves (Curry 1992). For example, Blake
(1996) reports that, according to a Countryside Commission survey, 76 per cent of the
English population visited the countryside in 1990. Such a high level of visitation
inevitably leads to the transformation of villages, and the creation of tourist facilities and
infrastructure. However, at the same time, 89 per cent of people believe that the English
countryside should be protected at all costs (presumably as long as this cost would not
result in the exclusion of those who wanted it saved). In the case of the United Kingdom
the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in February 2001 probably focused more attention
on what is really happening in the countryside than ever before. As the story unfolded in
the media, it quickly became apparent that tourism was a far greater economic contributor
to rural areas than was farming. Nevertheless, policy measures were still being primarily
developed in relation to the agricultural sector rather than the needs of the tourism sector
to recover from the impacts of the measures to control the disease on tourist and
recreational mobility and access to the countryside (Coles 2003; G.A.Miller and Ritchie
2003). In terms of issues of sustainability it will be extremely interesting what new
management, policy and planning structures are put in place by the central and local
governments in Britain in response to the economic and social crisis in the countryside
that the disease has revealed to the wider public. Indeed, issues of biosecurity may be
regarded as integral to tourism development in agricultural areas because of the
possibilities of diseases and pests being spread through human mobility (Hall 2003c,
2005a, 2005e). Indeed, one of the major errors which policy-makers and academics have
often made with respect to tourism and recreation in rural areas is to treat them in
isolation from the other factors which contribute to the social, environmental and
economic fabric of rural regions. Tourism needs to be appropriately embedded within the
particular set of linkages and relationships which comprise the essence of rurality with
tourism being recognised as but one component of the policy mix which government and
the private sector formulate with respect to rural development. Butler and Hall (1998)
argue that many regional authorities fail to recognise that it is the visual complexity of
the rural landscape which generates amenity values for locals and visitors alike. In the
attempt to generate economic development, a wider tax base and employment,
inappropriate policies and strategies may be followed. Furthermore,
Policy measures in one sector, such as the attraction of agribusinesses or
large foreign investments to a region, may lead to a decline of the
industrial value of the region to other industries, such as tourism and
businesses which are based on adding-value to local primary production.
(Hall and Butler 1998:255)
An integrated approach to rural resource development is therefore essential for
sustainable rural development. As J.Jenkins (1997) observed with respect to rural
Australia, government can best assist rural areas to meet the challenges of economic
