Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
what is the opportunity cost of additional expenditure on leisure provision). At the local
planning level, different local authorities will have varying levels of commitment to
recreation provision, which will also vary according to the political persuasion of the
elected politicians that varies in time and space.
Against this background, planners need to understand societal changes, namely
demographic trends, lifestyle changes (see the early study by Havighurst and Feigenbaum
1959), social attitudes to recreation and the increasing demands of ethnic groups (Floyd
1998; Johnson et al. 1998), people with disabilities and other minority groups to achieve
equity goals in local planning for leisure (Shinew and Arnold 1998). In many countries,
notably the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Britain and Australia, issues of cultural
pluralism and a multicultural population pose new challenges to conventional notions of
recreation planning. Probably one of the greatest technological innovations that now exist
to assist planners in integrating these new perspectives into social and land use planning
is GIS. It enables planners to spatially integrate the demand and supply of recreation and
to evaluate possible locational issues and outcomes. This is also invaluable in modelling
resource degradation (see Bahaire and Elliott-White 1999 for more detail). In essence,
GIS operates on spatial data which have a standard geographical frame of reference. It
also utilises attribute data, which are statistical and non-locational. GIS allows planners to
link planning goals to basic geographical issues such as location, trends through time,
patterns at specific points in time and an ability to model issues such as recreational
impacts (see Briggs and Tantrum (1997) for specific recreational applications and
Kliskey and Kearsley (1993) for an application to wilderness perception mapping in New
Zealand; also see the case study on wilderness inventories in Australia in Chapter 8).
Pigram and Jenkins (1999) argued that a more strategic approach to recreation
planning is needed but much of the existing practice of planning is concerned with
geographical issues of the availability of recreational opportunities, the location of
services and facilities. Although recreation planning should be a complex process, its
application in the public sector often remains a simplistic activity, focused on the
provision of specific facilities rather than the wider context of recreation opportunity,
desire and provision. According to G.M.Robinson (1999), eight approaches to planning
for leisure may be discerned and a number of them utilise spatial principles (see Table
9.1). Even in seemingly advanced recreational contexts such as the Netherlands with an
enviable reputation for recreation planning, Dietvorst (1993:84) argued that 'During the
1980s it was realised that public tastes had changed and that the amenities for outdoor
recreation in many ways no longer satisfied demand'. This reflected the changing policy
framework which saw a convergence of interest towards recreation and tourism with
common goals in terms of provision (Jansen-Verbeke and Dietvorst 1987). Indeed,
Dietvorst (1993) criticised the strong normative planning framework prevailing in the
Netherlands as not offering flexible and market-oriented forms of outdoor recreation.
What is clear is that the state, its agencies (e.g. the newly amalgamated Countryside
Agency in the UK) (see Coalter 1990 for more detail on agencies) have a wide remit for
the management and planning of outdoor recreation resources given the diversity and
extent of recreational environments (Figure 9.1), while the statutory planning framework
is based on the twin goals of development plans and development control (Ravenscroft
1992). Even so, Ravenscroft (1992) concluded that
