6GEO4 Unit 6 Consuming the Rural Landscape-Leisure and Tourism

What is this option about? Synoptic context People Place Power Who is involved? How? Why? Where? When? Who is responsible? This option focuses on the increasing demands placed on rural areas by the growth of leisure and tourism. You will study the patterns and trends experienced globally of such demands on a range of rural locations: from the edge of urban areas to deep wilderness You will include an analysis of these consumption pressures on often fragile human and physical landscapes, and how effectively management may address these.

CONTENTS Growth of leisure & tourism landscapes Significance and fragility Impacts Management Issues Click on the information icon to jump to that section. Click on the home button to return to this contents page

What is leisure, tourism & recreation? Non -Local recreation Local recreation Business & personal travel LEISURE-non working time TOURISM Business and recreational travel

The option summarised Leisure /tourism Types :active / passive Enquiry Question 1 Growth Enquiry Question 2 Significance Enquiry Question 3 Impacts Enquiry Question 4 Management Leisure /tourism Types :active / passive Reasons for changes over time Different groups and players –roles and responsibilities Conflicts Values and attitudes of different users and beneficiaries Landscape values Ecological / physical value Fragility and sensitivity Wilderness concept Qualitative & quantitative environmental measures carrying capacity Negative impacts of excessive use Positive impacts of tourism: conservation, increased awareness, protection of heritage sites Changing impacts over time (increasing or decreasing?) Comparing threats and opportunities in areas with different levels of development Arguments for / against management of rural landscapes ‘conservation spectrum’ Players involved in conservation: choices / conflicts Evaluating the effectiveness of different approaches and options

Enquiry Q 1 Growth of leisure + tourism landscapes This includes the concepts and processes of Rebranding Commodification and valorization of post productive landscapes Honeypot development Wilderness continuum Rewilding Rights of indigenous people Auditing rural landscapes Designating protected areas such as country and National Parks, nature reserves The rise of leisure tourism and pleasure periphery Range of rural landscapes affected Attitudes of players involved Conflicts

Rural landscapes continuum : More remote rural areas within a country or of interest to tourists from abroad – a widening pleasure periphery ‘Pristine’ wilderness? May have low numbers of indigenous people. Often tourism dominated because of remoteness Is any rural landscape really devoid of human influence? Accessible countryside: visits originate mainly from regional area, transport technology enables day visits eg to a National Park Urban fringe: traditional location for local recreation and leisure. May be of interest to wider tourism if eg large theme park Urbanised ‘wilderness’ Pristine wilderness

Key concept: the widening and deepening pleasure periphery 1800 source – close to home / local W Europe and E USA 1900 Periphery (1) based in NW Europe 1930 Periphery (2) extends to W Mediterranean 1950 Periphery (3) includes all of the Mediterranean 1970 Periphery (4) travel far away and long haul becomes more readily available 1990 Periphery (5) tourists are able access the world’s remotest places eg Antarctica 21st C consolidation? More extreme activities in existing areas . Backlash to ecotourism. Rise of demand from SE Asia especially China 

Key Players Leisure and Tourism players Examples based on one case study Role and attitudes to rural landscapes Visitors to / users of area >8m day visitors/yr >42,000 residents Depending on whether active or passive users. Governments UK Lake District NPA Natural England May provide funding / legislation to promote diversification, development etc. Likely to have a social or economic benefits IGOs UNESCO World Heritage Site Strategic planning, research and advice may sanction aid and investment NGOs and Pressure groups Friends of the LD Wildlife Trusts Pressurise for environmental stability and against degradation. May purchase areas to protect Local / regional authorities Cumbria County Council promotion of rural landscapes to diversify economy, e.g. ‘surfing-tourism’ in SW England. Can create hotspots –leading to traffic issues, pollution, congestion....... Communities Local groups... If allowed to protest and motivated enough to do so may pressurise governments to increase activities/ decrease uses Local businesses Watersports... Profit driven, want to encourage uses TNCs N/A here Profit driven, leakage of profits away from locality

Ecological & physical value Enquiry Q 2 Physical significance and ecological value Fragility of some rural areas Degree of threat, using models Use of qualitative and quantitative environmental quality measures Ecological & physical value Landscape attributes, condition & content including resources Socio-cultural value Landscape contributions to physical & mental health & education Economic value Monetary value –land price

Fragility, thresholds , capacities and resilience Key models and concepts to this option are: Resilience , basically the ability of an ecosystem and landscape, whether physical or human, to withstand pressure and stay intact Carrying capacity, the ability or capacity of an area to deal with the numbers and demands of visitors who use an area. It is based on the idea that any geographical system has certain limits or thresholds. When exceeded, changes may affect not only the physical components of an environment ( ecosystems, soil and water...) but human environments, especially culture and quality of life. Factors affecting Fragility= vulnerability to disturbance Stability of landscape + ecosystems Type of pressure Scale of pressure

Sustainable ‘use-renewal ‘ and resiliency models Sometimes demands from leisure and tourism exceed the carrying capacity of the system Sustainable management = any location is left in as good a state as it was before visitors, even enhanced. In a sustainable system, successive use will not reoccur until recovery has taken place- Recovery rates vary depending on the ecosystem /landscape involved- more fragile less resilient ones eg tundra and high altitude ones will be slower than temperate chalk grasslands or sand dunes. Model adapted from Trudgill, Flintoff and Cohen 1998 use Recovery State or strength of the system Threshold of normal functioning Threshold beyond which there is no recovery= collapse Time Where rates of use exceed recovery rates, degradation occurs and a threshold is reached beyond which recovery is not possible

Changing Carrying capacities by positive management Capacity Number of people/use= will reduce either because site becomes degraded or through restrictive management Time New higher Saturation or carrying capacity zone raised by targeting site and increasing its resilience/decreasing its use Capacity not reached Stress on area, management needed Initial threshold for carrying capacity

Categories of recreational capacity Environmental: influenced by : resistance,- the ability of an ecosystem or community to absorb use without being disturbed resilience- the speed of recovery, if ever of a system. Physical or design: If demand exceeds supply, then the physical capacity is exceeded. Includes the ‘at-one-time’ principle ‘throughput capacity’. Economic: if coping with visitor problems is more costly than their revenue. Perceptual: too many people concentrated in one spot at one time may lead to a feeling of over crowding . Some activities are more ‘crowd tolerant’ or ‘crowd sensitive’.

Measures of significance to audit landscapes Quantitative Qualitative Numerical data is useful for statistical analysis and for GIS systems Examples: Species frequency and diversity Land values Landscape diversity Resource value eg forestry products Subjective, non-numerical data includes the perceptions of different groups about an area. Inevitably subjective and biased and hence often considered unreliable. Examples: Bipolar and environmental quality indices may be used, together with field sketches and photographs However: people choose to visit an area more for their perceptions than empirical knowledge. Increasing use of non-quantitative measures in management

Impacts: positive and negative Changes in impact over time Enquiry Q 3 Impacts: positive and negative Changes in impact over time Threats and opportunities in areas of differing economic development Positive Wildlife conservation Landscape restoration Conservation of rural settlement sites Negative Erosion Habitat disturbance Pollution Local settlements disturbance

Changing impacts over time Numbers of visitors Rejuvenation, possibly through rebranding of area stagnation- 4.Antagonism — covert and overt aggression to visitors consolidation 3.Irritation — concern and annoyance over price rises, crime, rudeness, and cultural rules being broken Decline of area 2.Apathy — increasing indifference with larger numbers Development involvement 1. Euphoria — delight in contact Exploitation Time Model of changes in the impacts on rural landscapes by leisure & tourism incorporating Butler’s Life cycle and Doxey’s irritation models

Commodification of the rural landscape Adding value to the countryside is a key element of new uses of many areas in areas where food production is no longer a priority or where a tourism hot spot develops Rebranding may happen spontaneously and gradually as locals adapt to change and offer new attractions to urban populations Rebranding may also be part of specific government policies to reimage and rejuvenate areas suffering population decline and lower qualities of life The media plays a large part in any valorisation Regional/Local eg farmgate sales for specialised processed goods or country parks outside settlements eg Harry Potter + Alnwick in Northumberland , Alton Towers In UK but global attraction International eg Lord of the Rings: Kaitoke regional Park New Zealand

Visitor influences in rural areas POSITIVE IMPACTS/OPPORTUNITIES Economic Income generator Employment Multiplier effect Diversifies economy Opportunity for investment, innovation Supports existing businesses Develops local crafts/trades Social Fosters pride of place Community infrastructure Cultural exchange Community spirit Safeguards customs Environment Key factor in revitalizing natural, cultural, historical resources Village renewal & cleaner countryside Fosters conservation/ preservation resources Visitors may act as ‘ambassadors’ about the value of a place NEGATIVE IMPACTS/THREATS Economic Development & marketing cost Demands on local public services, especially water and waste Seasonal and part time employment low wages Leakages of profits External changes an affect visitor numbers rapidly and make economy unstable– eg Foot & Mouth outbreak of 2001, terrorism Increased cost of living to locals eg by second homes Land use conflicts- damage & trespass costs Social New, often conflicting cultures/ideas Crime real or perceived Over crowding of roads, services, congestion Infringement of privacy Un equitable share in benefits Environment Increased visitor numbers may degrade environment- trampling erosion of footpaths, habitat loss Increased pollution: air, noise, litter Intrusive new developments- loss of greenfield Wildlife and domestic stock disturbed

Should rural landscapes be managed? Enquiry Q 4 Management Who is the management for: locals? visitors? Landowners? The flora and fauna and landscapes of the natural environment? What rights should locals have? To what extent should degraded or damaged landscapes be restored to original state? If restoration is involved is there legislation to restore indigenous species? Why? Is micro-management the best strategy or a wider perspective? Is management short or long term? Is management reactive or pro-active? Are there any conflicts between different managers of any site? Should rural landscapes be managed? Attitudes and conflicts of different managers Effectiveness of management strategies

Carrying capacity management Carrying Capacity exceeded in an area Reduce Capacity Reduce attractions Discourage access eg smaller carpark….. Reduce on site provision eg charging…. Alternative Sites Promote new sites eg by signing, publicity, traffic management, provide new facilities eg trails…….. Raise Capacity Modify distribution of people -Concentrate or Disperse eg by car parks, paths, barriers, Interpretation boards, new trails…… Manage ecosystems eg resistant flora, drainage, turfing…… Improve access by new paths, surfacing, drainage..

Classifying Management actions Direct Often used in most fragile areas or in a potentially dangerous situation eg waterfall, crumbling ruin. Most time consuming and expensive May need to start with this in short term to protect, and then move to more indirect means as education kicks in regulations that may entail enforcement, restricting activities or rationing use Indirect usually more successful in remoter locations cheaper seeks to affect behaviour through education, information and persuasion. Visitors can be informed about the impacts connected with a certain activity, or given information that encourages the use of certain areas over threatened areas. physical alterations, such as the redirection of a trail to a more resilient area of a forest, that influence the movement of visitors. Hard Paths, fences, vegetation clearance, reseeding….. Soft Land use zoning, litter bins, interpretation signs & centres, nature trails……

Setting limits of use In the 1960s and 1970s managers tried to determine an optimum number for sites from Yosemite to Stonehenge However, it is almost impossible to set a value Indeed, creating a specific carrying capacity figure may give false impression of security once established. Latest research focuses on the concept that all activities cause impacts and these should be limited rather than the pure numbers of people. This is called the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) . It is used to set standards and monitoring indicators based on management and stakeholder concerns. When these standards are not met then managers start mitigation to return to an acceptable impact. By the 1980s in the USA a form of LAC was used by about a quarter of all national parks by the 1980s called The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Process (VERP). This is largely based on physical capacity. The concept is now used globally by many managers. Yosemite by D. Milton

The concept of ‘loved to death’! Tourism and recreation is a powerful tool for both local and national economic development especially for rural areas with limited opportunities . This is not just in more developed economies in a post productive phase and with a declining workforce in agriculture, but also in developing economies : Peru, Vietnam. One of the biggest markets in the future is China, with a vast internal market and now post Olympics an even bigger growth hot spot for foreign travellers. This is the fundamental paradox of modern tourism: sites often have to be protected and promoted at the same time: hence the term ‘loved to death’! The carrying capacity is often exceeded, hence’ death’ to aspects of an area: from ecosystem species to indigenous peoples.(top image is of locals near Machu Picchu selling artefacts) National parks from Yellowstone, the Lake District to Machu Picchu in Peru are classic examples.

Assessing management strategies Criteria need to be set up to assess the effectiveness of the range of management strategies possible: The sustainability quadrant or 3 pillars of sustainability models may help as a framework. Total protection- may be preservation No public access. May have scientific research Wildlife parks & reserves May include ecotourism Economic viability and futurity Ecosystem health Community involvement Social equity Extractive reserves Economic development integrated into conservation Exploitation may have token protection