|
|
- Info
Outdoor recreation and access to countryside: Focus on the Australian experience
| Author: |
Pigram, J.P. |
| Date: |
1981 |
| Periodical: |
Natural Resources Journal |
| Abstract: |
The concept of countryside is elusive. To some the term defines "rural areas in which the humanization process is dominant, where rural landscapes are occupied and essentially man-made." Since human beings are the primary environmental agents, countryside must be distinguished from purely natural areas such as wilderness. Clearly, opinions differ over the degree of human dominance acceptable before countryside loses its rural character and appeal. Consensus is difficult to achieve among heterogeneous populations. Yet, one's understanding of the role of countryside is critical since the perceptual framework will fashion attitudes and values toward this important resource. Davidson and Wibberley suggest a strong polarization in attitudes between those whose dominant concern is countryside's efficient production of food and fiber, and those who wish to preserve existing rural landscapes and heritage. Between these two extremes are other groups which value different attributes of countryside. For example, planners and other professional groups often see the rural environment as a development reserve for the expansion of urban facilities, extractive industries, or water conservation. Still others link the resource function of countryside to leisure and recreation. The appreciation of rural environments for outdoor recreation has been documented by a number of writers in the United Kingdom. The report to the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission in 1962 noted that in the United States driving for pleasure was the principal recreational activity as reflected in a massive exodus of city dwellers to urban hinterlands and beyond for day trips and weekends.' Gasoline supply restrictions and price increases seem unlikely to cause Americans to forego their automobiles as recreational vehicles. In fact, pressure on countryside will become greater near city boundaries as journeys are shortened and recreational opportunities closer to metropolitan centers are sought. A relatively recent survey in Ontario, Canada indicated that recreational driving was almost equal in popularity to swimming and indicated that most recreational activities were rural-based. In Britain, Kennleyside has classified countryside recreation into four main types: holidays, sport, education and active involvement, and day trips. Short-term casual visitors in the last category were greatest in number, hardest to control, and most likely to conflict with traditional agricultural interests. Although a recent review casts some doubt on Australians' attachment to countryside, a similar situation seems likely to exist there as in other western societies. Thus, the countryside resource has a wide range of purposes or uses, but a clear distinction can be drawn between economic functions for agriculture, forestry, or urban development, and amenity functions for outdoor recreation. Moreover, conflict between these primary functions would seem most probable in the urban-rural fringe where the economic value of countryside is highest and pressure for amenity and recreational space greatest. It is here, too, that most problems and disputes over access to countryside arise. |
|
