A review of policies for ‘quiet areas’ in the National Parks of England and Wales

This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 20 November 2014, At: 12:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Leisure StudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlst20

A review of policies for ‘quietareas’ in the National Parks ofEngland and WalesAlison Caffyn & Bob ProsserPublished online: 01 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Alison Caffyn & Bob Prosser (1998) A review of policies for‘quiet areas’ in the National Parks of England and Wales, Leisure Studies, 17:4,269-291, DOI: 10.1080/026143698375105

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026143698375105

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlst20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/026143698375105

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026143698375105

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any formto anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A review of policies for ‘quiet areas’ in theNational Parks of England and Wales

ALISON CAFFYN and BOB PROSSER

Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, BirminghamB15 2TT

National Parks in England and Wales are increasingly under pressure from a widerange of leisure and recreation activities. The 1991 Edwards Report stressed the needfor ‘quiet enjoyment’ of such special landscapes and there has been increasingconcern about the loss of tranquil rural areas. This paper reviews the approaches theeleven National Parks take to conserving their more wild and remote areas and thedesignation of ‘quiet areas’. It goes on to analyse the varied terminology used tode�ne both ‘quiet areas’ and ‘quiet’ recreational pursuits. Finally the paperinvestigates the proposed management responses which aim to balance the some-times con�icting purposes of conserving environmental quality while promotingunderstanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of National Parks. A twin axialmodel of the dimensionality of management response is proposed and furtherresearch questions are identi�ed.

Introduction

As the National Parks of England and Wales enter their new world of fundingand management set out in the 1995 Environment Act, this is an appropriatetime to review existing policies as stated in their published documentation.This paper focuses upon an issue central to the aims and purposes of theoriginal 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, namely thetensions involved in balancing the conservation of high quality landscapes,while providing for their enjoyment by the public. This review explores theextent to which policy statements by the eleven National Parks address thisissue through the classi�cation of certain localities as ‘quiet areas’ or similardesignations. Such classi�cation implies the twin-pronged objective of provid-ing environmental settings for the satisfaction of perceived needs such as‘tranquillity’, ‘peace and quiet’, ‘solitude’, etc. while maintaining conserva-tion values.

This is part of the broader debate over the role that the countryside doesand should play in in�uencing quality of life. In particular, concern isintensifying over the erosion of opportunities for ‘tranquillity’ in thecountryside. Such concern is highlighted starkly by the Council for theProtection of Rural England’s (CPRE) Tranquil Areas Study (1995), theNational Trust policy study Open Countryside (1995), and the rural roadstraf�c forecasts published by the CPRE in 1996. The CPRE tranquil areamaps quantify the serious reduction in the extent of rural areas classi�able asLeisure Studies 17 (1998) 269–291 0261–4367 © 1998 E & FN Spon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

‘tranquil’ during the 30 years from the early 1960s to the early 1990s. Thetraf�c forecast map (Figure 1) is a gloomy prediction, suggesting theintractability of the problem. In the Access Review Survey carried out forthe National Trust’s study one of the ‘visitor values and expectations’identi�ed is ‘quiet and tranquil areas’. One of the three key principles set outin the study is that ‘The Trust recognises the particular value of remoteness,and the importance of peace and quiet on its land.’

Fig. 1. Traf�c forecast map of England.

270 A. Caffyn and B. Prosser

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using this context this review is a desk-based analysis of current (1996)National Park policy publications, i.e. Park Plans and Local Plans for alleleven parks in England and Wales. The recently designated New Forest areahas not been included in the review. This is the �rst stage of ongoing researchinto National Park policy and does not encompass a comparative dimensionwith other non-UK examples. Thus the literature review has been restricted torelevant publications from both government and voluntary agencies.

The analysis has been built around the following key questions:

(1) What approach does each park takes to the concept of quiet areas?(2) To what extent do park policies introduce the concept of spatial

differentiation such as zoning classi�cations which include ‘quiet areas’or a similar category?

(3) How is terminology used to de�ne the concept of ‘quiet’ and‘quietness’?

(4) What criteria are used in the description and/or designation of ‘quietareas’ or areas for low density visitor use?

(5) What range of techniques are used in the implementation of suchpolicies? i.e. the proposed management response.

The second section of the paper brie�y sets out the more speci�c context interms of recent National Park policies. The third section examines the extentto which National Parks use the concept of quiet areas and how this istranslated into policy and spatial organization. The fourth section discussesthe wide range of terminology, how it is used and the criteria lying behind it.The following section debates the range of proposed management responsesincluding traf�c management. In the �nal section the key �ndings aresummarized and a number of issues and further research questions areidenti�ed.

The National Park policy context

In terms of National Park policy the key framework document remains theEdwards Report ‘Fit For the Future’. In this report there are repeatedreferences to the ‘special qualities’ of the parks, to ‘appropriate’ and ‘suitable’recreation activities and to the primacy of ‘quiet enjoyment’. In consequencethe Committee recommended that the second principal purpose of NationalParks should be altered to the promotion of:

quiet enjoyment and understanding of the area, insofar as it is not in con�ict withthe primary purpose of conservation (Edwards, 1991, p. 11)

The signi�cant changes from the 1949 de�nition, i.e. ‘promoting theirenjoyment by the public’, are the introduction of the words ‘quiet’ and‘understanding’. It is worth noting that the Edwards Committee consultedextensively with National Park Of�cers and this recommendation re�ectsmajority thinking within the parks.

This emphasis upon quiet and appropriate recreational activities wasre�ected in the parliamentary debates and the construction of the new

271Quiet areas in the National Parks

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Environment Act, but there remained some ambivalence about the use of theword ‘quiet’. The �nal wording of the second purpose of National Parks isnow

promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the specialqualities of those areas by the public (DoE, 1995, p. 86)

The Environment Act Circular goes on to recommend that ‘Particularemphasis should be placed on identifying those qualities associated with theirwide open spaces and the wildness and tranquillity which are to be foundwithin them’ (DoE, 1996, p. 3). However it appears to draw back from theemphasis placed on ‘quiet’ in the Edwards Report. It states that ‘thepromotion of the second purpose is not incompatible with the equallylegitimate demand that many parts of the Parks should continue to be quietlyenjoyed by many people for much of the time’ (DoE, 1996, p. 4). This seemsto imply that some parts of Parks need not be quiet and even that all partsmight be noisy at times. This apparent ambivalence may account for the shifttowards the increased use of the term ‘tranquillity’ at the later stages ofdrafting the Act. The Act appears to favour a lack of precision. Thus ‘quiet’may be conceived as measurable, i.e. by decibels, and potentially prescriptive;‘tranquil’ is a more obviously qualitative term and hence less capable ofprecise de�nition. As the fourth section below indicates, such vicissitudes areperhaps inevitable, in view of the recurrent vagueness and imprecision ofusage in park policy and planning documents.

Note that for the purposes of this review the term ‘recreation’ subsumes‘tourism’, the authors taking the stance that in most National Parks,recreation and tourism are ‘indistinguishable’ and that any ‘arti�cial distinc-tion’ between them ‘serves no practical management purpose’ (McKercher,1996, p. 563)

Policy review

Each National Park Authority (NPA) and Planning Committee consistentlyemphasizes the uniqueness and distinctive identity of the environment withinits purview. Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that Park and Local Plansexhibit wide diversity, which applies not only to policies but to format andpresentation. This may be interpreted as evidence of perceptive response toenvironmental character, yet it can also be argued that it is a sign of the lackof clarity of purpose concerning our National Parks.

None the less, certain commonalities can be discerned which bear upon anyanalysis of ‘quiet area’ policies. Thus, this section �rst summarizes thesecommon themes, then discusses relevant elements of individual park policies,from which a comparative synthesis is made. Throughout, care has beentaken to distinguish between the use of ‘quiet’ with reference to overall parkpolicy and where it refers to speci�c areas or experience within a park, i.e. to‘quiet areas’.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Common policy themes

Despite the diversity and even disparity of approaches, three recurring themesare observable in the Park documents. The �rst is built around twofundamental principles of policy. There is general adoption of the SandfordPrinciple that when there is apparently irreconcilable con�ict betweenconservation and recreation, the former shall be given priority (Sandford,1974). Further, there is the acceptance in both pre- and post- ‘Fit for theFuture’ publications, of the Edwards Principle that recreational activities tobe encouraged and, indeed, permitted, should be those deemed to be‘appropriate’ to the purposes of National Parks (Edwards, 1991).

The second theme centres around management issues arising from visitorpresence and character. The movement and parking of vehicular traf�cemerges as a crucial issue in Park management for recreation, with the roadnetwork being seen as a fundamental control mechanism through devicessuch as the establishment of road hierarchies. The second crucial issueidenti�ed arises from the uneven geographical distribution of visitor presenceand impact, with particular attention focused upon ‘honeypot’ sites andlocalities. This attention encompasses two dimensions of managementresponse: a negative dimension associated with carrying capacity and impactproblems; and a positive dimension through the concentration of visitors intosuch areas thereby aiding the protection of less robust, remote areas. Thethird issue highlights the perception by Park managers that increasing visitornumbers are less problematic than the increasing range of recreationalactivities, especially ‘active’ pursuits. Management concerns focus upon theenvironmental impacts and the often mutual incompatibility of this burgeon-ing diversity.

The �nal recurrent theme involves demand and supply issues. The mainthrust of recreation strategy is to match recreational opportunity and hencequality of experience, i.e. demand, with environmental character and setting,using the criteria of identi�ed conservation value and carrying capacity, i.e.supply. Access and accessibility are seen as central to this supply, asdetermined by a combination of resource ownership and management policy.For example, the perceptions and priorities of land and water resourceowners are acknowledged as a vital �lter to access, while management policyis to be used to manipulate visitor accessibility.

Signi�cant points to note about these recurrent themes are that they areinteractive and are policy statements rather than speci�c indicators forimplementation. Above all they relate to general Park policies rather than tospeci�c ‘quiet areas’, although they have implications for any such speci�city,e.g. accessibility and road hierarchies.

Individual Park policy statements

The National Parks’ published documents vary widely in their acknow-ledgement of ‘quiet areas’. To a degree this appears to be a reactive ratherthan a proactive dynamic within the park policy formulation and planningprocess. For instance, it is those parks with the greatest visitor pressures


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

which have the most coherent policies for establishing and managing suchareas.

The 1994 survey of visitors to National Parks (Countryside Commission,1996a) groups the eleven parks according to visitor volume, see Table 1.

The two high volume parks have relatively well developed policies for quietareas. The Lake District National Park has had a policy to protect ‘quieterareas’ since its �rst development plan in 1956. Currently it has delineated‘quieter areas’ in its National Park Plan (1986) and its new Local Plan (1994).The 1986 plan identi�es the quieter areas as the western and eastern dales,the northern fringes and smaller areas of particularly sensitive character.There are a number of policies relating to development control, access and thelakes and tarns in these quieter areas. The more recent Local Plan retains a‘quieter areas’ component, wherein stringent development controls are to beapplied. However the fells are now excluded, and become a separate arealcategory. Despite this spatial separation of ‘fells’ from ‘quieter areas’, there isa clear acceptance that they possess comparable attributes. For instance thefells ‘are valued . . . perhaps above all for their feeling of wildness andopenness and the opportunities they afford for walking with relative freedomin a fairly challenging environment’ (LDNP, 1994, p. 10). Thus the ‘quieterareas’ now consist mostly of quieter valleys and villages. These are contrastedwith the ‘busier central valleys’ for which there are also speci�c policiesregarding development and visitor management.

In the Peak District a different approach is taken with a zoning systembased on the concept of carrying capacity. Five classes of zone, covering thewhole Park area, have been designated using the characteristics of the area,the physical capacity of the infrastructure, paths etc. and the current levels ofuse. The zones range from wild areas with a general absence of obvioushuman in�uence (zone I); through remoter areas of farmland and woodlandwith poor access (II); more generally accessible areas (III); and speci�clocalities suited to a modest scale of recreation use (IV); to areas with thehighest intensities of use and visitor facilities with more robust landscapesettings (V). This approach produces a relatively complex pattern which mayaffect ease of policy implementation – see Figure 2.

Table 1. Volume of visitor days to the parks in 1994

Higher volume Medium volume Lower volume(at least 12 millionvisitor days)

(at least 2–8 millionvisitor days)

(up to 2 millionvisitor days)

Lake DistrictPeak

BroadsBrecon BeaconsNew ForestDartmoorNorth York MoorsSnowdoniaYorkshire DalesPembrokeshire Coast

ExmoorNorthumberland

Source: Countryside Commission (1996a)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

The medium volume group adopts a variety of approaches, exhibiting arange of speci�city. Snowdonia National Park uses the term ‘quiet areas’ andhas policies to protect their character and resist development (SNP, 1995).Three large areas are designated as ‘quiet areas’, encompassing the mountainmasses of Carneddau in the north and Rhinogydd and Migneint/Rhobell inthe central part of the park (cf. the Lake District ‘fell’ category). There are no

Fig. 2. Peak National Park zonation system.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

‘busier’ areas but several valleys are designated traf�c management priorityareas.

The approach taken in the Brecon Beacons National Park identi�es‘pressure areas’ and ‘vulnerable areas’ using the criteria of differences insensitivity, popularity and potential in various parts of the park. Pressureareas are de�ned as ‘areas where an increase in recreation use is likely tomake seriously worse existing problems such as physical erosion, traf�ccongestion, trespass or inconvenience to local communities’ (BBNP, 1993,p. 32). Vulnerable areas include wildlife habitats, archaeological features orremote places which are particularly sensitive to increases in recreationalactivity. Overall the NPA places the emphasis on quiet enjoyment throughoutthe park consistent with its wild character.

Pembrokeshire Coast National Park proposes a spatial hierarchy forrecreation and tourism covering the entire Park area. This comprises lowimpact areas, intermediate areas and intensive areas. Low impact areas are‘the classic ‘‘unspoilt’’ areas of the Park where natural forces and semi-naturalvegetation dominate the landscape. Recreational facilities are normally atmost basic . . .’ (PCNP, 1994, p. 50) In terms of management the aim is tokeep it low-key and minimise signs of human intrusion.

Dartmoor National Park does not mention quiet areas speci�cally but doesdesignate two classes of policy priority area based on carrying capacity. Theseare areas managed to accommodate heavy use and areas with low recrea-tional capacity. The overall recreational strategy objective for the park is ‘toencourage quiet, informal recreation use . . . and guide such use into thosesites and areas best able to absorb it; to ensure that it remains possible toexperience solitude and remoteness’ (DNP, 1991, p. 38).

Another park which speci�cally refers to zones is the Broads which stressesquiet enjoyment of the Norfolk Broads (BA, 1993). The Authority proposestwo forms of zoning; �rst for nature conservation in sensitive areas, wheredisturbance from boats is likely to cause conservation problems; and secondzoning for managing different water activities. This latter form could includespatial and temporal zoning for such diverse activities as motor boating,canoeing, rowing and �shing.

Two of the medium volume parks (North York Moors and YorkshireDales) and both the low volume parks (Exmoor and Northumberland) makeno speci�c mention of quiet areas, overt zoning or classi�cation in theirnational park or local plans. However they still use similar language todiscuss recreational impacts and the management of particular locations.Thus the North York Moors talks of sensitive locations ‘which have existingvisitor management problems, or whose quiet nature would be spoilt.’(NYMNP, 1991, p. 50). In Exmoor ‘The wilder and more remote areas inparticular should be protected from excessive or inappropriate use that maythreaten their special character’ (ENP, 1991, p. 58).

The Yorkshire Dales Plan states that ‘upland areas are seen as oases ofpeace and solitude’(YDNP, 1984, p. 61) and outlines policies to concentraterather than disperse less active recreation uses and to discourage noisy andintensive pursuits. In Northumberland although the Plan (1995) talks of areas


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

where the landscape is least able to absorb visitors and their cars and areas ofhigher visitor pressure, the NPA is also promoting a less cautious anddefensive strategy for public enjoyment than that proposed in earlier planswhich were unduly restrictive. This re�ects the relatively remote location andnature of the Park which is under considerably less pressure than most andalso the long standing restrictions due to Ministry of Defence use of extensiveareas for training.

A comparative synthesisIt is clear therefore, from the individual park analysis, that beyond the set ofcommon themes, there is considerable diversity of criteria, terminology andclassi�cation. The diversity seems to be related primarily to actual orperceived visitor pressures and may be interpreted as being essentially reactiverather than proactive.

Thus the Peak National Park, with the most intense visitor pressures, has a�ve zone strategy, while Northumberland National Park, even in its mostrecent plan, despite acknowledging pressure points along Hadrian’s Wall,makes no mention of ‘quiet areas’ or zoning, and rather complacently states‘visitor surveys have not revealed any overall growth in recreational activity’(NNP, 1995, p. 61). These two cases may be seen as the extremes of aspectrum in terms of the precision and detail in the process of arealclassi�cation and the identi�cation of quiet areas. Table 2 summarizes thenature of this spectrum.Parks may be distinguished in three ways:

First, using areal coverage – between the parks where classi�cation or designationis applied across the total area, e.g. the Peaks and the Pembrokeshire Coast; andthose where designation covers limited areas which indicate polarized attributes,e.g. the Lake District and Dartmoor.Second, using areal de�nition there is a distinction between Parks where speci�careas are identi�ed and those where classes are given but there is no preciseareal de�nition. Thus while parks such as the Peak and Dartmoor map areal

Table 2. Spectrum of area classi�cations

A. Parks with de�ned area classi�cations

Peak wild – remoter – intermediate – modest rec. – high intensityPembrokeshire low impact – intermediate – intensiveLake District quieter – busierSnowdonia quietDartmoor low recreation capacity – heavy useBroads conservation – recreationBrecon Beacons vulnerable – pressure

B. Parks with general descriptors

Yorkshire Dales oases of peace and solitudeNorth York Moors quiet natureExmoor wilder and more remoteNorthumberland least able to absorb – pressure


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

distributions, the Pembrokeshire Coast and the Broads propose zones or areaclassi�cations but only give location exemplars and there is no comprehensiveclassi�cation in map format.Third, distinctions may be made using the precision of de�nition. For instanceExmoor with its references to ‘wilder’ and ‘more remote’ areas and Northumber-land with its ‘pressure’ and ‘least able to absorb’ areas, both simply talk in generalterms about such special qualities but make no attempt to categorize let alonelocate such areas on the ground.

A variety of criteria and terms are used to de�ne and differentiate areas. Forinstance at the ‘tranquil’ end of the spectrum in Table 2 in addition to thegeneral concept of quietness, criteria range from level of use and impact,through carrying capacity, conservation primacy, to naturalness and geo-graphical inaccessibility. This varying conceptualization of quiet areas may beillustrated by closer scrutiny of park documents. Thus for the managers of thePembrokeshire Coast Park, low impact areas are those ‘classic ‘‘unspoilt’’areas of the Park where natural forces and semi-natural vegetation dominatethe landscape’ (PCNP, 1994, p. 50). The primary management aim is topromote ‘an atmosphere of remoteness, peace and tranquillity’ (p. 52).

For the Broads Authority, the fundamental criterion for the recreationalplan is the environmental carrying capacity of the waterspace and its margins.Thus while the Authority states an overall aim of encouraging ‘quiet open-airwater-based recreation’ (BA, 1993, p. 67), it proposes to use conservationvalue as a key criterion for zoning in ‘sensitive areas . . . where disturbancefrom craft is causing or is likely to cause signi�cant conservation problems’(p. 71). Dartmoor too, uses carrying capacity, in this case recreationalcarrying capacity. Although ‘quiet areas’ are not mentioned explicitly, theneed stated is to ‘leave room for solitude and personal discovery’ (DNP, 1991,p. 36), and in particular ‘to protect the combination of values which makesup the ‘‘wilderness experience’’. . . solitude or the company of just a fewfriends, quietness, the feeling that civilisation and its trappings are far away’(p. 101).

In Snowdonia, within the goal of provision for a broad range ofrecreational opportunities, the Plan expresses ‘a need to maintain areas of thepark which have predominantly quiet, less spoilt natural character where thefeelings of solitude and remoteness prevail’ (SNP, 1995, p. 52). Thispsychological and spiritual dimension is evident too, in the Yorkshire DalesPlan, where the uplands are identi�ed as ‘oases of peace and solitude; wherethe air is fresh and birds can be heard; where the hills provide a challenge, anadventure and inspiration’ (YDNP, 1984, p. 61).

Geographical inaccessibility is usually expressed in terms of ‘remoteness’,e.g. in Snowdonia the need to protect inaccessible areas which possess‘qualities of solitude and remoteness’ is stressed (SNP, 1995, p. 52). In theLake District, as the higher ‘fell’ areas are now considered separately from theother ‘quiet areas’, this concept of geographical inaccessibility cannot beapplied in the same way. None the less the ‘quiet areas’ are still those moredistant from the main settlements and roads and generally less frequented.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Use of terminology

Analysis of the language used to describe the perceptions of and priorities forvisitor policy and management in outstanding landscapes is a revealingexercise. The National Park documentation includes a wide range ofdescriptive and evaluative terms used in discussion of ‘quieter areas’. Theyoccur mostly in adjectival form and fall into three categories. First, terms withpositive connotations; second, terms with negative connotations; and third,terms with more speci�cally evaluatory or judgmental inferences. Table 3 liststhe most commonly used terms.

A range of additional words also occurs which further illustrates thediversity of the terminology. These include: special character, damage,con�icts, intimacy, informal, low impact, inherent/intrinsic qualities, adven-ture, heavily used, robust, durable, low-key, secluded, unobtrusive, pressure,harm, unnatural, haven.

The ‘positive’ category contains two classes of attribute – those pertainingto the ‘atmosphere’ of the area, i.e. quiet, peace etc., and those relating moredirectly to the environmental character, i.e. ‘remote’, ‘unspoilt’. In terms ofthe discussion of ‘quiet areas’ it is the terms relating to the atmosphere, i.e.‘quiet’, peace(ful), tranquil/tranquillity, which warrant closer scrutiny.

The key word ‘quiet’, which appears in the documentation of all but onenational park, is applied in three distinct ways. First it is used to describe thecharacter of an area or environmental setting e.g. ‘quiet areas’ (Snowdonia)or ‘quiet and unspoilt countryside’ (Lake District). Second it is used as anactivity descriptor, e.g. ‘quiet, water based activities’ (Brecon Beacons) and‘open-air recreation which is quiet’ (Exmoor). Third, ‘quiet’ is applied to theperceptions of people in certain places and how they psychologicallyexperience these places – hence ‘quiet enjoyment’. This phrase is used by theBroads, Lake District, Northumberland, Snowdonia, Brecon Beacons andExmoor and it was a key recommendation of the Edwards Report to include‘quiet enjoyment’ as the second purpose of National Parks – see earlier. In this

Table 3. Terminology used – number of National Parks using each term in their documenta-tion (n 5 11)

Terms used in category

Positive no. Negative no. Evaluatory no.

quietremotewildsolitudepeaceunspoilttranquilwildernessisolated

1076654221

noisyintrusivedisturbanceintensivedisruptivebusier

766322

sensitive(in)appropriatecapacitysustainable(in)compatiblesuitableexcessivevulnerablefragile

666543311


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

third context, activity and environmental setting combine directly to createexperience, i.e. a state of mind. It is with the second and third usages thatthere needs to be particular awareness of whether reference is being made toa designated area within the park or to quiet activities/enjoyment within thepark as a whole.

The word ‘peace’, which occurs less frequently, extends this experientialconnotation and indeed on occasion the two words are used together, i.e.‘peace and quiet’. The question arises of course as to why both words areused and what one adds to the sense of the other. It seems apparent from ananalysis of where the word peace occurs that it is given more poetic andphilosophical meaning, e.g. ‘an atmosphere of remoteness, peace andtranquillity’ (Pembrokeshire Coast). It is also on occasion related toenvironmental settings, e.g. ‘oases of peace and solitude’ (Yorkshire Dales).Interestingly ‘peace’ is not generally used to signify an absence of environ-mental or recreational con�icts.

The word ‘tranquil’ occurs surprisingly infrequently (Pembrokeshire Coastand the Lake District). Its de�nition as ‘serene, calm and unruf�ed’ (OED,1973) assigns a clearly subjective meaning, perceivable in different ways bydifferent people. This acknowledged imprecision may help to account for itssparse usage. Tranquillity is a value-laden, qualitative and relative concept, itsquanti�cation being reliant upon the imposition of arbitrary measures. Forinstance the validity of measuring tranquillity in decibels is open toquestion.

Yet the CPRE Tranquil Areas study (1995) de�nes tranquil areas as ‘placeswhich are suf�ciently far away from the visual or noise intrusion ofdevelopment or traf�c to be considered unspoilt by urban in�uences’. Theyapply a set of criteria to this de�nition; see Table 4. The outcome of theapplication of this system is illustrated in Figure 3 which charts the erosion oftranquillity in Cumbria, including the Lake District National Park. If thecriteria used are accepted as viable, then the maps provide a basis for ‘quietarea’ identi�cation and classi�cation.

Two further points of note in the CPRE study are that they establish aminimum size for tranquil areas (1 km radius) and that there may be areaswith a ‘lower level of disturbance’ from such elements as minor roads,quarries, power lines or railways.

Table 4. Generalised criteria for the de�nition of tranquil areas

A Tranquil Area lies:–c 4 km from the largest power stationsc 3 km from the most highly traf�cked roads; from large towns; and from major industrial

areasc 2 km from most other motorways and major trunk roads and from the edge of smaller

townsc 1 km from medium disturbance roads and some main line railwaysc A tranquil Area also lies beyond military and civil air�eld noise lozenges and beyond very

extensive opencast mining

Source: CPRE (1995).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

There is an equivalence, therefore, between this usage of ‘tranquillity’ andthe concept of ‘quietness’ as measured by objective criteria such as noiselevels. However, tranquil and tranquillity have broader psychological con-notations. Tranquillity is an internal feeling or state of being, akin perhaps to‘sense of peace’, and hence not easily susceptible to precise measurement. Theopaqueness of the distinction made between these key terms in National Parkpolicy statements is one signi�cant strand of this review. The same lack ofde�nition affects the use of the terms ‘special qualities’, ‘tranquillity’ and‘quietly enjoyed’ as used in the new Environment Act and Circular. Equallyimportant perhaps, in exploring the concept of quietness, is the use of theterms with negative connotations, i.e. attributes and activities oppositional toachievement of ‘quiet’. The most commonly applied are ‘noisy’, ‘disturbance’,‘intrusive’, ‘disruptive’, and refer to negative impacts both aural andvisual.

A second group of positive words refers to valued environmental attributes,such as ‘remote’, ‘wild’ and ‘unspoilt’ and to desired atmospheres, e.g. thecapability of providing a feeling of ‘solitude’. Most parks contain areas towhich such attributes are applied. Once again there is the element ofromanticism here and certainly the uses are value laden. ‘Remote’ may bede�ned in terms of being distant from settlements and key access points such

Fig. 3. Tranquil areas – Cumbria.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

as car parks and thereby possessing a geographical inaccessibility. Howeverthe word ‘wild’ is more dif�cult to de�ne as every individual will have theirown mental image of ‘wildness’.

The notion of ‘naturalness’ is emotively neutral whereas ‘wild’ has anadded dimension of risk, excitement and untamedness. It is worth noting thatnatural and naturalness are rarely used as descriptors, possibly indicating anacknowledgement of the long established human modi�cation of the land-scape. This may account too for the infrequent occurrence of the concept ofwilderness. One such example is in Dartmoor where the more remote partsare regarded as providing opportunities for ‘the wilderness experience’. Thisperhaps is an acceptance that nowhere in the National Parks of England andWales is there a suf�cient degree of remoteness, wildness and inaccessibility tovalidate the classi�cation of any area as ‘wilderness’. In this sense thedocumentation clearly distinguishes between ‘wildness’ and ‘wilderness’.(‘Naturalness’ and ‘remoteness’ are the primary criteria used for identi�cationof Wilderness Areas in North America and Australia.)

‘Natural’ and ‘wild’ areas are commonly associated with the term‘unspoilt’. This raises the twin issues of whether human activity and presence‘spoil’ a landscape and the criteria and values applied when a locality isdescribed as ‘unspoilt’.

A case can be made therefore that none of the national parks has areas thatare truly remote, wild and unspoilt given the density of population, nature ofthe landscape (in comparison with parts of Scotland or North America) andthe long-term human in�uence in terms of agricultural and sporting uses.Thus the concepts of quiet, tranquil and peaceful are perhaps more useful interms of policy objectives.

The third category of descriptors (Table 3) are evaluative or judgementaland relate to implied or identi�ed carrying capacity thresholds, e.g. ‘vulner-able’ and ‘sensitive’. The use of these terms is more complex than may at �rstappear. For instance vulnerability, sensitivity and fragility may well apply tothe response of an environment or ecosystem to visitor pressure and impacts.Equally these terms might be used with reference to quality of visitorexperience, e.g. sensitivity to a perception of crowding. In reality both worktogether, the environmental setting being a crucial element determining visitorexperience. For example if the objective for a ‘quiet area’ is the provision ofpeace and tranquillity then that area will be sensitive in terms of itsrecreational carrying capacity irrespective of its ecological sensitivity. Yet as isapparent in the policy for the Broads, areas of high ecological value andsensitivity are desired settings for particularly quiet, low density recreationalexperiences. Similarly the Yorkshire Dales acknowledges that ‘there are limitsto the capacity of the National Park to accommodate recreational activities’(YDNP, 1984, p. 11).

The evaluative terminology is also applied to recreational activities judgedto be suitable or appropriate for certain settings. Thus Exmoor insists thatrecreational activities and facilities ‘must be compatible with the conservationof Exmoor’s landscape’ (ENP, 1991, p. 58). In the Yorkshire Dales the Parkrecommends ‘management policies must ensure that recreational activities


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

which individually are appropriate are also compatible with one another’(YDNP, 1984, p. 13). In some plans the concept of sustainability isintroduced; ‘It may be the case that management measures can be taken toensure that potentially intrusive pursuits are sustainable’ (NNP, 1995,p. 75).

From the foregoing discussion it becomes clear that where coherent policystatements concerning the establishment of ‘quiet areas’ do occur, they areexpressed in terms of a selected set of attributes. The attributes combine tode�ne a setting and an atmosphere of quietness in which appropriateactivities and experiences possess the essential properties of quietness.Examples include ‘an atmosphere of remoteness, peace and tranquillity’(Pembrokeshire) and ‘peace, solitude and a glimpse of wilderness’(Northumberland).

Management responses

General issues

The diversity of terminology creates problems in translating policy statementsinto implementation and management strategies. Most importantly, a numberof the terms identi�ed in the earlier discussion are used almost inter-changeably. Meanings vary and are often imprecise. As illustrated earlier theword ‘quiet’ is used to refer to a variety of settings, activities and experiences.Furthermore it possesses three internal dimensions in itself; an absence ofintrusive noise, in volume terms; an absence of movement, activity or densityin a visual sense; and an inner feeling of quiet.

Interestingly the National Trust, which owns and manages remote and wildareas in several parks, e.g. the central upland mass of the Lake DistrictNational Park, has recognized the problems and issues raised by theimprecision of usage. In its 1995 ‘Open Countryside’ report, the Trust arguesthat ‘the concept of quiet is too simplistic to guide management decisions onacceptability. Intrusion is a more useful concept.’ (National Trust, 1995,p. 33) The report goes beyond current National Park efforts in analysing theword ‘quiet’ and in attempting a de�nition. This offers greater precision andguidance to the process of implementing policy statements. This is demon-strated in the Trust’s conceptualization of remoteness. In support of aqualitative de�nition, a set of attributes of ‘remote areas’ is given (Table 5),thereby facilitating the operationalizing of the concept.

The Trust notes in addition that ‘remote areas should not be closed to thepublic but visitors should be able to �nd them for themselves. Theirmanagement should include limiting promotion, restricting permission forevents and avoiding ‘‘spreading the load’’ ’ (p. 35).

Dimensions of responseThe variety of strategies and techniques used make generalization dif�cult,and potentially misleading. None the less it is possible to suggest twofundamental dimensions of management responses: positive – negative; and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

direct – indirect. This dimensionality is presented as a twin axial model inFigure 4.

Most Parks use direct positive management inputs (A) to enhance access,e.g. the Peak seeks to extend access agreements. This may seem to sit uneasilywith a ‘quiet areas’ policy, but the Yorkshire Dales and Dartmoor forinstance, claim that it will give them greater management control over access,and reduce pressures upon existing quiet areas, i.e. improved peoplemanagement. Snowdonia sees the potential for extending ‘quiet area’experience opportunities by making more use of forests and woodlands. The

Table 5. Attributes of ‘remote areas’

c distance from a major roadc negligible car-parking nearbyc dif�cult terrainc few pathsc little or no promotionc few or no facilitiesc important or susceptible wildlife habitatsc topography in which even low levels of use would be excessively intrusivec peace and quiet in contrast to surrounding populous areas

Source: National Trust (1995).

POSITIVE

Ae.g. enhance access andaccessibility to new‘quiet areas’, i.e. visitordispersion

Be.g. increase capacity of‘honeypots’ and ‘busierareas’, i.e. visitorconcentration

DIRECT INDIRECT

De.g. reduce accessibilityby downgrading sectionsof road network andparking capacity in‘quiet areas’

Ce.g. stricter planningconstraints in and around‘quiet areas’, includingidenti�cation of appropriateactivities

NEGATIVE

Fig. 4. The dimensionality of management response.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Broads is promoting increased access for ‘quiet’ water-based activities, e.g.canoe trails.

Extending access suggests a strategy of visitor dispersion. Indeed the BreconBeacons talks of spreading the load by upgrading selected routes into theheart of the park. This is not a majority view, however, and the Lake Districtdoes not see a strategy of a ‘more even spread’ of visitor presence as useful.In consequence, such direct approaches are counterbalanced by overt visitorconcentration strategies, thereby protecting ‘quiet areas’ by indirect positiveinputs (B). Thus the Yorkshire Dales intends to increase the carrying capacityof certain popular sites. A common technique is to encourage facilitydevelopment around such popular localities and corridors, e.g. Snowdonia,Pembrokeshire Coast, Lake District, The Broads. The goal of such strategiesis to retain the numerically dominant ‘less active’ visitors within these‘developed’ areas.

The complementary component of this planning policy of facility anddevelopment concentration is the negative strategy (C) of presumptionagainst developments in designated and intended quiet, vulnerable andsensitive areas. Most Parks intend to apply their development control powersin this way. In ‘low impact areas’ in the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park,‘facilities will not be introduced to actively accommodate or encouragegreater use . . . . Such areas would not normally require toilets, and carparking would not normally be expanded or formalised’ (PCNP, 1984, p. 52).In the Lake District, ‘Facilities which are likely to encourage signi�cantadditional numbers of visitors will not normally be permitted in the quieterareas . . . away from the major roads’ (LDNP, 1986, Ch. 11 p. 3).

This prescriptive approach is extended to types of visitor and activity. Thus,in the Brecon Beacons backpackers are seen as appropriate users of remoterareas as they ‘require only the most basic facilities and road access isunnecessary. The tents are usually only erected overnight so their impact onthe landscape is minimal’ (BBNP, 1993, p. 43). In contrast, noisy activitiessuch as water-skiing, jet skiing and powered off-road vehicle driving are seenas generally unacceptable in all parks: ‘High speed motorised activitiesincluding jet skis and off road vehicles appear to be a common concern’(PCNP, 1994, p. 50); in the Broads, water skiing is ‘inappropriate’ (BA, 1993,p. 91); and in the Brecon Beacons, ‘Power boating and water skiing are notsuited to the park’ (BBNP, 1993, p. 40). In Dartmoor, ‘Mass events,commercial activity, competitions and pursuits which rely on machineryrather than plain muscle power do not belong in the remoter parts of thenorthern and southern plateaux’ (DNP, 1991, p. 101).

Some NPAs make exceptions to this principle of ‘appropriateness’ forcertain specialist activities. These require access to highly localized features ofa park environment, which may occur within or near assigned quiet areas.For example, the Pembrokeshire Coast plan recognizes ‘that the NationalPark and its inshore waters embrace some of the most important sites inWales both for informal recreation and specialist activities such as cliffclimbing, sur�ng and sub-aqua diving’ (PCNP, 1994, p. 51). The policy is tosafeguard opportunities at these specialist sites.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

The principle of visitor concentration is clearly supported in several parksby direct negative techniques for reducing accessibility (D). It is important toreiterate the distinction between access and accessibility: no park has a statedpolicy of reducing rights of access. Accessibility control is achieved mostcommonly through the use of a road hierarchy, with physical capacitiesassigned to each level of the network. Quiet areas are to be protected by notupgrading minor roads and other more restrictive measures. Such reductionof accessibility is supported further by removal of parking opportunities andhence encouraging ‘the long walk in’. In Snowdonia the NPA ‘in someinstances will seek to regulate traf�c movements and promote access intothese areas on foot or by alternative means’ (SNP, 1995, p. 242). In theBroads, tighter restrictions on the movement and mooring of motorized craftare being introduced, despite the freedom of navigation rights. (The followingsection discusses traf�c management in more detail.)

Another way that types of water recreation are directly managed is throughdiffering designations of lakes. Those parks which have more than onesigni�cant area of waterspace tend to specify what types of recreation areacceptable in relation to environmental setting, facilities and history of use.Thus the Lake District emphasizes that many of the lakes ‘lie within parts ofthe park which the NPA regard as special because of their relatively quietcharacter’ (LDNP, 1986, Ch.15 p. 13) unlike those which lie in the ‘busiercentral valleys’. The policy for the lakes in quieter areas is to resist thedevelopment of facilities that would encourage additional visitors. SimilarlySnowdonia distinguishes those lakes which can and cannot take additionalrecreational activity. It considers that on all lakes except two recreational useshould not increase and on some it should be reduced ‘because of theconservation value of the water’ (SNP, 1995, p. 221).

One further management option adopted to protect quieter areas, is toidentify alternative sites for speci�c developments and activities outsideNational Park boundaries and to promote these to visitors more proactively.Thus Dartmoor encourages ‘the development of suitable recreation opportun-ities outside the National Park’ (DNP, 1991, p. 38) and the Yorkshire Dales‘will encourage neighbouring county and district councils to promote the useand development of alternative recreational facilities which might help torelieve pressure on heavily used sites within the National Park’ (YDNP, 1984,p. 76) and by implication, in the quieter areas too.

Traf�c managementIt is apparent from the discussion of the twin-axial model of Figure 5 that�rst, the strategies of the four compartments are interactive and com-plementary, and second that controlling the movement and parking of visitorsand their vehicles is a central feature of all quiet area management strategies.A number of Parks are carrying out research or establishing experimentalinitiatives to try to tackle the ever increasing traf�c �ows and congestion. Anexample of this is the Lake District Traf�c Management Initiative which hastaken a strategic park-wide approach to traf�c management. Traf�c manage-ment is therefore given separate consideration.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

The underlying goal in any strategy for quiet areas is to reduce to apractical minimum, penetration and intrusion by motor vehicles. Threepopular techniques recur: the use of a road network hierarchy based oncarrying capacity; the retention of remoteness and relative inaccessibility bynot upgrading or extending road access; and the upgrading of selected mainroads and popular routes, with the provision of additional parking capacityand improved signposting along these routes.

Such approaches are demonstrated most clearly in the North YorkshireMoors, where a four-level road hierarchy is adopted as a central managementtechnique. At the lowest level, the carrying capacity of minor roads is to beconstrained by low maintenance, no upgrading and the non-provision offormal parking sites. Consideration is given to downgrading certain sectionsin order to encourage walkers, riders, cyclists, and to protect quieter areas.This objective occurs too in the Peak plan, with the intention ‘to reducevehicular traf�c on minor roads which link public paths’ (PNP, 1989, p. 86).The Countryside Commission has recently identi�ed a policy to promote‘quiet roads’ whereby they are supporting experiments to give priority towalkers, cyclists and horse-riders on quiet country lanes (CoCo, 1996b,p. 6).

In Snowdonia, the roads hierarchy and resistance to road improvements areto be used to protect quiet areas from ‘excessive car borne use’, but withoutdenying access. In Dartmoor, a hierarchy is identi�ed, with the prime purposeof directing buses and other large vehicles along selected main road routes,thereby reducing intrusion in the more remote areas crossed by minor roads.The concept of road hierarchies is being adopted by most parks as a way ofcontrolling access, e.g. ‘recreational traf�c should not be drawn on to singlecarriageway NP minor roads’ (BBNP, 1993, p. 42). Even in NorthumberlandNational Park, with its acknowledged lack of pressures, car-bound visitorsare to be ‘guided’ away from sensitive areas. The narrow, winding nature andlimited parking capability of minor roads are seen in the Lake District as vitalelements in the protection of quieter areas, for example the passes crossingthe watershed to the more remote western lakes.

Other approaches include controlling the type, number or size of vehiclesallowed access which might include restrictions on coaches or the introduc-tion of a park and ride service. In the Peak there are traf�c restrictions atsome of the most popular sites and park and ride facilities are operated formuch of the year. In the Broads it is proposed to allow access only by boat tocertain sensitive areas (BA, 1993, p. 92).

Most Parks support the strengthening of public transport services althoughit is interesting to note that this is usually represented as a way of reducingtraf�c congestion rather than its more positive role of increasing access forthose with no vehicle. Snowdonia National Park demonstrates this stance inits development of a traf�c management strategy which ‘will encourage thegreater use of public transport and the further development of the footpathand cycleway network. Where these measures are not possible, the pressuresassociated with excessive numbers of motor cars, especially within quieterand more sensitive areas of the park, should in the opinion of the LPA be


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

regulated. Such traf�c management measures need not restrict visitor access,but will instead be targeted at the harmful effects of motorised vehicles’ (SNP,1995, p. 242).

However, NPAs are limited in what they can achieve on their own as theyare not the statutory highway authority and have to work in partnership withother local authorities.

Constraints upon implementationApart from funding, implicit in all park and local plans, the primaryconstraints upon effective management implementation are acknowledged asthe limits of planning control powers. This is re�ected in the language usedwhereby NPAs aim to ‘encourage’, ‘support’, ‘in�uence’ and ‘resist’ but donot have overall control, due to the limits of their powers and the fact thatmost own only a small fraction of the land within their boundaries. ThoseParks that do own signi�cant areas, such as the Peak and Brecon Beacons,have the ability to implement policies more directly and could pioneersolutions, although their policy documents do not highlight this distinction inownership and its implications.

There is a need to identify measures to monitor whether Park policies arebeing implemented in reality, whether in general or for quiet areas speci�cally.One rather crude method is to compare planning application outcomes insideand outside parks. The hypothesis is that planning controls will be morestrictly enforced within the parks. However, worryingly, evidence from arecent report indicates little difference in the rate of planning appealsdismissed inside and outside protected areas (LUC, 1995).

Thus Parks’ plans are preferred strategies only. Several parks acknowledgethe limited extent of their powers to effectively deal with problems. Forexample the Broads Authority recognizes that in practice it ‘cannot directlycontrol the number of boats on the Broads’ (BA, 1993, p. 78). In manysituations the Parks’ role is purely advisory. In addition there are signi�cant�nancial constraints on Parks. It will be interesting to see whether their newindependent status introduced in the Environment Act enables greater powersto be wielded in practice.

Findings and further research questions

This review provides a largely descriptive foundation, based on mainstreamplanning documents, for an ongoing study of quiet areas in the NationalParks of England and Wales. The next stages are seen as: �rst, theexamination of more detailed management plans for speci�c areas or policiesin practice which are not re�ected in National Park plans; second, a broaderranging literature review to facilitate a comparative dimension including non-UK National Parks; and third, empirical research in selected �eld localities,into the realities, practicalities and perceptions of policy, leading to sugges-tions and proposals for future strategy.

The following �ndings of this review provide insights useful in identifyingresearch questions:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

c There is a marked diversity in the approaches of the eleven parks.c The approach to quiet areas or similar designated areas, is essentially

reactive.c There is little consensus as to what constitutes a ‘quiet area’, although

perhaps a clearer idea of the forms of activity and experience‘appropriate’ for such an area.

c The terminology used in discussion of quiet areas is diverse, impreciseand at times inconsistent.

c There is a wide variation in stated speci�city of quiet areas in terms of(i) location, (ii) areal delineation and (iii) on-the-ground managementinputs.

c The objectives of extending access and of protecting ‘quieter’, ‘remote’etc. areas occur frequently, yet the inherent tension between them is notthoughtfully addressed.

c There is a poorly de�ned response to the problems for quiet areascreated by the continuing growth of ‘action’ activities.

c There is general agreement that the management of the numericallydominant car-borne, ‘less active’ visitors is to be based upon controlledconcentration rather than dispersion.

The main research questions relevant to quiet areas which follow on fromthese �ndings include:

1. Is the diversity of perception and approach among the parks a strengthor a weakness?

2. Is the primary focus upon visitor concentration and ‘busier’ areas (a)inevitable and (b) desirable, and in what time-frame?

3. Does the focus upon the popular ‘honeypots’ and corridors mean thatquieter area policies are given lower priority, and if so, what are theimplications?

4. Should quiet area policies be more proactive, and how might this beachieved?

5. Can guidelines for good management practice in quiet areas beidenti�ed?

6. Can a set of consistent and precise terms and usages be devised andadopted?

7. Are there distinctive attributes possessed by quiet areas which willassist in (a) their identi�cation and designation, and (b) the monitoringof the effectiveness of policy and practice?

8. Where a quiet areas policy is introduced, have the local communitiesbeen consulted, and what are their perceptions of both the quiet areaand how it is managed?

9. What are the practical implications of quiet area management in termsof workforce, funding and timescale?

10. How does the fundamental issue of landownership and the percep-tions, priorities and values of landowners in�uence policy andimplementation?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

These questions need to be confronted, particularly in the light of recentpolicy documents from countryside agencies which stress the need to increaseaccess and participation generally (Countryside Commission, 1996b; ScottishNatural Heritage, 1994; Sports Council, 1993). This desk-based review hasidenti�ed a range of issues and a number of directions for further research.These include how the Parks implement their policies for ‘quiet areas’ inpractice and the practicality and effectiveness of implementation. Also �eldinvestigation is required into the outcomes of such policies and theperceptions, of both local people and visitors, of the range of managementtechniques.

Such research is particularly important in the light of the disturbing lack ofclarity of approach with regard to quieter areas (particularly when comparedto work done in US National Parks) with a general reliance on a reactiveresponse to problems as they occur on the ground. This reactive approach isperhaps explainable due to the lack of substantive research in the UK into thedemand side, i.e. the motivations, expectations and perceptions ofrecreationists.

References(BBNP) Brecon Beacons National Park (1993) National Park Plan Third Edition.(BA) Broads Authority (1993) No Easy Answers – Draft Broads Plan.(CPRE) Council for the Protection of Rural England (1995) Tranquil Areas Maps,

London.(CPRE) Council for the Protection of Rural England (1996) Traf�c Trauma Map – a Forecast

of Traf�c Growth on Rural Roads from 1994 to 2025, London.(Co Co) Countryside Commission (1996a) Visitors to National Parks: Summary of the 1994

Survey Findings, Cheltenham.(Co Co) Countryside Commission (1996b) A Living Countryside – Our Strategy for the Next

Ten Years, Cheltenham.(DNP) Dartmoor National Park (1991) National Park Plan, Second Review.(DoE) Department of the Environment (1995) Environment Act, London.(DoE) Department of the Environment (1996) Circular 12/96 Environment Act 1995, Part III

National Parks.Edwards, R. (1991) Fit for the Future – Report of the National Parks Review Panel,

Countryside Commission, Cheltenham.(ENP) Exmoor National Park (1991) National Park Plan, Second Review.(LDNP) Lake District National Park (1986) National Park Plan.(LDNP) Lake District National Park (1994) National Park Local Plan, Lake District Traf�c

Management Initiative (1995) Traf�c in the Lake District, Kendal.(LUC) Land Use Consultants (1995) A Study of Appeal Decisions in Areas of Outstanding

Natural Beauty and Heritage Coasts in England – Report to the Countryside Commis-sion, London.

McKercher, B. (1996) Differences between tourism and recreation in parks, Annals of TourismResearch 23(3), 563–575.

National Trust (1995) Open Countryside – Report of the Access Review Working Party,London.

(NNP) Northumberland National Park (1995) National Park Plan, Second Review.(NYMNP) North York Moors National Park (1991) National Park Plan, Second Review.(OED) Oxford English Dictionary (1973) Oxford University Press.(PNP) Peak National Park (1989) National Park Plan, First Review.(PCNP) Pembrokeshire Coast National Park (1994) National Park Plan, Second Review

Consultation Draft.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Sandford, Lord (1974) Report of the National Park Review Committee, HMSO, LondonScottish Natural Heritage (1994) Enjoying the Outdoors – A Programme for Action,

Perth.(SNP) Snowdonia National Park (1995) Eryri Local Plan, Consultation Draft.Sports Council (1993) A Countryside for Sport – A Policy for Sport and Recreation,

London.(YDNP) Yorkshire Dales National Park (1984) National Park Plan, First Review.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

12:

23 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

A review of policies for ‘quiet areas’ in the National Parks of England and Wales