Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
and established a baseline for future work, across a
continuum from description to explanation to
prediction to policy formulation (Owens 1984;
Smith 1983). This can be compared with Morgan's
(1991) fivefold classification of survey, analysis,
plan, monitoring and review. A continuing
emphasis on demand and site surveys has revealed
that the pursuit of recreational activities in the
countryside is highly concentrated: spatially,
temporally, and by activity, mode of transport, class,
age and family type (Gilg 1996:221-2).
Concern for the environmental effects of
recreation upon 'fragile' areas such as national
parks or wilderness has been manifest more
recently (e.g. Mieczkowski 1995). There are
numerous studies reporting substantial
environmental damage at 'honeypot' sites in
national parks and sites that attract large numbers
of visitors, such as Stonehenge or Ayers Rock.
However, the growing numbers of rural tourists
and recreationists are spreading human impacts to
areas previously spared such depredations, and
creating new management problems (Bromley
1994). Until recently, little of this environmental
concern was directed at the wider, more densely
settled countryside, although government and
academics have now shown greater awareness of
the broader scale of such impacts (e.g. Countryside
Commission 1991; 1994; 1995; Croall 1995).
There are conflicting views, though, of the
severity of impacts of recreation upon the
environment. For example, studies monitoring
the impact of recreational use upon the
countryside in the 1970s and 1980s contributed
to growing official views that impacts were far
less damaging than had been widely believed
(Sidaway 1990). Furthermore, comparisons with
other land uses revealed much recreational
activity to be more desirable, for example when
compared with the spread of improved pasture,
afforestation and urban sprawl. However, clashes
between 'active' and 'passive' forms of recreation
have been widely recognised as problematic for
managers.
From the early 1980s, economic and
environmental foci have been accompanied by
work on cultural and social impacts in
destination areas (e.g. Bouquet and Winter
1987). Valuable work on the perceptions and
views of users of the countryside has also been
performed by geographers, generally
recognising differences in the characteristics of
users of different sites. For example, work by
Cloke and Park (1982) revealed clear
behavioural differences between people using
two contrasting sites. An open moorland site
(but accessible by road) attracted people who
wanted to roam and 'to do their own thing'. In
contrast, a formal country park site attracted
those who preferred the security of an evidently
'managed' environment. This division cut across
social class, and it also revealed the way in which
management can influence recreational
behaviour. For example, restrictions on car
access and judicious use of signposts have been
shown to promote activities associated with
walking and enjoying rural peace and quiet (e.g.
Countryside Commission 1976).
Another focus of recent research has been on
the development of possible policies for tourism
in rural areas (e.g. Luloff
et al
. 1994) and of policy
implications (e.g. Clarke 1993). Some of this
work has linked tourism to the sustainable
development of the countryside (Lane 1994;
Priestley
et al
. 1996). For example, research on
the impacts of mass tourism and growing
recreational demands in Alpine Europe prompted
the emergence of suggestions for different types
of management, using concepts such as
alternative, responsible, soft, appropriate or green
tourism (Hunter and Green 1995; Smith and
Eadington 1992). These are now part of planning
for sustainable development 'to balance demand
and capacity so that conflicts are minimised and
the countryside is used to its full potential
without deterioration of the resource base'
(Pigram 1983:171). The management issue that
this work raises is how to encourage tourism and
recreation development that can not only help
to maintain the rural economy but also preserve
the environment that attracts the tourists. This
issue can be compared with the three overriding
goals of management of rural recreation that are
generally recognised (Gilg 1998):
