This article was downloaded by: [Ams/Girona*barri Lib]On: 28 October 2014, At: 02:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

Planning Practice & ResearchPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cppr20

Planning for Recreation inthe South Wales Countryside:From Presumption toEmpiricismAlister Scott aa Welsh Institute of Rural Studies , University ofWales , Aberystwyth, SY23 3AL, UK E-mail:Published online: 19 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Alister Scott (2000) Planning for Recreation in the South WalesCountryside: From Presumption to Empiricism, Planning Practice & Research, 15:3,175-192, DOI: 10.1080/713691898

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713691898

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Planning Practice & Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 175–192, 2000

ARTICLE

Planning for Recreation in the SouthWales Countryside: From Presumptionto EmpiricismALISTER SCOTT

Introduction

Strategic policies for countryside recreation are founded upon a verypoor empirical basis. (Curry & Pack, 1993)

Curry & Pack (1993) � rst exposed the neglect of strategic concerns forcountryside recreation planning in their paper ‘Planning on presumption: thecase of strategic planning for countryside recreation in England and Wales’. Itdemonstrated that substantive policy had been based on a prevailing negativepresumption of recreation and visitor containment, as evidenced by policies instatutory development plans and countryside strategies.

This paper presents an opportune and timely response, using comprehensivedata to inform a new and relevant planning agenda that meets the needs of theconsuming public and agencies concerned with recreation provision and plan-ning in South Wales. The core of the paper assesses the results from the � rstlarge-scale household survey in South Wales which investigated people’s atti-tudes and needs relating to their use of the countryside for recreation. This formspart of the South Wales Recreation Resource Initiative (SWRRI), a collaborativeproject that utilises both consumption- and provision-based assessments ofcountryside recreation (Scott, 1998a, 1998b; Figure 1).

Countryside recreation, according to Curry (1994), may be seen as one of sixcomponents of rural leisure relating to informal and formal opportunities forpublic enjoyment of the countryside. Tourism is a further component, dis-tinguished from recreation by requiring an overnight stay in an area. Curry(1994) identi� es the other four components as access, sport, leisure activities,amenity conservation and nature conservation. The focus of this paper onrecreation is due, in part, to the paucity of contemporary research and overallunderstanding of this area, when compared with the tourism and leisure compo-nents. Indeed, this was a major reason for the Countryside Commission initiativein South Wales that is reported in this paper. Nevertheless, the combinationmethodologies highlighted in Figure 1 involve all six components of Curry’sde� nitions, as recreation per se cannot be considered meaningfully in isolation.

Alister Scott, Welsh Institute of Rural Studies, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, SY23 3AL, UK.Email: als@aber.ac.uk

1750269-7459 Print/1360-0583 On-line/00/030175-18 Ó 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/02697450020000140

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Alister Scott

Strategic Planning for the Countryside: Legacy and Prospect

Effective planning for countryside recreation has been seriously hampered by ageneral lack of resources and predilection to land-use priorities (Scott,1998a). Furthermore, the provisions of the 1971 Town and Country PlanningAct that de� ned recreation as ‘another’ matter for consideration in structureplans, rather than as a principal issue, sustained the neglect of recreation mattersin planning departments. Academic research, too, has bypassed these matters,and there is a general dearth of studies at a regional level. Any empiricalinvestigations favoured high-pro� le tourist sites and areas, such as nationalparks and coasts, and generally excluded large tracts of informal countryside(Scott, 1996; Keirle & Walsh, 1999). Recent national policy guidance inWales largely ignores recreation issues (Harrison, 1997). Whilst there aremany localised examples of ad hoc visitor surveys (Cope & Hill, 1997; Scott,1998a), their value remains limited to individual sites, with larger-scaleapplications rarely addressed. Moreover, there is evidence of authorities(Gwent Country Council, 1995; Ceredigion County Council, 1999) disaggregat-ing national survey statistics to local authority level for recreation planning,a practice considered to be highly dubious and statistically corrupt (Curry& Pack, 1993). The only signi� cant and regular surveys of recreation at anational level relate to the UK day visits survey (Countryside RecreationNetwork, 1995) and those undertaken by the Countryside Commission (1979,1982, 1985, 1995).

Consequently, policy-makers’ insights into the speci� cs of countrysiderecreation nationally, regionally and locally may be at best fragmented or, atworst, misconceived. The widespread debates over current visitor trends,recreation growth and impacts on the countryside are evidence of this unsatisfac-tory state of affairs (Scott, 1990, 1994; Groome, 1993; Curry & Pack, 1994;Sidaway, 1995; Dowson & Hill, 1998). The statutory recreation agencies hadformally recognised the need for improved planning in their advice for Rec-reation 2000 (Countryside Commission, 1987), and in Wales prior to localgovernment reorganisation in 1996 (Countryside Council for Wales, 1995). Bothagencies encouraged the development of recreation strategies as in� uential andstrategic planning tools. The local authority response was positive but focusedprimarily on securing grant aid rather than any systematic and empiricaltreatment of recreation resources per se. Consequently, the opportunities fortaking a more measured and coordinated approach to recreation planning weremissed. Indeed, the plethora of strategy documents covering leisure, recreationand rural issues has generated much debate concerning their scale, quality,purpose, consistency and overall utility (Scott, 1990; Curry, 1992; Rodgers,1993).

It is the author’s contention that local authority planners must adopt a morerobust and strategic approach to recreation planning, allowing proven andregular empirical and data to inform future planning policies. This contentionwas recognised by the SWRRI in 1989, a collaborative partnership of recreationagencies which involved both provision and consumption assessments of rec-reation (Figure 1).

176

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Planning for Recreation in South Wales

FIGURE 1. Data sources for the South Wales Recreation Resources Initiative. Source: Scott (1996).

The South Wales Recreational Resources Initiative (SWRRI)

The SWRRI encompassed the Brecon Beacons National Park, and Gwent andthe former South, Mid and West Glamorgan County Councils (Figure 2). Thisaccorded with the Countryside Council for Wales’ South Wales region. Fundingand active involvement was secured from several recreation agencies and localauthorities, without whose cooperation the research would not have beenpossible.1

This paper focuses on recreation demand, speci� cally at the results and policyimplications of the household survey carried out in 1994/1995. It is pertinent tore� ect that the ‘Recreation 2000’ policy initiative was devised in response to aprevious household survey of recreation in 1983 (Countryside Commission,1987). However, the anglicised context and consequential raft of policiesadopted across the UK failed to take into account any regional differences inpublic attitudes and behaviour, particularly within a Welsh context. The SWRRIhousehold survey addressed such concerns by focusing on a region with adistinct geographic and recreation identity and relevance.

Recreation Policy in the South Wales Countryside

Historically, and more recently, recreation interests have been seriouslyneglected within Wales, as exempli� ed in the recent Rural White Paper whichdevotes a mere two lines to recreation (Welsh Of� ce, 1996). Recreation has alsosuffered at the local authority level, being treated more as a luxury than aright, and variously lodged within Planning, Highways, Tourism and Leisure andeven Education departments (Scott, 1998a). Strategic efforts to coordinateand cooperate recreation between neighbouring authorities and other agenciesare therefore limited by the lack of priority, despite the best intentions of the

177

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Mid Glamorgan

South Glamorgan

West GlamorganGwent

Brecon BeaconsNational Park

Alister Scott

FIGURE 2. The South Wales Study area (prior to local government reorganisation in 1996).

Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), the principal agency involved in rec-reation planning who have a regional of� ce in Cardiff.

Consequently, present policies for recreation in South Wales rely almostexclusively on development plans produced by local authorities. Additionally,the in� uence of countryside strategy documents has attained more signi� cance.However, the recreation policy basis of these plans has been little in� uenced byempirical research into visitor needs or the available supply of recreationalresources. As the Mid Glamorgan strategy (Mid Glamorgan County Council,1995, p. 11) states “… the county council is concerned that it does not haveenough data on which to base the formulation of policies; decision taking,implementation and monitoring”. But it then goes on to say “… it is hoped thatwhere necessary and possible this will be supplemented with further or more upto date information” (p. 11).

Indeed, the practice has been to focus on local authority resources and projectswithout reference to other agency initiatives and sites. Scant attention has beenpaid to the human dimension of the strategies (Countryside Council for Wales,1993). Public attitudes, awareness promotion and education in countryside issueswere often overlooked at the expense of the provision of particular recreationresources in speci� c places (Gwent County Council, 1995; Mid GlamorganCounty Council, 1995). It may be speculated, therefore, that the present structureof recreation provision relates more to the operation of restrictive planningpolicies, grant mechanisms and political lobbying, than to any empirical con-sideration of particular user needs or patterns of recreational use. The increasedrole of Heritage Lottery projects involving recreation has also become asigni� cant factor (Bishop et al., 1997).

178

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Planning for Recreation in South Wales

Recreation Opportunities in South Wales

The opportunities for recreation in South Wales are diverse and numerous.2 Thepopulation of South Wales as de� ned by Figure 2 is approximately 2 million andis concentrated in key urban centres and valley communities in the south of theregion, but becomes more sparse within the Brecon Beacons National Park. Thepopulation is most concentrated in the narrow belt from Newport in the east,through Cardiff and Bridgend to Port Talbot and Swansea in the west. Valleycommunities running south–north are less signi� cant in numeric terms as theCardiff–Newport area rapidly grows. Geography is a critical factor shaping suchpatterns of development.

Generally the region provides signi� cant informal countryside sites, althoughwithin the area a number of larger managed sites exist, such as country parks andreservoirs. Interestingly, there are many nature reserves that provide recreationalopportunities (Scott, 1996).

SWRRI Household Survey: Methodological Issues

The household survey methodology sought to address the lack of empiricism byinterviewing 1000 residents from within the South Wales region (as de� ned inFigure 2), equally spread across the four counties and the national park duringa full calendar year. This gave a � nal sample of 250 responses per county with21 respondents interviewed per month per county, to address seasonal variationsin recreation behaviour. The sampling strategy involved interviewing respon-dents selected at random from the electoral register, eliciting information andattitudes about their most recent trips to the local and wider countryside.

The questionnaire format was based on the all-Wales day visits surveyconducted by the Wales Tourist Board (Countryside Recreation Network, 1996),somewhat simpli� ed to consider wider and local countryside visits only. Thesocioeconomic characteristics of the population, trip characteristics, patterns ofrecreational behaviour, associated attitudes and reasons for use or non-use ofboth the local and wider countryside, within the last month, were identi� edwhere applicable. The de� nition of ‘local and wider countryside’ proved prob-lematic. The approach relied on a given respondent using their own experientialfamiliarity with the terms ‘local’ countryside and ‘wider’ countryside based onthe visits that they had taken.3

Results

Use of the Countryside in South Wales

The importance of countryside recreation to households in South Wales isdemonstrated in Tables 1 and 2, with nearly half of all responses involvingsporting or informal recreation activities (Table 1) and 86% of all respondentsusing the countryside for some form of recreational activity (Table 2).

Reasons for the levels of non-use (14%) are examined in Table 3. Perceivedlack of time appears as a critical factor in one-third of the responses. Othersigni� cant factors relate to perceived exclusion, such as disability or lack oftransport, whereas lack of con� dence or information were seemingly less

179

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Alister Scott

TABLE 1. Principal leisure interests (multipleresponse) (n 5 1000)

Leisure interests Percentage

TV/reading 53Sporting activities 35Countryside recreation 34Gardening 28Countryside sports 12Visiting friends 12Pub/clubs 9Town/shops 7Driving 6DIY 6Wildlife 5

Source: South Wales Household Survey(SWRRI) (1994).

TABLE 2. Use of the countryside (multiple response) (n 5 1000,values as %)

Non-user Local countryside Wider countryside

14 60 81

Source: South Wales Household Survey (SWRRI) (1994).

in� uential. One-� fth of all respondents demonstrated no desire to use thecountryside for recreation.

Visitor Pro� le

Couples and families comprise the majority of visitors to the local and widercountryside (Table 4). The individual and group visits are clearly less important,except for individuals on a local countryside visit (17%). One conspicuousdifference is apparent in the pro� le relating to dogs: in the local countrysidevisit, dog walking represents one-quarter of all groups, yet hardly features at allin the wider countryside responses. This � nding, although highly signi� cant,

TABLE 3. Principal reason for non-use of the countryside (multiple response) (n 5 140, values as %)

No No No No PreferTime desire Disabled car Location con� dence information towns Other

34 20 12 10 7 6 2 1 8

Source: South Wales Household Survey (SWRRI) (1994).

180

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Planning for Recreation in South Wales

TABLE 4. Type of group visiting the countryside (multiple response) (n 5 860, values as %)

Small Large Special DogType of group Family Couple Individual group group interest walker(s)

Local 22 28 17 14 4 3 26countryside

Wider 24 43 12 12 7 2 1countryside

Source: South Wales Household Survey (SWRRI) (1994).

may equate more with the purpose of the local countryside visit for dog walkingrather than the presence or absence of dogs in the wider countryside visit.

The social structure of participation supports results from previous researchundertaken in the 1970s and 1980s. Work cited by Curry (1994) shows apredilection by higher social groupings to participate in recreation when com-pared with the lower socioeconomic groupings. In South Wales this pro� le isrepeated, with the highest levels of countryside use related to managerial andskilled/semiskilled workers (A, B, C1 and C2). Those on minimum income andunemployed/retired (D and E) exhibit signi� cantly less use of the countryside,demonstrating the importance of income on the user pro� le (Table 5).

Characteristics of Countryside Visits

Respondents were asked when their last visit to the countryside occurred (Table6). The results reveal signi� cant levels of use both at weekends and onweekdays. This applies to the local and the wider countryside visits and revealsthe daily importance of the countryside for recreation activities in both a localand a wider countryside context.

It appears that the car plays a dominant role in facilitating countrysiderecreation, in both the wider and the local countryside visit (Table 7), althoughwalking is more evident in the local countryside visit. The use of public transportis negligible, although whether this re� ects a lack of service or a consciousdesire to use the car or walk is unclear.

TABLE 5. Use of countryside by social class (n 5 1000, values as %)

Type ofuser/class A B C1 C2 D E

Countryside 67 89 61 67 44 32user

Non-user 33 11 39 33 56 68

Source: South Wales Household Survey (SWRRI) (1994).

181

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Alister Scott

TABLE 6. Timing of countryside visit (n 5 860, values as %)

Weekday Weekend Bank holiday

Local countryside 51 45 4Wider countryside 41 56 3

Source: South Wales Household Survey (SWRRI) (1994).

TABLE 7. Mode of transport (n 5 860, values as %)

Motor PublicCar cycle Bicycle Walk transport Other

Local 56 1 4 38 0 1countryside

Wider 86 0 1 5 2 5countryside

Source: South Wales Household Survey (SWRRI) (1994)

Cars certainly facilitate the pursuit of countryside recreation experiences in thewider countryside visit (Table 8). The differences between the wider and thelocal countryside visit is clear. Indeed, nearly one-quarter of respondents werewilling to travel for two hours or more to their favoured destination, mainly inthe South Wales area, although signi� cant preference were expressed for thePembrokeshire Coast and Wye Valley areas. The pro� le indicates a degree ofcomplexity in understanding the � nal choice of people and brings into prospecta large number of potential recreation opportunities sites from a South Walesbase. The pattern for local countryside visits is much as one would expect, withmost journeys being concentrated within the 30-minute category. Thereafter aclear time-decay pro� le is in evidence.

Once at their chosen destination, respondents participated in a diverse rangeof activities (Table 9). The results con� rm the multiple, informal nature of mostrecreation experiences. Whilst some similarities exist in the main activitiespursued in both the local and wider countryside settings, there are signi� cantdifferences. For example, the wider countryside experience involves the car for

TABLE 8. Travel time (n 5 860, values as %)

Less than 10 min 10–29 min 30–59 min 1– 2 hr More than 2 hr

Local 40 35 16 6 3countryside

Wider 9 23 22 22 24countryside

Source: South Wales Household Survey (SWRRI) (1994).

182

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Planning for Recreation in South Wales

TABLE 9. Activities undertaken at a recreational site in the local and wider countryside (multipleresponse) (n 5 860, values as %)

Activity undertaken Local countryside Wider countryside

Sightseeing—driving around 42 70Sightseeing—on foot 32 41Plcknicking 23 47Walking less than 1 hour 40 38Walking 1– 4 hours 34 27Hill/fell walking or walking more than 4 hours 10 12Guided walk 3 8Watching wildlife following nature trail 27 30Playing children’s games 8 7Sunbathing/relaxing/sitting in or near car 8 10Spending time on the beach or in the sea 5 7Watching boats/water/people 8 7Having a drink/meal/snack (not picnic) 11 29Shopping for gifts/souvenirs 1 8Visiting information/visitor centre 3 5Visiting a castle/historic/cultural site 4 5Visiting a leisure park/fete/fair/amusements 3 5Cycling/mountain biking 3 4Climbing (ropes)/mountaineering 1 3Riding/pony trekking 1 1Caving 1 1Hang gliding/paragliding 0 0Motor sports 1 0Orienteering/fell running 2 2Other outdoor sports 2 2Bird watching 5 1Hunting/following the hunt 1 1Boat trip/cruise 1 0Cruising/boating (own boat) 0 1Sailing 1 0Hiring a day boat 2 1Power boating/jet skiing 1 1Water skiing 0 0Wind sur� ng 0 1Angling 3 3Canoeing/rowing 0 1Sub-aqua 0 0Other activity named 5 7

Source: South Wales Household Survey (SWRRI) (1994)

sightseeing and general motoring as well as the use of formal refreshments andpicnicking, whereas the local countryside visit has less diversity, focusing moreon walking activities.

183

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Alister Scott

TABLE 10. Evaluation of countryside recreation experience (multiple response) (n 5 860, values as%)

Likes Nothing Views Naturalness Tranquility Services Accessible Management Safe

Local 5 34 31 37 8 26 15 7countryside

Wider 1 53 30 45 20 8 19 2countryside

User Lack ofDislikes Nothing Litter Crowds con� icts Parking services Dogs Other

Local 57 13 5 15 2 5 7 6countryside

Wider 56 2 15 9 13 3 2 4countryside

Source: South Wales Household Survey (SWRRI) (1994)

Signi� cantly driving and sightseeing are integral parts of the countrysiderecreation experience, for the both local (42%) and wider (70%) countrysidevisitors. It con� rms the value of the car as a recreation activity in its own right.Nevertheless, walking is still the most popular form of recreation activity, withparticular emphasis on both short walks and sightseeing. It is also important tonote that watching wildlife is only an important part of the recreation experiencewhen linked with walks. This contextualises the low response for wildlife as aprincipal leisure interest (Table 1).

The pro� le of specialised pursuits is interesting.4 No one specialised pursuittakes precedence, however the aggregated number, re� ecting an ever increasingand diverse range of activities pursued, is signi� cant, and the predilection forinformal countryside settings may have management implications.

The results also show that little use is made of visitor information andinterpretative services, a � nding of some signi� cance and concern given the levelof investment by recreation agencies. It also begs the question to how peoplebecome aware of the different recreational experiences available to them and theoverall effectiveness of interpretation services.

Evaluation of the Visit

Table 10 undertakes a simple evaluation of the countryside recreation experi-ence. In general, respondents were positive about their recreational visit, high-lighting the importance of natural features, tranquility and views. Appreciationof site management policies was also evident. Some interesting differencesoccur: whilst accessibility is of particular value for local countryside sites, thewider countryside visit was valued more for the provision and quality of toiletsand refreshments.

184

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Planning for Recreation in South Wales

Signi� cant criticism of sites is limited. Nevertheless, the results reveal somerecurring issues requiring attention by policy makers. In particular, it is per-ceived that in the local countryside visit user con� icts and litter are the issues,whereas in the wider countryside visit parking and overcrowding are of greaterconcern.

Discussion

Is There a Need for Strategic Policy Development?

The empirical information elicited from the household survey presents convinc-ing arguments for a strategic approach involving improved coordination andformalisation of policy at a regional level. For example, the pattern of rec-reational trips focuses more on the ease of travel via the road network andparticular site and landscape preferences, rather than any local authority orother administrative boundaries. Indeed, the desire to travel signi� cantdistances for recreation experiences based on sightseeing and driving around onan ad hoc basis renders agency and administrative insularity in recreationplanning largely irrelevant and dangerous. The results also indicate an increasingrange of specialised pursuits across the region, each with its own particularneeds, impacts and management issues, many in informal countryside settings.Agency collaboration is vital in order to address the strategic context of theseissues.

All these factors point to the need for an extra tier of policy to informrecreation strategies that are derived at the unitary authority level. The approachtaken by the Mid and West Wales Strategic Planning Forum in its draft planningstatement provides a useful policy vehicle to emulate (Mid and West WalesStrategic Planning Forum, 1998).

The orthodoxy of directing resource allocations at high-pro� le sites primarilyassociated with tourism and leisure, at the expense of recreation, requiresredirection to include informal opportunities in the wider countryside. Unlike thecentral thrust of the Recreation 2000 policy, the wider countryside does notequate solely with public rights of way. The role of the motor car to facilitatesightseeing and driving around as key activities, for example, suggests that thewider countryside visit cannot be conveniently generalised to particular activi-ties. It is combination of experiences both passive and participative. Conse-quently, the planning response should address this directly through newpartnerships, in conjunction with local communities and other agencies.

These data, when combined with the other aspects of the SWRRI as detailedin Figure 1, provide an assessment of both the demand and supply of recreationas part of the strategic planning process. Translating this assessment into ameaningful implementation and policy phase within the context of an integratedstrategy presents a major challenge and opportunity. This is particularly prob-lematic, as evidenced by Morgan (1991) in his study on the urban fringe. Whilstit is possible to get the key players together, � nding agreement on particularpolicy objectives is more elusive, and often subject to political manoeuvring anddelay. The position of CCW as a strategic grant-aiding body for recreation

185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Alister Scott

programmes offers a distinctive advantage; currently CCW is providing newstrategic advice based on the results of the SWRRI (Roberts, 2000, pers.comm.).

What Value Does the Empirical Approach Provide?

In the absence of empirical data, planning on presumption has been the primaryresponse of local authorities and other recreation agencies. Curry & Pack (1993)highlight a pervasive attitude of negativity with respect to recreation planning inthe countryside. The household survey data have given, for the � rst time,important regional information on participation, visitor pro� les, trip characteris-tics and activities pursued, together with qualitative evaluative judgementsrelating to South Wales. To what extent does this challenge the current policies,particularly those that treat recreation as a threat to the countryside?

Countryside recreation is relevant and important to 86% of the respondents inthe South Wales household survey; it is also is a principal leisure activity fornearly half of all respondents. Such statistics mirror those nationally, therebydemonstrating the overall signi� cance of recreation, whether at weekends orduring the week, throughout the year as an important component of civilised life(Department of the Environment (DoE), 1991, para 2). Such � ndings indicatethat recreation should not be ignored nor relegated to ‘other’ matters forconsideration by planning authorities as occurred in the 1971 Town and CountryPlanning Act. Controversially, it appears that more resources need to be madeavailable to local authorities so that they may undertake the market researchnecessary to understand what people want and need from their recreation, and toplan appropriate response strategies, a point made as far back as 1970 in generalguidance for the development plans manual (Scott, 1998a).

The presumption that recreation is a problem to be contained is indirectlychallenged. The evidence from the survey does not support the view that usercon� icts or threats to the countryside are signi� cant or that they detract from apositive recreation experience for the majority. Moreover, the positive valuesattributed to naturalness and tranquility as part of the countryside recreationexperience, together with the propensity to watch wildlife, support the contentionthat recreation and conservation can be complementary activities. The lack ofsubstantive criticism on this point was emphatic. This supports detailed researchwork by Sidaway (1995) and Curry (1994) who report, in general, little realcon� ict between recreation and conservation. Where user con� icts exist, positivemanagement tools such as codes of conduct, zoning and diversions can beimplemented on a site-by-site basis as required. The data here con� rmed adiverse range of activities pursued (Table 9), but most recreation experienceswere informal, based around sightseeing, driving and walking, with the carplaying a principal role.

Whilst the consumer of countryside recreation appears, in part, to be veryhappy with the quality of the recreation experience, policy makers cannot affordto be complacent. The possibility for tensions between the expressed desire fora ‘managed’ and commercialised countryside and the more ‘natural’ and infor-mal countryside may exist. An increasing number of visitors expect a minimumlevel of resources and services centering on toilets, refreshments and shops as

186

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Planning for Recreation in South Wales

part of their recreation experience, irrespective of day or season. At the sametime, the value of the countryside as a free public good should not beunderestimated, particularly given its regular use by the respondents for moreinformal activities. The blurring between local and wider countryside visits isparticularly signi� cant here as sites can perform both roles simultaneously forsubtly different reasons. Differing demands and usage must be carefully bal-anced between the commercialisation of a site and the countryside context inwhich it is located. The results indicate that strongly positive factors associatedwith a site are the tranquillity, natural features and scenery. Clearly, visitorinfrastructure and associated services should not detract from such qualities.Other, more local, sites or public rights of way, the preserve of the dog walker,may not be suitable for any signi� cant visitor infrastructure, so achieving theright balance must depend on public consultation at a site and in the widercommunity, rather than generalised policy responses. The current LANDMAP5

initiative by CCW may well help in devising suitable landscape policies for thecountryside (Bullen et al., 1998).

Together these � ndings suggest the need for a more opportunity-led strategytowards recreation planning. Perhaps the most signi� cant � nding relates to theway that local communities can bene� t from recreation policies. As stated, theresults show the preference of the public to sightsee on foot and to drive around.Properly marketed village or valley trails with a speci� c theme could attract bothplanned visits and passing motorists with no preordained agendas (one of themost popular recreational activities as illustrated in Table 9). Where history,culture and environment themes co-exist, sensitive recreation marketing canprove extremely popular for the indigenous local community and the widervisitor/tourist. The experience of the South Pembrokeshire Action for RuralCommunities (SPARC) in rural Pembrokeshire provides a useful model toemulate (Asby, 1998). Here trails were designed in line with the LandskerBorderlands theme and small village trails developed with interpretation boardsproviding historical information, encouraging use of public rights of way andlocal village amenities. The designing of scenic drives/walks with stop-off pointsand associated information could help provide an integrated recreational experi-ence for locals and tourists alike. The Fundy Bay Eco tour in Nova Scotiaprovides another useful example, where speci� c recreation activities and attrac-tions are highlighted on a thematic map, drawing visitors into places off the mainroad systems and encouraging them to explore local villages and amenities(Beesley, 1997, pers. comm.).

Given that we are moving inexorably towards a sustainable agenda, theexcessive use of the motor car is problematic. Whilst car use, in part, can beexploited to provide new recreation opportunities in the region, commitment andcooperation is required with other sustainable initiatives, such as Local Agenda21, to implement policies that reduce dependency on the car. Improved infor-mation and marketing of local recreation opportunities are obvious ways toaddress this. The results show a high level of use of the local countryside,particularly for dog walking, but again the car predominates. Perhaps authoritiesshould consider other viable transport options, such as bus and rail. Thepark-and-ride schemes currently being considered by Snowdonia National Park

187

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Alister Scott

to reduce pressure on sensitive mountain landscapes are one pragmatic approachto the problem and could work well on the South Wales coastline (Odgen, 1998).However, before undertaking any investment in public transport schemes andinitiatives, more research must be carried out to establish the viability of themin relation to countryside sites and opportunities, if the mistakes of the past arenot to be repeated.

Moreover, by linking in with Local Agenda 21 initiatives, local communitiescould be empowered to designate and manage local areas and sites for rec-reation. Given the desire of the public to watch wildlife, further opportunitiesarise to use the recreation experience to impart information about � ora andfauna. This links directly with the requirement for local authorities to producebiodiversity action plans, thereby strengthening and reinforcing the importantlink between nature conservation and sustainable recreation policies. Planningpolicies should recognise the requirements of such interdependency with a moreintegrated approach by all the agencies involved. The augmented brief fordevelopment plans to contain policies addressing amenity and natural beautyoffers a clear lead to the planning profession to advance policies based onland-use dictates (DoE, 1994).

One further area of policy development relates to the provision of informationand interpretation. The use of interpretative and visitor services was relativelylow within the household survey � ndings. Interpretation offers a chance toconvey important messages and so in� uence and inform people’s responses andbehaviour. There is emerging evidence that this is not very effective, particularlywhen few people actually view the material in the � rst place (Keirle et al.,1998). Limited attention has been paid to the possible locations, quality andrelevance of such services. Instead resources have been invested in capital worksof new buildings in countryside locations without detailed thought of interpreta-tive requirements. This is an area for urgent research within recreation agencies.Improved information and interpretation at countryside sites and elsewhere isrequired to engage, in� uence and inform the widest audiences. Ideally thisshould occur before, as well as during, the trip to the countryside. A moretargeted approach using local shops, pubs and post of� ces may be a moreeffective means of informing people and raising awareness of local opportuni-ties. All too often this effort is targeted at tourists rather than at local people.

The Local and Wider Countryside Visit

The results have highlighted some important differences between the structure,activities and assessment of the local and wider countryside visits. Both visits aresigni� cant components of countryside recreation, with 410 respondents involvedin both types of visit within the last month. It has already been established thata given site can attract both types of visit, but the differences in journey time,activities pursued and evaluation pose important implications for policy. Thelocal countryside visit is based closer to the home area of a respondent and ismore likely to involve walking than the wider countryside visit, which is subjectto much longer travel times, more diverse activities and is more likely to involvethe use of site services and refreshments. Dogs are an important feature of the

188

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Planning for Recreation in South Wales

local visit, re� ecting the importance of the dog-walking population in country-side recreation.

The importance of the car for the wider countryside is only too obvious, andthe more detailed answers reveal the visit to be a complex assemblage ofactivities involving several stops within a general sightseeing and informalrecreation experience (Table 9). Policy responses need to be careful to realisethat most recreation experiences do not revolve around one particular site oractivity; people move about from place to place, stopping where refreshmentsand other services exist.

In terms of evaluating the recreation experience, there is a general consensusconcerning the high degree of visitor satisfaction. However, there are interestingdifferences apparent. The local countryside visit attracts more user con� icts,normally associated with stray dogs, mountain bikes and litter (Scott, 1998b),whilst the wider countryside visit attracts more criticism on crowds and parking.The particular motives and aspirations relating to a given visit are likely to bethe key factors behind any dissatisfaction.

Resource Implications: Where is the Money?

In common with all initiatives, there are signi� cant resource implications. Atpresent the South Wales Steering Group, which � nancially supported theresearch, is inactive. In order to maximise the potential of this work thisgrouping should take a proactive role in conjunction with CCW to implementand update this work; otherwise the data will be of ‘domesday’ value only.Implementing the methodology in South Wales and throughout the rest of Waleswill clearly cost money, but a partnership approach involving the principalagencies and local authorities can overcome such obstacles. The other resourceimplication lies in the planning and countryside departments using the marketresearch to create draft planning statements for recreation at a regional level,nominally as regional planning guidance for recreation, in order to help raise itsstatus within the planning machinery. The example of the Mid and West WalesStrategic Planning Forum (1998) is a useful model for this initiative, given thatempirical data are now available at the regional level. Basic principles andpolicies can be established for the creation and management of recreationopportunities that cross traditional boundaries, and the integration of the rec-reation resources within an area through information and interpretation activitiesaccessible to local populations.

Conclusions

These � ndings must inform the strategic responses of local authorities and otherbodies in South Wales. Development plans and recreation and strategies haveto address the need for improved partnership and coordination. The steeringgroup, comprising most of the regional bodies implementing and shaping policy,has a key role to play. Its � rst priority has been to try to link new grant-aidstructures through the CCW with de� ned targets, requiring partners to follow the

189

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Alister Scott

SWRRI methodology. This coordinated and strategic approach providesthe basis for the continuation of extensive market research to feed into thepolicy-making process.

Political and institutional barriers do exist, inhibiting collaborative ventures,and use of empirical data. These could best be surmounted by improving thestatus of recreation at Welsh Assembly level in revised policy guidance, togetherwith the formalisation of regional planning guidance within South Wales.

The members of the South Wales Steering Group have recognised thebene� ts of cooperation within this initiative. Many other agencies and individu-als have contributed to the data collection aspects of the project, but theinvolvement of organisations such as the National Trust, Wildlife Trusts andthe new unitary authorities will take time. Their participation becomes all themore important in the current climate of ad hoc strategy formation, particularlyas evidenced by recent local government reorganisation in 1996. The strategyresponse again represented a further missed opportunity. Short-term political and� nancial interests have prevailed in the new authorities, and strategies have beenhastily produced and localised without reference to the wider regional pattern,empirical data and the need for public involvement. This has had a negativeeffect on an emerging unitary development plan process that increasingly has toaddress issues of amenity, recreation needs and provision as primary matters forconsideration (DoE, 1994). The combined use of databases and survey evidencefrom the SWRRI, and its translation to other regions of Wales (Mid and North),will help in the management of, and planning for, such purposes.

The South Wales initiative is still in its formative stages, but the principalpoint made in this paper is that the data collected offers the potential to realisea strategic approach to address the nature of recreation provision and demand.The challenges of establishing collaboration and improving communication toachieve joint agreements on aims, objectives and resultant policies, particularlyin the new local authorities, could be a protracted and dif� cult process. There isevidence of a spirit of cooperation and purpose among the steering groupguiding this project, which suggests that the institutional barriers may not beinsurmountable. The CCW and planning professions must now respond andseize the opportunity.

AcknowledgementsThe author gratefully acknowledges the � nancial support of the CountrysideCouncil for Wales in undertaking the research reported in this article.

Notes

1. Funding from CCW, Gwent, Mid, South and West Glamorgan County Councils, CADW Forest Enterprise,Welsh Water, Wales Tourist Board and the National Rivers Authority.

2. For a more quantitative assessment of recreation opportunities, the reader should consult Scott (1996).3. If the respondent was unclear on what constituted “local countryside”, the interviewer only asked about the

wider countryside trip.4. Special pursuits were de� ned as activities that involved the use of equipment or materials not normally

associated with informal recreation activities. This is of necessity the widest interpretation of the term andwould include canoeing, mountain biking, sur� ng and paragliding.

5. LANDMAP is a new multiple component approach for landscape resource analysis. It involves expert-basedmaps on cultural, environmental, agricultural and landscape aspects to produce a composite map.

190

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Planning for Recreation in South Wales

References

Asby, J. (1998) Local democracy, participatory processes sustainable rural development. Unpublished paper,South Pembrokeshire Action for Rural Communities (SPARC), Narberth.

Bishop, K. D., Jones, M. & Phillips, A. A. C. (1997) Taking a gamble on the countryside, ECOS, 18 (2), pp.77–87.

Bullen, J. M., Jones, E. M. & Scott, A. J. (1998) LANDMAP Pilot Study: Public Perception of Landscape.Technical report submitted to Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor.

Ceredigion County Council (1999) Coast and Countryside Strategy: Ceredigion Consultation Draft (Aber-aeron, Ceredigion County Council).

Cope, A. & Hill, T. (1997) Monitoring the monitors, Countryside Recreation Network News, 5(2), pp. 10–11.Countryside Commission (1979) Leisure and the Countryside, CCP124 (Cheltenham, Countryside Com-

mission):Countryside Commission (1982) Participation in Informal Countryside Recreation, CCP152 (Cheltenham,

Countryside Commission).Countryside Commission (1985) National Survey of Countryside Recreation 1984, CCP201 (Cheltenham,

Countryside Commission).Countryside Commission (1987) Enjoying the Countryside: Priorties for Action, CCP 235 (Cheltenham,

Countryside Commission).Countryside Commission (1995) National Survey of Countryside Recreation 1990—Summary of Results

(Cheltenham, Countryside Commission).Countryside Council for Wales (1993) Rural strategies: an overview. Unpublished paper prepared by Peter

Scott, Countryside Council for Wales, Baugor.Countryside Council for Wales (1995) Guidelines for the Production of Integrated Countryside Strategies

(Bangor, Countryside Council for Wales).Countryside Recreation Network (1995) UK Day Visits Survey 1994 (Cardiff, Countryside Recreation

Network).Countryside Recreation Network (1996) UK Day Visits Survey 1994 (Cardiff, Countryside Recreation

Network).Curry, N. R. (1992) Nature conservation, countryside strategies and strategic planning, Journal of Environmen-

tal Planning and Management, 35, pp. 79–91.Curry, N. R. (1994) Countryside Recreation, Access and Land Use Planning, (London, E & FN Spon).Curry, N. R. & Pack, C. (1993) Planning on presumption: the case of strategic planning for countryside

recreation in England and Wales, Land Use Policy, 10(2), pp. 140–151.Curry, N. R. & Pack, C. (1994) Informal county strategies for countryside recreation in England and Wales,

Journal of Environmental Management, 40(1), pp. 91–101.Department of the Environment (1991) Planning Policy Guidance 17, Sport and Recreation (London,

Department of the Environment).Department of the Environment (1994) UK Sustainable Development Strategy (London, Department of the

Environment).Dowson, B. & Hill, T. (1998) Community forest recreation—a dynamic model for our future countryside,

Managing Leisure, 3, pp. 26–36.Fitton, M. (1978) The reality: for whom are we actually providing?, in: Countryside for All? A Review of the

Use People Make of the Countryside for Recreation, Countryside Recreation Research Advisory GroupConference, CCP 117, (Cheltenham, Countryside Commission).

Groome, D. (1993) Planning and Rural Recreation in Britain (Aldershot, Avebury).Gwent County Council (1995) A Countryside Strategy for Gwent (Newport, Countryside and Environment

Division of the Planning and Economic development Department, Gwent County Council).Harrison, J. (1997) Leaner is not always � tter, Countryside Recreation News, 5(3), pp. 6–7.Keirle, I. P., Christie, M. & Scott, A. J. (1998) An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Interpretation in National

Nature Reserves, Technical report to Countryside Council for Wales (Bangor, Countryside Council forWales).

Keirle, I. & Walsh, S. (1999) Objective assessment of countryside recreation by observation, Journal ofPlanning and Environmental Management, 42(6), pp. 875–887.

Mid and West Wales Strategic Planning Forum (1998) Draft Strategic Planning Statement. Mid and WestWales Strategic Planning Forum Conference, Aberaeron.

191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Alister Scott

Mid Glamorgan County Council (1995) A Countryside Strategy for Mid-Glamorgan (Cardiff, Mid GlamorganCounty Council).

Morgan, G. (1991) A Strategic Approach to the Planning and Management of Parks and Open Spaces(Basildon, Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management).

Odgen, P. (1998) Strategic recreation planning in Snowdonia National Park. Key note lecture given at theWelsh Institute of Rural Studies, Aberystwyth, February.

Rodgers, H. B. (1993) Estimating local leisure demand in the context of a regional planning strategy, in: S.Glyptis (Eds.) Leisure and the Environment: Essays in Honour of Professor J. A. Patmore, pp. 116–130(London, Belhaven).

Scott, A. (1994) A strategic plan for South Wales. Unpublished report to the Countryside Council for Walesand Recreation Steering Group, Welsh Agricultural College, Aberystwyth.

Scott, A. (1996) Strategic planning for leisure in the South Wales countryside, in: P. Midmore & G. Hughes(Eds) Rural Wales, pp. 145–142 (Aberystwyth, University of Wales).

Scott, A. (1998a) South Wales Recreation Resources Initiative: Household Survey Report 1994/5, Report toCountryside Council for Wales (Aberystwyth, Pavan Mif� in Associates).

Scott, A. (1998b) Strategic planning for countryside recreation: the South Wales recreation resources initiative,Regional Studies, 32(9), pp. 891–899.

Scott, P. (1990) A review of countryside recreation strategies in Wales. Unpublished report by Scott PlanningConsultants to the Countryside Commission for Wales.

Sidaway, R. (1995) Sport in the countryside: current trends, study and practice, in: Countryside RecreationNetwork Workshop Proceedings, Sport in the Countryside—Planning and Management for Sport andActive Recreation, 27 April, pp. 9–13 (Cardiff, Countryside Recreation Network).

Welsh Of� ce (1996) A Working Countryside for Wales (London, HMSO).

192

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:16

28

Oct

ober

201

4