The Rise and Fall of Countryside Management - Taylor ...

The Rise and Fall of Countryside Management

For at least half a century since the emergence of Country Parks and Forest Parks, countryside services have provided leisure, tourism, conserva-tion, restoration, and regeneration across Britain. Yet these services are currently being decimated as public services are sacrificed to the new era of austerity. The role and importance of countryside management have been barely documented, and the consequences and ramifications of cuts to these ser-vices are overlooked and misunderstood. This volume rigorously examines the issues surrounding countryside management in Britain. The author brings together the results of stakeholder workshops and interviews, and in- depth individual case studies, as well as a major study for the Country-side Agency which assessed and evaluated every countryside service provi-sion in England. A full and extensive literature review traces the ideas of countryside management back to their origins, and the author considers the wider relationships and ramifications with countryside and ranger pro-visions around the world, including North America and Europe. The book provides a critical overview of the history and importance of countryside management, detailing the achievements of a largely forgot-ten sector and highlighting its pivotal yet often underappreciated role in the wellbeing of people and communities. It serves as a challenge to stu-dents, planners, politicians, conservationists, environmentalists, and land managers, in a diversity of disciplines that work with or have interests in countryside, leisure and tourism, community issues, education, and nature conservation.

Ian D. Rotherham is Professor of Environmental Geography and Reader in Tourism and Environmental Change at Sheffield Hallam University, UK.

‘This is the most definitive account of our sector’s development we have ever seen. It should be an essential read for students and all countryside managers and rangers.’

Dan Barnett, Chairman, Countryside Management Association, UK

‘This is a fascinating, comprehensive, timely, and critical review of our use and management of the countryside.’

Bill Blackledge, Chartered Landscape Architect, The Landscape Institute, UK

‘Follow the fortunes of the rise and fall of countryside management across the UK, from one period of austerity after the Second World War to the current contemporary interpretation of hard economic times. This volume addresses what it has meant in enabling public outdoor spaces to be well managed and enjoyed. The historical account of public sector interven-tions in countryside management over the last 70 years paints a picture of adaptation and deftness to such changing fortunes. It shows how, to deal with challenges over this period, those working in this field have been highly creative and innovative. For someone who has been involved for the last 40 years, Ian’s research and insights brought back many good memories. These recollections were of comradeship and finding practical solutions in a collaborative way and this book deserves to be read.’

Jo Burgon, Chairman, Outdoor Recreation Network, UK

The Rise and Fall of Countryside ManagementA historical account

Ian D. Rotherham

First published 2015 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2015 Ian D. Rotherham

The right of Ian D. Rotherham to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing- in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Rotherham, Ian D. The rise and fall of countryside management : an historical account / Ian D. Rotherham. pages cm

Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Landscape protection–Great Britain. 2. National parks and reserves–Great Britain. 3. Nature conservation–Great Britain. 4. Natural areas–Great Britain–Management. I. Title. QH77.G7R665 2015 333.730941–dc23 2015001156

ISBN: 978-0-415-84425-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-203-75421-4 (ebk)

Typeset in Baskerville by Wearset Ltd, Boldon, Tyne and Wear

Contents

List of figures vii List of tables ix About the author x Foreword by Hazel N. Thomas xi Preface xiv Acknowledgements xvi List of abbreviations xvii

1 The history and development of countryside management in Britain 1

2 Country Parks and Forest Parks 42

3 Delivering countryside services 55

4 Countryside Management Areas, projects, and services 71

5 Case studies of countryside services 91

6 Becoming a profession in Britain 118

7 Education, training, and engaging the community 151

8 A positive economic impact 165

9 Transforming landscapes, places, and people 181

10 Trails and tribulations – managing countryside access 211

11 A new millennium 225

vi Contents

12 Decline and fall 241

13 Countryside services – a global perspective 261

14 The wider policy context 272

15 Issues and opportunities for countryside services 292

16 Concluding thoughts and the future 316

Bibliography 337 Index 348

Figures

1.1 Forest rangers, Germany, 1935 6 1.2 (a) National Park Ranger, USA, 1950s, and (b) a ranger’s

home 13 1.3 Posters of the Ranger Naturalist Service (a) Lassen

Volcanic Park, USA, and (b) Yellowstone National Park, USA 15

1.4 ‘Unlocking the potential of the rural urban fringe’ 19 1.5 The type of asset managed 39 1.6 The type of functions delivered 40 2.1 Elvaston Hall and Country Park, Derbyshire 46 2.2 The Downs Ranger, Eastbourne 49 2.3 Rufford Country Park, Nottinghamshire 52 3.1 A schematic representation of countryside management

services 57 3.2 Details of countryside management services activities 65 3.3 Gibraltar Point Local Nature Reserve, Lincolnshire 66 3.4 Lee Valley Country Park, Leyton 68 3.5 Filey Country Park, North Yorkshire 69 4.1 ‘Countryside Management in the Urban Fringe’ 73 4.2 Specific sites for countryside management 76 4.3 The lake at Bretton Country Park 79 4.4 Fostering community action in the 1980s 86 5.1 Thrybergh Country Park, South Yorkshire 93 5.2 Anglers Country Park, Wintersett, Yorkshire 104 6.1 Countryside Commission guidance booklets 133 6.2 Local authority delivery of countryside management

services 134 6.3 Longevity of countryside management services within

local authorities 136 6.4 Significance of countryside management services delivery

criteria 137 6.5 Numbers of countryside management services staff

initially employed 140

viii Figures

6.6 Number of local authorities per employment category and staff type 142

6.7 Countryside management services management and staffing structures 144

6.8 Working with politicians: the author with David Blunkett in a Project Area, 1980s 145

7.1 A National Park Ranger engaging the public with ancient trees, 1950s, USA 152

8.1 Welcoming motorists to the park, 1950s, USA 166 8.2 A proposed framework for economic analysis of

countryside management, recreation, and sports 172 8.3 The Knockerdown Inn near Carsington Water,

Derbyshire 174 8.4 Proposed strategic conceptual framework for countryside

recreation and sports 178 9.1 Sheffield’s first Countryside Project in Shire Brook Valley,

1988 185 9.2 Sheffield’s Draft Environment Charter, early 1990s 188 9.3 Sheffield ‘Green Belt Plan’, 1983 189 9.4 ‘River Rother Wildlife Strategy’ consultation 193 9.5 Sheffield Wildlife Action Partnership events programme,

1997 200 9.6 ‘Sheffield Nature Conservation Strategy’, 1991 20110.1 ‘Out in the Country’, Countryside Commission, 1985 21211.1 Pugneys Country Park, Wakefield, West Yorkshire 22612.1 Rather tatty interpretation on the Camel Trail Cornwall

shows the need to invest 24612.2 The Mill at Rother Valley before the Country Park 25013.1 The Park Ranger, 1950s, USA 26313.2 ‘The Ranger Naturalist Service, Bryce Canyon National

Park’, USA 26513.3 The ranger’s essential equipment, 1950s, USA 26613.4 The Park Ranger amongst the trees 27014.1 Seven Sisters Country Park, East Sussex 27315.1 Muir Woods National Monument, USA 29315.2 Changing budget allocations across the service area 30515.3 Countryside activities such as horse riding (2000s) 30816.1 National Park Ranger Patrol, 1950s, USA 31916.2 Countryside visiting a privately owned site without ranger,

Chatsworth, 2000s 32116.3 Carsington Water Reservoir, north Derbyshire 32616.4 Upton Country Park, Poole, Dorset 32916.5 The Avenue, Wollaton Park, Nottingham 335

Tables

1.1 A time- line of key events in the development of countryside management 2

1.2 Number and type of local authorities by government region 38

1.3 Selected demographic and social indicators by local authority type 38

3.1 Percentage of staff by post and contract type 58 3.2 Number and percentage of local authorities undertaking

different types of countryside management activities 64 3.3 Percentage of respondents who undertake countryside

management 67 4.1 Local authority countryside assets 75 6.1 Categorised local authority departments responsible for

countryside management services 138 6.2 Number of local authorities per employment category

and staff type 143 7.1 2001 Census education data 158 7.2 Key Stage 4 qualifications, 2007 159 7.3 The annual value of environmental knowledge in GCSE

and A- level attainment for school leavers in 2010 161 8.1 Some headline findings 17915.1 Future opportunities for local authority countryside

management 300

About the author

Ian Rotherham was born in Sheffield (UK) in 1956. He graduated with a First Class Degree in Ecology from the University of Lancaster and then was awarded his PhD in Botany from the University of Sheffield. He is Pro-fessor of Environmental Geography and Reader in Tourism and Environ-mental Change at Sheffield Hallam University, and is a Distinguished International Visiting Scholar at the National Sun- yat Sen University in Taiwan. For ten years in the 1980s and 1990s, he was responsible for deliv-ering ecological advisory services in relation to countryside management in the Sheffield area including much of the Peak District. He has been involved with countryside management, with local authorities and govern-mental agencies such as the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Agency for over thirty years. He has written over 400 papers and articles and a number of books. His research includes landscape history, the economics of landscape change, issues of invasive alien species, urban ecology, and aspects of tourism and economic development. He works extensively with the popular media and with grassroots conservation groups. He chairs a number of national and international committees and working groups and his work informs the development of relevant policies and strategies. He has acted as an advisor to a number of governments internationally.

Foreword

When asked to write a Foreword for this book, I wondered whether the opportunity might be, for me, a hugely indulgent (and sometimes cathar-tic) trip down memory lane. However, it is certainly something much more substantial in terms of producing a vital record, offering a unique analysis of what appears to be a moment in time in the evolution of caring for our countryside and greenspaces. Having worked with Countryside Management Services for some thirty years, I have to say it has been a privilege to work with so many enthusias-tic and highly professional people, all committed to doing their very best for the environment, for recreation, for conservation, and for their local patches. However, and regrettably, it does seem in retrospect that the late 1970s to 1990s was indeed some kind of ‘Golden Age’ for Countryside Management. This was a period when there were numerous projects and staff working in many different local environments, from the deepest rural countryside in our National Parks, to river valleys flowing right into the centre of our cities. So why does it now feel as though countryside man-agement is a thing of the past? Have we learnt any lessons to take us forward from this pioneering and excitingly experimental era? It is of course easy to blame this more recent decline on current prob-lems with public sector funding, etc., but I believe it is less simplistic than that. It is about a changed relationship between central and local govern-ment, and I am not solely referring to the devolution of national govern-ment initiatives to a more local level in terms of determination, prioritisation and resourcing. There seems to have been a fundamental shift in terms of the role of the public sector from subsidising and support-ing initiatives that deliver public benefit, to focussing on those that more clearly deliver economic benefit. Of course, the results of both can and often are synonymous; but the challenge for those working in the country-side and environment sector more widely is for them to be better able to demonstrate and articulate the wide- ranging benefits delivered by their work. Although individual projects and services have in many cases docu-mented their own experiences, a comprehensive and comparative analysis

xii Foreword

of the successes, failures and lessons learnt from this important period, for the benefit of current and future generations, is sadly missing. That said, many problems we struggled with during those years still exist today. As this book clearly illustrates, countryside management was delivering sustainable development before we were even using the term! At about the same time as the World Conservation Strategy and the Conserva-tion and Development Programme for the UK (a response to the World Conservation Strategy) were setting out the critical nature of ‘sustainability’, countryside management services (particularly the area- based countryside management projects) were evolving new modes of operation. These allowed them to demonstrate that it was possible to balance the needs of their areas, in terms of maintaining and enhancing the area for wildlife, whilst also providing for and encouraging visitors, and responding posi-tively to the area’s economic needs. This could involve either working with landowners and farmers in rural areas, addressing their needs, even pro-viding financial assistance on occasions with repairs to the walls and fences that are so vital for both landscape and visitors, for example, or helping deal with problems of degradation and vandalism in the urban fringe. Before this, there had been a much stronger focus on the difficulties of balancing conservation requirements with those of potential visitors; but countryside management evolved as a mechanism for recognising and balancing these needs with those of the local communities and local land managers, by developing a wide range of challenging but successful initiatives. This timely book takes us through much of the background, to provide a rich resource for charting the growth in service and expertise, both in England and further afield. The more detailed analysis of a number of case studies and a critical evaluation of the history of countryside manage-ment, offers a valuable insight into the collective lessons learnt and best practices developed from this period. It is hoped that, at the very least, they will be better understood and valued in the future. However, the crucial analysis of the current situation of many of these services and pro-jects offers a much less hopeful picture. More optimistically, this analysis surely makes a persuasive case for those who continue to grapple with all the issues raised by sustainable management of our countryside and green-spaces to look again at some of these programmes and the lessons learnt as potential solutions for some of the problems we currently face. This book offers a challenge to the sector. During the period covered here there were both local democratic structures with the resources and confidence to offer stable core funding to projects, and a national cham-pion with the resources and confidence to take risks and experiment to find locally appropriate solutions. The model therefore clearly worked well, and was a key contributory factor in the successes this book charts. Nevertheless, everything feels very different now, with tight budget con-straints both nationally and locally, and inevitable pressure to demonstrate

Foreword xiii

clear tangible and timely outcomes for every penny invested. However, if the problems and challenges remain, but this model can no longer work in the way it has, how can we meet our present and future needs in this area? How can we take the lessons from this period and use them to build a new delivery model that better fits our current situation?

Hazel N. ThomasNovember 2014

Preface

This is an historical account of the emergence, evolution, and decline of an unappreciated service supporting sustainable communities and coun-tryside. The book is based primarily on around thirty years’ hands- on experience in countryside management and related areas and on a major study for the Countryside Agency to assess and evaluate local authority countryside service provision in England. Since the later 1960s, with the emergence of Country Parks and Forest Parks, countryside services have been at the heart of delivering countryside leisure, recreation, tourism, and conservation across the entire country. They were vital to many land restoration and regional regeneration projects from the 1970s through to the 2000s, and today are at the heart of many initiatives to deliver health and wellbeing, active citizenship, economic renewal, and biodiversity. Yet these services are currently being decimated as public services are sacri-ficed to the new era of austerity. Following cuts to liberal studies and low- cost adult education, countryside management is another facet in our quality of life, taken for granted, but now under the most severe threat. This is surprising when individual projects can be documented which have transformed landscapes, lives, and economies. They provide education facilities, support, and adult training too. Until now with this book, these roles and their importance have been barely documented; planners, politi-cians, and others seem blissfully ignorant of the consequences and ramifi-cations of the cuts. Interestingly, too, professionals in the fields of tourism, leisure, outdoor recreation, and sports have limited awareness or under-standing of countryside management and the associated disciplines. Based on a major national review in England, on stakeholder workshops and interviews, and on in- depth individual case studies, this book rigorously examines the issues, the alternatives, and the consequences. The volume includes a full and extensive literature review, which traces the ideas of countryside management back to their origins in Empire and Common-wealth Forestry Services, and in the Ranger Services of American National Parks. It considers relationships to National Parks, the Forestry Commission, and the voluntary and private sectors. From its urban and urban- fringe pasts in the 1980s, to the wider services developed through Community Forests

Preface xv

and the New National Forest, the text details the achievements of a largely forgotten sector. Whilst based strongly on an English in- depth study, the findings and content relate to the whole of the British Isles. Furthermore, in both the introductory chapters and the concluding section of the book, the author considers the wider relationships and ramifications with countryside and ranger provisions around the world, including North America, and Europe. Along with the influences of the Empire Forestry Services, British countryside management was strongly affected by the North American models of Forest and National Parks Services. In recent decades, British models have influenced and affected those emerging across parts of Europe. The book addresses the various approaches which are possible and that have been tried and tested, and the contributions to countryside services made by private, voluntary, and public sectors. This is to seek a positive way forwards that does not jettison the gains and progress made over the last forty to fifty years. The core research was undertaken in England and includes long- term (thirty- year) observational studies of particular services. However, the book addresses issues pertinent to delivery of countryside ser-vices across the whole of Great Britain, including the devolved regions and countries, and from the urban heartlands to the rural National Parks. The book:

1 brings together a unique review of the historic development of modern countryside services, Country Parks, Forest Parks, and National Parks;

2 considers the need for such services and how they were targeted to maximum effect;

3 discusses how countryside services have delivered so much that today is taken for granted and yet is at the heart of many community partnerships;

4 presents overviews of key issues with case studies and case histories to exemplify key points;

5 provides a critical overview of the broad issues to challenge planners, politicians, conservationists, environmentalists, and land managers. This relates to a diversity of disciplines working with or having inter-ests in countryside, leisure and tourism, community issues, education, and biodiversity.

The work draws on major stakeholder studies in 2005/2006 (Rotherham et al., 2006c, 2006d, 2006e), and by my postgraduate student Andy Carnall in 2013, and refers to a Scottish study (Mackie, 2013). Action research and long- term observational case studies underpin the core of the volume.

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge the contributions and support of my research teams over many years and of many friends and colleagues involved in country-side management and the environmental movement. In particular, Hazel Thomas and Jo Burgon read a draft and made helpful comments. Others such as John Handley helped with insight into Groundwork, and Hilary Kirkpatrick into the situation in Northern Ireland. Andy Carnall and Alan Mackie provided access to their own research. The CMA helped with information and data on their membership trends. Kevin Theaker of the Scottish Rural University College was also especially helpful. The editors at Earthscan/Routledge are thanked for their support and patience.

Abbreviations

ACT Activity Coordination TeamAONB Area of Outstanding Natural BeautyBAP Biodiversity Action PlanBARS Biodiversity Action Reporting SystemBEN Black Environment NetworkBME Black and Minority Ethnic groupBMI body mass indexBRAG Biodiversity Research Advisory GroupBRIG Biodiversity Reporting and Information GroupBTCV British Trust for Conservation VolunteersCABE Commission for Architecture and the Built EnvironmentCCC Civilian Conservation CorpsCCPR Central Council for Physical RecreationCCS Countryside Commission for ScotlandCCT Compulsory Competitive TenderingCCW Countryside Council for WalesCEOs Chief Education OfficersCIEEM Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental

ManagementCMA Countryside Management AssociationCMS countryside management servicesCO2 carbon dioxideCoAg Countryside AgencyCoCo Countryside CommissionCPPs Community Planning PartnershipsCPRE Council for the Protection of Rural EnglandCPS Countryside Premium SchemeCRN Countryside Recreation NetworkCROW Act Countryside Rights of Way ActCRRAG Countryside Recreation Research Advisory GroupDefra Department for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsDoE Department of the EnvironmentEEC European Economic Community

xviii Abbreviations

EHSNI Environment and Heritage Service, Northern IrelandESA Environmentally Sensitive AreasESS Environmental Stewardship SchemeEU European UnionFMD foot- and-mouth diseaseFTE full- time equivalentGDP gross domestic productHLF Heritage Lottery FundIRF International Ranger FederationIUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature and

Natural ResourcesJCP Job Creation ProgrammeJNCC Joint Nature Conservation CommitteeLANTRA Non- governmental body focussed on the skills and

training needs of land management and production, animal health and welfare, and environmental industries

LAR Landscape and Recreation division of the Countryside Agency

LBAPs Local Biodiversity Action PlansLEAs Local Education AuthoritiesLNR Local Nature ReservesLPP Local Products ProgrammesMAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and FoodMBC Metropolitan Borough CouncilMENE Monitor of Engagement with the Natural EnvironmentMSC Manpower Services CommissionNCC Nature Conservancy CouncilNGO non- governmental organisationNNR National Nature ReservesNPC National Parks CommissionNPS National Park ServiceNVQs National Vocational QualificationsODPM Office of the Deputy Prime MinisterPPG Planning Policy GuidancePPI Positive Planning InterventionPPSs Planning Policy StatementsRDC Rural Development CommissionREACT Regeneration through Environmental ActionRoW Rights of WayRoWIPs Rights of Way Improvement PlansRSPB Royal Society for the Protection of BirdsSAC Special Areas of ConservationSBS Scottish Biodiversity StrategySBSG Sheffield Bird Study GroupSCRA Scottish Rangers Association

Abbreviations xix

SHEBEEN Sheffield Black and Ethnic Minority Environmental Network

SINCs Sites of Interest for Nature ConservationSNH Scottish Natural HeritageSOAs Single Outcome AgreementsSPA Special Protection AreasSTEP Special Temporary Employment ProgrammeSVQ Scottish Vocational QualificationSWAP Sheffield Wildlife Action PartnershipSWT Scottish Wildlife TrustTCV Trust for Conservation VolunteersTECRU (SHU) The Environment & Countryside Research Unit, Sheffield

Hallam UniversityTIC Tourist Information CentresUFEX Urban Fringe Management ExperimentUMEX Upland Management ExperimentsYOP Youth Opportunities Programme

This page intentionally left blank

1 The history and development of countryside management in Britain

There is a tide in the affairs of men.Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;Omitted, all the voyage of their lifeIs bound in shallows and in miseries.On such a full sea are we now afloat,And we must take the current when it serves,Or lose our ventures.

Brutus, Julius Caesar, Act 4, Scene 3, 218–224 (William Shakespeare, c.1599)

Summary

Countryside management services and projects represent one of the most successful and transformational public sector interventions in local planning processes since the 1950s. Yet their rise and now rapid decline, at least in the public sector, have been almost totally overlooked by planners and other decision- makers. This book draws on thirty years or more of observational and participatory action research, and on major reviews of the sector. Chapter 1 sets the scene and context for the book, establishing the history and development of countryside management and the broad range of disciplines and professions that together form this unique sector. Fur-thermore, the diversity of actors and players in countryside management and associated activities, and the balance between public sector, NGOs, and private businesses are considered. In a society in which senior politi-cians speak of the ‘Big Society’ and ‘active citizenship’, it seems remark-able that the main mechanism for delivering such things, and with a record of accomplishment of success, of professional standards, and of value for money, is ending. Even more surprising perhaps is that this sector is being cut to the bone with barely a murmur with decades of good works undone. However, some impacts of public sector cuts with changed government were predicted (Rotherham, 2010). The introduction provides an overview of issues and factors that drove the development of first National Parks and then Country Parks, Forest

Tab

le 1

.1 A

tim

e-lin

e of

key

eve

nts

in th

e de

velo

pmen

t of c

oun

trys

ide

man

agem

ent

Dat

e Ev

ent

Sign

ifica

nce

1949

Th

e N

atio

nal

Par

ks a

nd

Acc

ess

to th

e C

oun

trys

ide

Act

Nat

ion

al P

arks

Com

mis

sion

(N

PC)

and

the

crea

tion

of N

atio

nal

Par

ks,

Nat

ure

Con

serv

ancy

, AO

NB

s, a

nd

the

esta

blis

hm

ent o

f lon

g-di

stan

ce

foot

path

s an

d m

ore

1951

Th

e Pe

ak D

istr

ict b

ecam

e B

rita

in’s

firs

t N

atio

nal

Par

k19

68C

oun

trys

ide

Act

Est

ablis

hm

ent o

f Cou

ntr

ysid

e C

omm

issi

on(s

)C

oun

try

Park

s be

ing

desi

gnat

ed a

nd

fun

ded

1969

Upl

and

Man

agem

ent E

xper

imen

ts

(UM

EX

)Pi

onee

rin

g te

stin

g of

app

roac

hes

; em

erge

nce

of ‘

coun

trys

ide

man

agem

ent’

earl

y 19

70s

Urb

an F

rin

ge M

anag

emen

t Exp

erim

ent

(UFE

X)

Tes

ted

new

app

roac

hes

in th

e M

anch

este

r B

ollin

Val

ley

1973

Th

e H

erit

age

Coa

sts

init

iati

ve b

egan

T

hre

e pi

lot p

roje

cts:

Pur

beck

, Suf

folk

, an

d G

lam

orga

n19

73N

atur

e C

onse

rvan

cy b

ecom

es th

e N

atur

e C

onse

rvan

cy C

oun

cil

NC

C w

as th

e U

nit

ed K

ingd

om a

gen

cy r

espo

nsi

ble

for

desi

gnat

ing

and

man

agin

g N

atio

nal

Nat

ure

Res

erve

s an

d ot

her

nat

ure

con

serv

atio

n a

reas

be

twee

n 1

973

and

1991

; exc

ludi

ng

Nor

ther

n I

rela

nd

1973

Bri

tain

’s e

ntr

y in

to th

e E

U/E

EC

Hug

e im

plic

atio

ns

for

polic

y, g

ran

t aid

, an

d le

gisl

atio

n19

74U

FEX

on

a la

rger

sca

le in

the

Met

ropo

litan

G

reen

Bel

t of L

ondo

n a

t Bar

net

an

d at

H

aver

ing

Ext

endi

ng

the

appr

oach

1974

L

ocal

Gov

ern

men

t Act

Com

mis

sion

gai

ned

wid

e-ra

ngi

ng

gran

t giv

ing

pow

ers

Res

truc

turi

ng

of lo

cal g

over

nm

ent

1976

CoC

o es

tabl

ish

ed r

egio

nal

offi

ces

Beg

inn

ing

to d

evel

op p

rogr

amm

es o

f urb

an-fr

inge

wor

k w

ith

loca

l au

thor

itie

s19

75/7

634

urb

an-fr

inge

pro

ject

s su

ppor

ted

Mov

ing

beyo

nd

just

pro

ject

offi

cer

appr

oach

es o

f th

e ea

rly

UM

EX

an

d U

FEX

pro

ject

s19

77A

nn

oun

cem

ent b

y C

oCo

of m

ove

to

larg

er-s

cale

urb

an-fr

inge

exp

erim

ents

to

begi

n in

198

0

Cal

l for

can

dida

te lo

cal a

uth

orit

ies

led

to th

e pr

ojec

t est

ablis

hed

in th

e M

etro

polit

an B

orou

gh o

f St H

elen

s an

d K

now

sley

on

Mer

seys

ide.

Em

erge

nce

of t

he

Gro

undw

ork

con

cept

1979

Ele

ctio

n o

f th

e C

onse

rvat

ive

‘Th

atch

er’

gove

rnm

ent w

ith

Mic

hae

l Hes

elti

ne

as

Secr

etar

y of

Sta

te fo

r th

e E

nvi

ron

men

t

Evo

luti

on o

f th

e pu

blic

–pri

vate

par

tner

ship

of t

he

Gro

undw

ork

Tru

sts

1980

Wor

ld C

onse

rvat

ion

Stra

tegy

pub

lish

ed

Gro

win

g im

petu

s fo

r h

olis

tic

acti

on to

sol

ve e

nvi

ron

men

tal p

robl

ems

1980

sG

row

th o

f loc

al a

uth

orit

y co

untr

ysid

e se

rvic

es a

nd

urba

n-fr

inge

pro

ject

are

as

1980

sC

ompu

lsor

y C

ompe

titi

ve T

ende

rin

g fo

r lo

cal a

uth

orit

y se

rvic

es

Lon

g-te

rm im

plic

atio

ns

for

deliv

ery;

oth

er p

roce

sses

an

d re

view

s fo

llow

ed

thro

ugh

out t

he

peri

od to

the

pres

ent

1981

Firs

t Ope

rati

on G

roun

dwor

k fo

rmer

ly

esta

blis

hed

19

81W

ildlif

e an

d C

oun

trys

ide

Act

Bas

elin

e le

gisl

atio

n fo

r ye

ars

to c

ome

1982

Urb

an r

iots

in T

oxte

th a

nd

else

wh

ere

New

focu

s on

are

as o

f urb

an d

epri

vati

on a

nd

desp

olia

tion

1983

Gro

undw

ork

mod

el e

xten

ded

to o

ther

bo

roug

hs

1987

Intr

oduc

tion

of fi

rst a

gri-e

nvi

ron

men

t sc

hem

es in

Bri

tain

Led

to C

oun

trys

ide

Stew

ards

hip

, En

viro

nm

ent S

tew

ards

hip

, an

d E

nvi

ron

men

tally

Sen

siti

ve A

reas

pro

ject

s19

90T

own

an

d C

oun

try

Plan

nin

g A

ctL

ocal

aut

hor

itie

s ab

le to

en

ter

agre

emen

ts w

ith

pri

vate

lan

dow

ner

s to

m

inim

ise

adve

rse

impa

cts

of d

evel

opm

ents

on

loca

l com

mun

itie

s19

90T

he

New

Nat

ion

al F

ores

t an

d C

omm

unit

y Fo

rest

In

itia

tive

s in

trod

uced

by

the

Cou

ntr

ysid

e C

omm

issi

on

Ref

ocus

of C

oCo

gran

t aid

an

d su

ppor

t an

d em

erge

nce

of i

deas

on

urb

an

fore

stry

an

d su

stai

nab

le w

oodl

ands

1990

En

viro

nm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Act

19

91Fo

llow

ing

the

abov

e an

d th

e N

atur

al

Her

itag

e (S

cotl

and)

Act

199

1, th

e N

atur

e C

onse

rvan

cy C

oun

cil s

plit

into

thre

eE

ngl

and

reta

ined

the

sepa

rate

age

nci

es o

f E

ngl

ish

Nat

ure,

an

d th

e C

oun

trys

ide

Com

mis

sion

Th

e Jo

int N

atur

e C

onse

rvat

ion

Com

mit

tee

(JN

CC

) co

ordi

nat

ed n

atur

e co

nse

rvat

ion

be

twee

n th

e th

ree

coun

try

agen

cies

(an

d th

eir

equi

vale

nt i

n N

orth

ern

Ire

lan

d)

Am

alga

mat

ed w

ith

the

Cou

ntr

ysid

e C

omm

issi

on fo

r Sc

otla

nd,

the

Scot

tish

pa

rt b

ecam

e Sc

otti

sh N

atur

al H

erit

age

Am

alga

mat

ed w

ith

the

Wel

sh p

art o

f th

e C

oun

trys

ide

Com

mis

sion

for

En

glan

d an

d W

ales

, th

e W

elsh

par

t bec

ame

the

Cou

ntr

ysid

e C

oun

cil f

or

Wal

es

Tab

le 1

.1 A

tim

e-lin

e of

key

eve

nts

in th

e de

velo

pmen

t of c

oun

trys

ide

man

agem

ent

Dat

e Ev

ent

Sign

ifica

nce

1949

Th

e N

atio

nal

Par

ks a

nd

Acc

ess

to th

e C

oun

trys

ide

Act

Nat

ion

al P

arks

Com

mis

sion

(N

PC)

and

the

crea

tion

of N

atio

nal

Par

ks,

Nat

ure

Con

serv

ancy

, AO

NB

s, a

nd

the

esta

blis

hm

ent o

f lon

g-di

stan

ce

foot

path

s an

d m

ore

1951

Th

e Pe

ak D

istr

ict b

ecam

e B

rita

in’s

firs

t N

atio

nal

Par

k19

68C

oun

trys

ide

Act

Est

ablis

hm

ent o

f Cou

ntr

ysid

e C

omm

issi

on(s

)C

oun

try

Park

s be

ing

desi

gnat

ed a

nd

fun

ded

1969

Upl

and

Man

agem

ent E

xper

imen

ts

(UM

EX

)Pi

onee

rin

g te

stin

g of

app

roac

hes

; em

erge

nce

of ‘

coun

trys

ide

man

agem

ent’

earl

y 19

70s

Urb

an F

rin

ge M

anag

emen

t Exp

erim

ent

(UFE

X)

Tes

ted

new

app

roac

hes

in th

e M

anch

este

r B

ollin

Val

ley

1973

Th

e H

erit

age

Coa

sts

init

iati

ve b

egan

T

hre

e pi

lot p

roje

cts:

Pur

beck

, Suf

folk

, an

d G

lam

orga

n19

73N

atur

e C

onse

rvan

cy b

ecom

es th

e N

atur

e C

onse

rvan

cy C

oun

cil

NC

C w

as th

e U

nit

ed K

ingd

om a

gen

cy r

espo

nsi

ble

for

desi

gnat

ing

and

man

agin

g N

atio

nal

Nat

ure

Res

erve

s an

d ot

her

nat

ure

con

serv

atio

n a

reas

be

twee

n 1

973

and

1991

; exc

ludi

ng

Nor

ther

n I

rela

nd

1973

Bri

tain

’s e

ntr

y in

to th

e E

U/E

EC

Hug

e im

plic

atio

ns

for

polic

y, g

ran

t aid

, an

d le

gisl

atio

n19

74U

FEX

on

a la

rger

sca

le in

the

Met

ropo

litan

G

reen

Bel

t of L

ondo

n a

t Bar

net

an

d at

H

aver

ing

Ext

endi

ng

the

appr

oach

1974

L

ocal

Gov

ern

men

t Act

Com

mis

sion

gai

ned

wid

e-ra

ngi

ng

gran

t giv

ing

pow

ers

Res

truc

turi

ng

of lo

cal g

over

nm

ent

1976

CoC

o es

tabl

ish

ed r

egio

nal

offi

ces

Beg

inn

ing

to d

evel

op p

rogr

amm

es o

f urb

an-fr

inge

wor

k w

ith

loca

l au

thor

itie

s19

75/7

634

urb

an-fr

inge

pro

ject

s su

ppor

ted

Mov

ing

beyo

nd

just

pro

ject

offi

cer

appr

oach

es o

f th

e ea

rly

UM

EX

an

d U

FEX

pro

ject

s19

77A

nn

oun

cem

ent b

y C

oCo

of m

ove

to

larg

er-s

cale

urb

an-fr

inge

exp

erim

ents

to

begi

n in

198

0

Cal

l for

can

dida

te lo

cal a

uth

orit

ies

led

to th

e pr

ojec

t est

ablis

hed

in th

e M

etro

polit

an B

orou

gh o

f St H

elen

s an

d K

now

sley

on

Mer

seys

ide.

Em

erge

nce

of t

he

Gro

undw

ork

con

cept

1979

Ele

ctio

n o

f th

e C

onse

rvat

ive

‘Th

atch

er’

gove

rnm

ent w

ith

Mic

hae

l Hes

elti

ne

as

Secr

etar

y of

Sta

te fo

r th

e E

nvi

ron

men

t

Evo

luti

on o

f th

e pu

blic

–pri

vate

par

tner

ship

of t

he

Gro

undw

ork

Tru

sts

1980

Wor

ld C

onse

rvat

ion

Stra

tegy

pub

lish

ed

Gro

win

g im

petu

s fo

r h

olis

tic

acti

on to

sol

ve e

nvi

ron

men

tal p

robl

ems

1980

sG

row

th o

f loc

al a

uth

orit

y co

untr

ysid

e se

rvic

es a

nd

urba

n-fr

inge

pro

ject

are

as

1980

sC

ompu

lsor

y C

ompe

titi

ve T

ende

rin

g fo

r lo

cal a

uth

orit

y se

rvic

es

Lon

g-te

rm im

plic

atio

ns

for

deliv

ery;

oth

er p

roce

sses

an

d re

view

s fo

llow

ed

thro

ugh

out t

he

peri

od to

the

pres

ent

1981

Firs

t Ope

rati

on G

roun

dwor

k fo

rmer

ly

esta

blis

hed

19

81W

ildlif

e an

d C

oun

trys

ide

Act

Bas

elin

e le

gisl

atio

n fo

r ye

ars

to c

ome

1982

Urb

an r

iots

in T

oxte

th a

nd

else

wh

ere

New

focu

s on

are

as o

f urb

an d

epri

vati

on a

nd

desp

olia

tion

1983

Gro

undw

ork

mod

el e

xten

ded

to o

ther

bo

roug

hs

1987

Intr

oduc

tion

of fi

rst a

gri-e

nvi

ron

men

t sc

hem

es in

Bri

tain

Led

to C

oun

trys

ide

Stew

ards

hip

, En

viro

nm

ent S

tew

ards

hip

, an

d E

nvi

ron

men

tally

Sen

siti

ve A

reas

pro

ject

s19

90T

own

an

d C

oun

try

Plan

nin

g A

ctL

ocal

aut

hor

itie

s ab

le to

en

ter

agre

emen

ts w

ith

pri

vate

lan

dow

ner

s to

m

inim

ise

adve

rse

impa

cts

of d

evel

opm

ents

on

loca

l com

mun

itie

s19

90T

he

New

Nat

ion

al F

ores

t an

d C

omm

unit

y Fo

rest

In

itia

tive

s in

trod

uced

by

the

Cou

ntr

ysid

e C

omm

issi

on

Ref

ocus

of C

oCo

gran

t aid

an

d su

ppor

t an

d em

erge

nce

of i

deas

on

urb

an

fore

stry

an

d su

stai

nab

le w

oodl

ands

1990

En

viro

nm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Act

19

91Fo

llow

ing

the

abov

e an

d th

e N

atur

al

Her

itag

e (S

cotl

and)

Act

199

1, th

e N

atur

e C

onse

rvan

cy C

oun

cil s

plit

into

thre

eE

ngl

and

reta

ined

the

sepa

rate

age

nci

es o

f E

ngl

ish

Nat

ure,

an

d th

e C

oun

trys

ide

Com

mis

sion

Th

e Jo

int N

atur

e C

onse

rvat

ion

Com

mit

tee

(JN

CC

) co

ordi

nat

ed n

atur

e co

nse

rvat

ion

be

twee

n th

e th

ree

coun

try

agen

cies

(an

d th

eir

equi

vale

nt i

n N

orth

ern

Ire

lan

d)

Am

alga

mat

ed w

ith

the

Cou

ntr

ysid

e C

omm

issi

on fo

r Sc

otla

nd,

the

Scot

tish

pa

rt b

ecam

e Sc

otti

sh N

atur

al H

erit

age

Am

alga

mat

ed w

ith

the

Wel

sh p

art o

f th

e C

oun

trys

ide

Com

mis

sion

for

En

glan

d an

d W

ales

, th

e W

elsh

par

t bec

ame

the

Cou

ntr

ysid

e C

oun

cil f

or

Wal

es

cont

inue

d

Dat

e Ev

ent

Sign

ifica

nce

1992

Scot

t Rep

ort o

n lo

cal a

uth

orit

y de

liver

y of

co

untr

ysid

e se

rvic

esFi

rst i

n-d

epth

ass

essm

ent o

f ach

ieve

men

t

1992

Rio

‘Ear

th S

umm

it’

Leg

acy

of ‘A

gen

da 2

1’C

onve

nti

on o

f Bio

logi

cal D

iver

sity

1992

Eur

opea

n H

abit

ats

Dir

ecti

ve

Polic

y dr

iver

19

94N

atio

nal

Lot

tery

Incr

easi

ng

impo

rtan

ce o

f Her

itag

e L

otte

ry a

nd

oth

er g

ran

ts19

98R

egio

nal

Age

nci

es D

evel

opm

ent A

ctE

stab

lish

ed th

e C

oun

trys

ide

Age

ncy

by

mer

gin

g th

e C

oun

trys

ide

Com

mis

sion

an

d th

e R

ural

Dev

elop

men

t Com

mis

sion

1998

on

war

ds

Proc

ess

of d

evol

utio

n o

f pol

itic

al a

uth

orit

y fr

om W

estm

inst

er to

Sco

tlan

d an

d to

W

ales

beg

un

Maj

or im

plic

atio

ns

for

deliv

ery

of c

oun

trys

ide

serv

ices

an

d of

con

sist

ency

of

nat

ion

al q

ualit

y an

d st

anda

rds

2000

Cou

ntr

ysid

e R

igh

ts o

f Way

Act

(C

RO

W A

ct)

Tra

nsf

orm

atio

n a

nd

rati

onal

isat

ion

of a

cces

s to

ope

n c

oun

trys

ide

2000

Eur

opea

n W

ater

Fra

mew

ork

Dir

ecti

veM

ajor

pol

icy

impl

icat

ion

s ye

t to

be fu

lly r

ealis

ed20

03H

aski

ns

Rev

iew

Iden

tifi

ed a

reas

of d

isad

van

tage

in r

ural

sec

tors

, an

d is

sues

for

gove

rnm

ent

serv

ices

2004

Maj

or c

onsu

ltat

ion

laun

ched

by

Cou

ntr

ysid

e A

gen

cy a

nd

Gro

undw

ork

‘Un

lock

ing

the

pote

nti

al o

f th

e ru

ral

urba

n fr

inge

’

Impa

cts

limit

ed b

y th

e m

ove

of C

oAg

to b

ecom

e pa

rt o

f Nat

ural

En

glan

d an

d th

e su

bseq

uen

t eff

ects

of p

olit

ical

an

d ec

onom

ic tu

rmoi

l

2006

Nat

ural

En

glan

d es

tabl

ish

edC

oAg

and

En

glis

h N

atur

e m

erge

d20

06B

rita

in s

ign

ed th

e E

urop

ean

Lan

dsca

pe

Con

ven

tion

M

ajor

pol

icy

impl

icat

ion

s

2008

G

loba

l eco

nom

ic c

risi

s an

d re

cess

ion

Em

erge

nce

of t

he

new

‘aus

teri

ty’ a

nd

ongo

ing

deep

cut

s to

gov

ern

men

t ag

enci

es a

nd

to lo

cal a

uth

orit

ies

2010

UK

gen

eral

ele

ctio

n a

nd

esta

blis

hm

ent o

f co

alit

ion

gov

ern

men

tR

adic

al c

uts

to g

over

nm

ent a

nd

loca

l gov

ern

men

t ser

vice

s an

d m

oves

to d

o aw

ay w

ith

‘en

viro

nm

enta

l red

tape

’

Tab

le 1

.1 C

onti

nue

d

History and development in Britain 5

Parks, Countryside Management Areas and Projects, and countryside ser-vices. Origins in the forestry services of the Empire and the Common-wealth are explained in Chapter 13, as is the link to the North American Forest rangers and National Park rangers. The sometimes- uneasy relation-ships between nature reserves, nature conservation, and countryside man-agement are explored, along with the emergence of Community Forest Projects and the New National Forest. Alongside services and projects, the growth of professional status, qualifications, training, and careers are noted, and so too is the rise of the non- governmental conservation sector such as the Wildlife Trusts, the Woodland Trust, the National Trust, the RSPB, and others. Again, in Chapter 13, the wider international influences and histories are discussed. From the perspective of research and under-standing of the sector, one remarkable aspect is its almost complete absence from the standard literature on planning, housing, and community- related matters. The only significant statement on related matters was by Lavery (1982). Key texts, for example on UK housing policy and planning issues, such as Goodchild (2008), do not refer to these major policy interventions. This is even more surprising when planners working closely with local tenants’ associations and others, led many coun-tryside projects in the urban fringe.

Introduction

Early origins

It is often said that there is no such thing as a new ‘good idea’, and the concept of a countryside ranger falls into this category. Whilst today’s countryside rangers, forest rangers and National Park rangers are of relat-ively recent origin, the idea goes back to early medieval times or before. In this context, and not so different from today, rangers were officials employed to ‘range’ through the countryside providing law and order. Originally, their tasks were limited to the enforcement of the Forest Laws and was enforced in the purlieus or lands of the Royal Forests. The term ‘ranger’ derived from the medieval Latin word ‘regardatores’ and this was noted in the 1217 Charter of the Forest, with appointments of rangers documented from the 1300s. The office of ‘Ranger of Windsor Great Park’, which continues to this day, was created in 1601 and the present Ranger is HRH Prince Philip. Areas of mixed economic and social use, but with sporting and recrea-tional activities subject to the Forest Laws, the Royal Forests were important in the British medieval landscape. Essentially, these gave pre-cedence to royal ownership of hunting rights of defined beasts of the chase, to the king, and through the king to favoured aristocrats. The laws also addressed certain economic resource rights and particularly the right to take trees for timber. However, the forest was not a landscape set aside

6 History and development in Britain

for these purposes (as some parks were) but a multi- functional, economic-ally driven countryside. As a contested space with different landowners, residents, and users, the forest required supervision and policing, just as modern countryside does. Specially appointed officials including those termed wardens or rangers undertook the supervision. Administration was complex and hierarchical, in the way that a contemporary National Park or local authority might be. Justices of the forest were the Justice in Eyre

Figure 1.1 Forest rangers, Germany, 1935.


and the verderers. The senior royal official was the Warden, often an eminent, busy landowner. In this case, the day- to-day powers were dele-gated to a deputy who supervised Foresters and Under- foresters (or Rangers). These latter officials were responsible for preserving the forest and game, and for apprehending offenders against the Forest Laws. Other officers included Agisters supervising pannage, agistment, and collecting fees. There was a Forest Constable and Foresters- in-fee (or Woodwards). The Royal Forests also had Surveyors to agree and oversee the boundaries of the forest, and Regarders who provided advice to the Warden. The Forest Rangers were also termed the Patrollers of the purlieu (or land), and with Serjeants- in-fee, patrolled the forest, apprehended offenders, liaised with local communities, and generally administered the area. This system was largely abandoned as lands were ‘improved’ and deer hunting declined in popularity. With commons enclosed and commoners left to swell the ranks of the Victorian urban poor, the countryside was more- or-less closed to ordinary people. Rangers and similar posts morphed into gamekeepers employed to deter poachers and trespassers. However, as described later, as Victorian industry fuelled massive growth in urban populations, demand for open spaces and recreational lands grew. By the late 1800s and early 1900s, the suburbs and wider coun-tryside were dotted with urban parks with park keepers, landscaped country parks with parkers and gamekeepers, nature reserves with wardens, and forestry areas with foresters. It was from these beginnings that the countryside services we recognise today evolved. Furthermore, the evolution of the countryside professionals did not occur in isolation but against a backdrop of radical changes in politics, economics, society and the environment, the context for both need and demand (Rotherham, 2014).

Today’s countryside officers

Local authority countryside services play crucial roles in providing a balance for competing demands for public access and recreation, visual and aesthetic quality, and wildlife and natural history interest of the area they cover (Bromley, 1990). Unfortunately, during times of financial aus-terity, countryside service teams take a lowly place in local government pri-orities (Seabrooke and Miles, 1993). Indeed, many aspects of government expenditure on environmental activities, including funding to govern-ment agencies, grants for conservation work, support to non- governmental organisations, and to local authority parks and countryside services, are easy to cut (Townsend, 2012). Recent decisions made by central government to cut funding to local authorities mean that they in turn have had to, and continue to make, tough fiscal decisions. This is simply to bring about financial savings to balance their books, whilst maintaining supposedly ‘frontline’ or priority


services. Countryside management and associated services are seen as ‘soft options’ by comparison with, say, housing, health, or education. This was the case in the early 1990s, and it remains so today. These central govern-ment decisions inevitably mean service budget cuts, job losses and restruc-turing, or even axing of local authority countryside services. The NGOs pick up some of the challenges, but, even then, the work must be funded.

Economic austerity

Carnall (2013) reviewed the consequences of the economic austerity meas-ures. In 2010, the UK coalition government presented its spending review that set out how it was to carry out its deficit reduction plan up to the finan-cial year 2014–2015. This came at a time when the state was spending considerably more money than it raised in taxes and had to borrow at sup-posedly record levels, to meet the shortfall. The aim was to cut public spend-ing by £81 billion over the following five years. Each government department had their budgets cut by an average 19 per cent over the review period (HM Treasury, 2010). The spending review was underpinned by a radical programme of public sector reforms, which claimed to focus on removing power from central government and redistributing it to local level. The aim was to build a ‘Big Society’ that supported communities, citizens, and volunteers in playing a bigger role in shaping provision and delivery of public services (HM Treasury, 2010). The three key elements to the Big Society agenda were described as community empowerment, opening up public services, and social action (Cabinet Office, undated). However, the overall reduction in funding allocations from central gov-ernment presented tough decisions to local authorities on how they deliver services. To make matters even worse, in June 2013, the govern-ment announced a further spending review outlining how the deficit would be further reduced. This meant an additional budget cut totalling £11.5 billion for the financial year 2015–2016 (HM Treasury, 2013) and additional challenges to local authorities. Despite claims of devolving powers and responsibilities to local government, the reality is that core ser-vices and skills have been axed to the extent that many environmental ser-vices now barely function, proactive planning has been emasculated, and support to local communities and charitable bodies withdrawn. Additional cuts of a further 10 per cent budget reduction to the Department for Communities and Local Government simply reinforced political ‘double- speak’. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would also take a further 10 per cent cut, and a further loss of 144,000 public sector jobs within local authorities was predicted (BBC, 2013). Over the period since the 1950s, the historical progression from the National Parks Commission, to the Countryside Commission to the Coun-tryside Agency has resulted in numerous and frequent changes in remits and emphasis of project delivery. The amount of associated legislation and


policy discussion in these decades was notable and restructuring and reor-ganisation continue to this day. Consequently, many people today take things like access to the countryside for granted. Along with this, the pro-tection of countryside areas, especially the Green Belt or National Parks, is an assumed state of affairs. Within a broader sweep of society, there are notable communities, such as ethnic minority groups, who are often excluded from or even unaware of the opportunities for countryside leisure. Furthermore, technological advances and the demands of an increasingly urban society have changed demographics, behaviour, rural landscapes, and countryside use.

The evolution of countryside services

Until the 1970s, nature conservation in Britain was mainly a rural activity with little interest in the urban environment. However, with a combina-tion of ever- growing towns and cities but also a vast legacy of despoiled and derelict post- industrial land, this situation began to change. The gov-ernment at that time became increasingly interested in revitalising inner- city areas and providing more greenspaces, both in the towns and cities but also beyond them, in the countryside. The government body respons-ible for conservation of wildlife and nature and with a role across the whole of England, Wales, and Scotland, was the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC). Senior officers in the NCC recognised that nature conser-vation in towns and cities was all about getting people involved and enabling them to make the most of the opportunities on offer (Marren, 2002). However, at the same time, the National Parks Commission was looking to widen its own brief beyond the parks in the countryside. Estab-lished under the Countryside Act (1968), the Countryside Commission took up this challenge of addressing both the wider countryside and the urban public who now wished to recreate in it. The Countryside Commis-sion led this in England and Wales with the Countryside Commission for Scotland responsible north of the border. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, following its establishment under the Act, the Countryside Commission began to develop concepts of coun-tryside management (Bromley, 1990). In 1969, they started piloting upland management experiments to test the ideas of positive area man-agement. The main aim was to reconcile conflicts between farmers and recreation activities. This was achieved by making small grants available to farmers to allow them both to enhance the appearance of the landscape and to develop recreational opportunities. The key to success was the appointment of a specific project officer with the independence to identify the work needed and the ability to get the work done within the confines of a modest budget (Glyptis, 1991; Green, 2002). It was suggested by the Countryside Commission that the area manage-ment approach was the way forward and this method was extended to the


urban-fringe area (Glyptis, 1991). The Countryside Commission (1981a) described the urban fringe as the inner zone of the Green Belt, neither town nor countryside, but the transitional zone between the two. It is a limited and especially valuable resource where competing demands create problems and conflict of interest. For a farmer or other landowner, this land is simply a place of work, but problems of trespass and vandalism make it difficult to farm successfully. To a city dweller, it is often their closest accessible greenspace. Today, for example, being the area where Country Parks are generally located, it is widely accepted that the urban fringe should provide informal recreation opportunities to the adjacent urban population. However, to a developer it presents opportunities to build new housing, retail, and industrial sites. In so doing, the urban area expands to ‘grey the green’ and expand the body odour of the city. With the urban fringe spreading outwards, countryside retreats as farming becomes unviable. The emphasis of planning and Countryside Commission policies in the urban fringe was to reduce conflicts of interest, promote cooperation between stakeholders, and encourage positive use of the urban fringe. Experimental schemes were established which involved conserving and enhancing landscape character and the wildlife of the urban fringe. The projects were successful in pulling in local authorities and conservation volunteers to undertake practical tasks and demonstrated how local resources could be harnessed to carry out environmental improvements. Like the upland management schemes that went before, the key figure was the project officer who had to negotiate mutual respect and practical com-promises between the private landowners and the wider public interest (Glyptis, 1991; Green, 1996). Above all, they sought to improve public access, and authorities such as Hampshire County Council and Cheshire County Council, for example, pursued policies of land acquisition to help achieve their aims. The success of the early pilot schemes resulted in the development of a large number of additional schemes (Glyptis, 1991). Some of the projects evolved and took longer- term responsibility for land management (Dwyer and Hodge, 1996). Indeed, countryside management services of many urban local authorities around Great Britain evolved from urban-fringe experiments. By the early millennium, a considerable amount of the responsibility for planning and management of countryside lay with local authorities. The countryside management teams undertook many statu-tory functions and duties, often including overseeing local planning issues, and conservation of nature and biodiversity. They had key roles in provid-ing access to and provision of countryside recreation facilities and Public Rights of Way (Cope et al., 2000; Sharpley, 2003). Reorganisation of local government in 1974 helped provide an impetus for County Councils to promote footpaths, access, and Country Parks. A major drive was to improve countryside access and this continued through the 1990s in the


build- up to the Countryside Rights of Way Act (CROW Act). Garrod and Whitby (2005, p. 16) defined the process of countryside management as: ‘The manipulation of countryside resources and situations, often with incomplete information, to provide a sustainable supply of the countryside goods demanded by stakeholders.’ Deciding what is ‘sustainable’ is a tricky balancing act, but the core functions that define countryside management included provision of Country Parks, Countryside Management Areas, and other site manage-ment activities. Other works included Public Rights of Way and access, contributing to maintenance of the landscape and wider rural environ-ment (including heritage and wildlife), delivery of Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) management plans, and much more. Activities included provision of biodiversity and nature conservation functions, often in collaboration with specialist ecology advisors, and landscape and environmental policy functions, with the same, and with archaeological specialists. Many services take on urban greenspace functions and historic environment functions (Rotherham et al., 2006c, 2006d, 2006e). During the 1990s, the Countryside Agency invested heavily in AONBs. Operational structures within local authorities delivering these func-tions varied across different authorities, most having specialist recreation and leisure service departments charged with managing recreational facili-ties (Seabrooke and Miles, 1993). Many established specialist countryside service teams with the responsibility for countryside management. Again, the structure within these teams varied, but frequently included a ranger service providing site- specific management and onsite points of contact for the public. They can also include interpretation teams, producing inter-pretation material, running activities, and delivering environmental educa-tion (Bromley, 1990). Many local authorities developed environmental policies to support management. In addition, partnerships were established between local authorities, businesses, and local people with a focus of developing sus-tainable and attractive environments (Marren, 2002); examples are given later.

Context: National Parks and before

A land locked away

Precipitated by the Industrial Revolution, the accelerating processes of urbanisation, agricultural modernisation, and nineteenth- century techno-logical advances resulted in dramatic changes across British society and the countryside. These altered how countryside was managed and the manner in which landscape and wildlife were perceived. Previously for most people, just a utilitarian place in which to live and work, for urban populations the countryside now offered temporary release from cramped,


dirty towns and cities. However, a consequence of agricultural revolution, the enclosure of commons, removed the most obvious countryside access-ible for recreation by the urban masses. Furthermore, the commons of the uplands, whilst mostly maintained, became private, keepered grouse moors, strictly out of bounds to ordinary people. During the 1700s and 1800s, enclosure awards and other mechanisms removed the commons from the commoner. However, aside from the wealthy gentry and increas-ingly affluent urban, educated middle classes, most people had little time for recreation and certainly not for holidays involving travel away from home. At this time, the commoner required common land for utilitarian purposes of survival. By the late 1700s and early 1800s, the wealthy and the educated undertook travel and tours to raise their awareness and to gain appreciation of the picturesque and the romantic. Across Britain, country-side visiting became de rigueur, but only for the privileged few. Grand houses and landscaped parks welcomed tourists, but only those of a higher class and level of discernment. Yet by the mid to late 1800s, the ‘Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society’, was established as Brit-ain’s oldest conservation body, campaigning to protect common land, village greens, and public paths, and the right to enjoy them. In the London suburbs, further attempts to enclose and destroy commons were resisted, if necessary, with violence. The denial of access to the ordinary people was the issue taken up by Marion Shoard in 1980 and 1987, and it was not effectively resolved until the year 2000. By the late 1800s, with growing urban populations often locked in dirty, grime- ridden cities, demand for access to the countryside was growing. The urban–rural interface was becoming a contested space, between gamekeeper and poacher, between landowner and trespasser, between sports and pastimes of the landed gentry, and those of ordinary people. Increasingly, politicians began to take note of the changes and the pres-sures, and as the Labour movement emerged, there was a mood for genuine action. The Rural Development Commission, set up in 1909, informed government on rural activity. Then, from this beginning, in 1929, the National Parks Committee was set up to consider the protection of landscapes and increased demand for rural recreation. With rambling growing in popularity, mass trespasses in the Peak District highlighted the demands for public access to the countryside. The 1942 ‘Scott’ Committee recommended establishing National Parks and implementing major changes in agricultural production, in part influenced by wartime demand. The 1947 Agricultural Act, and 1947 Town and Country Plan-ning Act, introduced changes to rural landscapes through agricultural subsidy regimes and an implicit Green Belt policy respectively. The Nature Conservancy Council was established in 1948, with powers to designate nature reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). In 1949, the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act was passed, resulting in the formation of the National Parks Commission

(a)

(b)

Figure 1.2 (a) National Park ranger, USA, 1950s, and (b) a ranger’s home.


(NPC) and the creation of National Parks, AONBs, and the establishment of long- distance footpaths (e.g. the Pennine Way). The Act also required County Councils to survey and map all ‘Public Rights of Way’, so creating Definitive Rights of Way Maps. In 1951, the Peak District became Britain’s first National Park, and the NPC established ten National Parks by 1957. The NPC encouraged conservation and landscape protection, whilst rec-ognising the demands of agricultural production. Also considered important, recreation was to be encouraged through the development of visitor centres and ranger services. The National Park Ranger Services owed much of their style and appearance to a legacy of both the long- standing forestry services, in Britain and the Empire, with uniforms and badges. Models for such delivery were the North American National Parks Service and the Forestry Services there and across Europe. Many such organisations owed their structures and appearances to quasi- military styles adopted internationally, with officers, ranks, and, in European coun-tries for example, arms. National Park rangers’ vehicles were instantly recognisable with the service name and the appropriate logos, and the rangers had armbands and uniforms. Even officers of the Nature Conserv-ancy (later the Nature Conservancy Council), and by the 1970s, of the Countryside Commission, had distinctive uniforms. NCC National Nature Reserve wardens, Countryside Commission-sponsored rangers and project officers had standardised garb.

The invasion of the masses

In part, the 1949 Act provided protection for natural and heritage resources, and enhanced opportunities for recreation. However, with increasing affluence, and especially mobility through the motor car, there were concerns about precious countryside assets over- run by recreation- seeking urban masses. Those responsible for conservation and for land management generally, felt increased public affluence and private trans-port in the 1960s was raising issues of rising public demand and access within the countryside. With much of the countryside historically a con-tested space, this produced conflicts of interest between recreation and conservation within National Parks. Furthermore, there were issues of visitor management in the wider countryside as rural recreation increased in popularity during the second half of the twentieth century. Numerous texts cover the growth of recreational walking or rambling, and whilst this is central to the theme of the present book, space precludes a detailed account. However, McKay (2013) and Hollett (2002), for example, provide excellent accounts of the history of the demand for access and recreational space in Britain. One aspect often neglected is the fear of the countryside swamped and overwhelmed by hordes of uncouth urban dwellers. Joad in the 1930s and 1940s (Joad, 1934, 1945) stated this evocatively, in many ways exemplifying issues of conflicts and contested


spaces which countryside management sought to resolve. One issue stated repeatedly was the concern that countryside might become a mock of the real thing, a museum for visitors, rather than a real, working landscape populated by rural people.

Countryside Commission

With the 1968 Countryside Act, the Countryside Commission replaced the NPC. It had an expanded, countrywide remit for countryside protection and recreational opportunities. In conjunction with local authorities, to stop the hordes, the Countryside Commission established Country Parks for recreation and leisure purposes. With visitor facilities, Country Parks offered managed countryside experiences without the need to travel long distances to National Parks. The Countryside Commission continued the establishment of long- distance trails, and later noted that the existing 135,000 miles (216,000 km) of Public Rights of Way were one of the most important means of access into the rural landscape. In 1973, the Heritage Coasts initiative began with three pilot projects at Purbeck, Suffolk, and, the first to be dedicated, Glamorgan. With increasing demand for public access, leisure and recreation, changing agricultural impacts on the landscape, and increasing concerns

Figure 1.3 Posters of the Ranger Naturalist Service (a) Lassen Volcanic Park, USA, and (b) Yellowstone National Park, USA.


for wildlife and overall environmental welfare, the Countryside Commis-sion introduced the idea of ‘countryside management’. This was a means of reconciling multiple countryside demands, first, in the wider country-side and then the urban–rural fringe. The 1972 Local Government Act was significant in allowing the Countryside Commission to provide grant aid to local authorities and others delivering countryside services. Importantly, too, the approach encouraged a degree of experimentation in order to solve intransigent problems.

Countryside management

As a concept, ‘countryside management’ was to benefit all concerned parties (public, landowners, local authorities, NGOs, etc.). Successful Upland Management Experiments (UMEX) in Snowdonia and the Lake District, commencing in 1969, led to countryside management projects being adopted in National Parks and coastal regions. The concept (as UFEX), was then introduced to selected Green Belt urban-fringe areas (Bollin Valley near Manchester, and Barnet and Havering in London). This experimental and demonstration approach was characteristic of the methods of the Commission. Once the idea had been tested, with demon-stration projects adopted and documented, their success led to local authorities taking up the challenge with pump priming from the Commis-sion. The UMEX projects were significant in introducing the idea of funding for a project officer, a later cornerstone of the countryside man-agement projects. The greatest use of countryside management amongst local authorities was initially associated with areas of high user demand adjacent to areas of urban fringe. This included former, often derelict, industrial areas requir-ing remediation and landscape restoration. Employment of rangers ensured local knowledge and an understanding of local issues and require-ments. The Association of Countryside Rangers was established and was significant in encouraging the spread of knowledge and experience between countryside management services (CMS). By the 1970s, centres such as the Peak District National Park Centre at Losehill Hall, in Derby-shire, grant aided by the Countryside Commission, were providing inten-sive professional training for rangers and countryside managers, in Britain and even globally. Information on management and policy issues could be rolled out quickly and networked effectively. With countryside management used to maintain access routes, fencing, and associated infrastructure, increased visitor demand in rural areas during the 1980s and 1990s saw its spread countrywide. Scott (1992) iden-tified 109 countryside management services in 1989/1990. In assessing countryside management in 1990, Scott judged the concept an overall success, providing value for money, enhancing public enjoyment of the countryside, and being a major component in the delivery of countryside


objectives. In order to improve the delivery of countryside management services, Scott also suggested streamlining and rationalising of countryside services and projects to reduce confusion. The report noted the need for training to retain and motivate staff, and to secure commitment to long- term project funding. Countryside management services in local authorities did not evolve in isolation. In nature conservation, the Wildlife Trusts and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds were growing in numbers, stature, influence, and professionalism to reflect a rising tide of concern and enthusiasm. Following from the UMEX projects, but specifically dedicated to improve-ments in despoiled landscapes, in 1979 the Countryside Commission established the Groundwork Trust (see Menzies and Barton, 2012). With a focus on improving environmentally degraded areas and encouraging employment, this hugely significant initiative targeted urban environ-ments. Groundwork adopted similar principles to countryside manage-ment with the aim of encouraging countryside access through the improvement of degraded landscapes. Groundwork now operates as Groundwork UK, with forty- eight individual Groundwork Trusts across the UK. At the same time, the explosion in urban wildlife groups also reflected a demand for conservation close to home. During its tenure, the Countryside Commission established numerous initiatives designed to maximise rural recreation benefits whilst reducing negative impacts. As a means of mitigating agricultural environmental damage, the Countryside Commission offered landowners alternatives to Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) production requirements, in the form of Countryside Stewardship Schemes. Agri- environment schemes have operated in the UK since 1987, with the Countryside Premium Scheme, and the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Schemes. First introduced in 1987, the ESA Schemes were followed by the Organic Aid Scheme (1994) and the Countryside Premium Scheme (CPS) (1997). Emerging from the EU Agri- Environment Regulation (one of the 1992 CAP reform agreements), the countryside schemes (Countryside Stewardship (England), Tir Cymen (Wales), Countryside Premium Scheme (Scot-land)) incorporated a number of pre- 1996 schemes. These were some of the several voluntary schemes open to farmers from 1997 to 2000. In 2001, in Scotland the Rural Stewardship Scheme superseded them, in England, Environmental Stewardship. By the end of the year 2000, all ESAs and the CPS closed to new applications and the Rural Stewardship Scheme was introduced in 2001 as their successor in Scotland, with Environmental Stewardship in England and Wales from 2005. The Countryside Steward-ship Scheme, set up in 1991, was an agri- environment scheme run by the UK government. Originally introduced as a five- year pilot project by the Countryside Commission, the scheme in England aimed to improve environmental value of farmland. Administration of the scheme passed to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF ) in 1996, with the


scheme expanding to include new landscapes and features. There were whole farm plans to restore traditional walls and ditches, traditional build-ings, and old meadows and pastures, and to establish wildlife corridors in arable areas using conservation headlands. The Environmental Steward-ship Scheme (ESS) launched in 2005 built on the Environmentally Sens-itive Areas Schemes, the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, and the Organic Farming Scheme. Overall, during its existence, the Countryside Commission worked with a wide variety of organisations to maintain healthy rural economies benefi-cial to resident populations, visitors, and the wider environment. With eco-nomic difficulties within the agricultural sector increasing, the Countryside Commission’s final act was to establish Land Management Initiatives in order to encourage sustainable agricultural practices for wider environ-mental and social benefit but with a land management focus. The Com-mission was influential in addressing problems in agricultural landscapes, and its demonstration farms in the 1970s provided a testing ground for ideas of new agricultural landscapes.

Countryside Agency

The 1998 Regional Agencies Development Act established the Countryside Agency through a merger of the Countryside Commission and the Rural Development Commission. It was believed that a more integrated approach to rural issues could be adopted. Duties of the new Countryside Agency included advising government and Regional Development Agen-cies on rural matters, and the then recently formed Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on landscape issues. Central to the Agency’s remit was furthering rural economic diversity and eco-nomic security of rural communities. The Countryside Agency continued the development work of the Coun-tryside Commission, including Land Management Initiatives, Countryside Character Initiatives, the National Forest and Community Forest Initi-atives, and continued development of long- distance trails. Of these, the National Forest and Community Forest Initiatives provided increased opportunity for public access, recreation and leisure activities, and increased demand for countryside management services. In considering social aspects of rural communities, Countryside Agency projects included Local Heritage Initiatives (in partnership with Lottery funding), Local Products Programmes, Village Shop Development schemes, and Rural Transport schemes. With countryside access and recreation now recognised as important components of rural economies, the Countryside Agency oversaw the introduction of the CROW Act in 2000, and the registration of land desig-nated access land. By the early millennium, Countryside Agency initiatives included the ‘Countryside Around Towns’ initiative to encourage the use


of urban-fringe countryside, for recreation, sports, and health activities. This aimed to increase use of Community Forests as recreational resources, with match funding available for local authorities from the Countryside Agency. Major influences towards the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty- first, were difficulties within rural economies (BSE, foot- and-mouth disease, and falling agricultural commodity prices) which severely affected rural economies. Results included increased rural unemployment and farm foreclosures, and continued trends towards ageing rural communities and in more remote areas, rural depopulation. In considering agricultural and rural decline, CAP reforms and policy reviews (e.g. the 2003 Haskins Review) identified areas of disadvantage

Figure 1.4 ‘Unlocking the potential of the rural urban fringe’ (source: Countryside Agency (and Groundwork) consultation document, 2004).


within rural sectors, and a duplication of government services offered. The 2004 Rural Strategy recommended an overhaul of government activities and responsibilities within rural areas to provide a more focussed delivery of services. Along with closing English Nature, this overhaul included ending the Countryside Agency as an advisory body. Announced in 2004 and commencing in October 2006, Natural England was the successor to the merged Countryside Agency and English Nature.

Wider trends

Increasing population in England (forty- six million in 1971 to fifty million in 2004), has influenced funding and delivery of countryside manage-ment. The UK population is now 81 per cent urban based and, within this, an increasing proportion is of ethnic and religious minority groups. Increased urbanisation has led to requirements to reuse previously developed sites (‘brownfield’ sites) for house building, to lessen ‘urban sprawl’, and maintain agricultural land. This is compounded by a 7 per cent decrease in agricultural land since 1961. By comparison, woodland and forest cover increased to 12 per cent of UK land area, from around 5 per cent at the beginning of the twentieth century. Other issues have begun to affect attitudes to the countryside. The health benefits of a pleasant environment and of active outdoor recreation are now widely recognised. Links between health, exercise, and outdoor recreation have greater prominence in government health policy, with more holistic strategies (such as ‘Walking for Health’) to encourage outdoor exercise and related improvements in health and lifestyles. With increased ethnic and minority groups in the UK population, government introduced policies to investigate and encourage use of the countryside by disadvantaged and socially excluded groups. Local authorities were to develop strategies providing and encouraging accessible services for such groups. Rapid increase in personal transport and free time post- Second World War gave rise to increased access to the countryside. This has led to instances of excessive visitor numbers, damage to the rural resource, and requirements for visitor management. Changing rural demographics have influenced rural landscapes, with non- workers in the population increasing over the past forty years, creat-ing additional demand for leisure and recreation. Growing membership of conservation and environmental organisations since the 1970s increased demands both for countryside protection and access. An attractive coun-tryside, complete with wildlife, is considered important for rural recre-ation and leisure. Following the 1947 Agricultural Act, advances in agricultural techno-logy increased post- war productivity. However, in the wider community, agriculture was no longer seen as a benign, managing influence on the countryside but damaging to rural environments and biodiversity. From


the 1970s, supported by European Union subsidies, agricultural intensifi-cation caused excess production, and technological advances cut employ-ment. Overall, this had serious negative effects on rural communities, economies, and the environment. Even though at the close of the twenti-eth century, steps were being taken to reduce the adverse impacts of inten-sive farming, BSE, foot- and-mouth disease, and falling agricultural commodity prices contributed to declining agriculture. This compounded issues of rural decline, unemployment, and low inward investment, as agri-cultural output fell from 2.9 per cent of the UK economy (1973), to 0.8 per cent (2003). CAP reforms, agri- environment schemes and government reviews attempted to reverse agricultural decline, rural isolation, and environmental degradation. The 2003 CAP reviews saw agricultural pro-duction ‘de- coupled’ from subsidies replaced by single- farm payments related to land management and environmental improvements. A variety of statutory instruments came into play such as SSSI designation (with genuine protection from 1981), recognition of areas as World Heritage Sites (such as the Dorset Jurassic Coast), and a gradual realisation of the importance of historic landscapes and protection of some aspects as Scheduled Ancient Monuments by English Heritage, CADW (the Welsh government’s historic environment service), and Historic Scotland. SSSIs and similar sites were also subject to regular condition assessments. Established in 1949, the Nature Conservancy (in 1973 becoming the Nature Conservancy Council), developed a series of National Nature Reserves managed directly by the agency or in partnership with other organisations and landowners. Additionally, sites were designated as Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) and SSSIs, mostly owned and managed by local authorities or other landowners. This resource was considered vital to protect species and habitats considered important, and countryside man-agement principles were adopted on a diversity of sites. Following tensions between the conservation agency, central government politicians, and especially Scottish ministers unhappy with the handling of issues such as land management in the Scottish Flow Country, the agencies were split between the countries of the United Kingdom, and their powers changed. With devolution of responsibilities to the regions (particularly Scotland and Wales), English Nature superseded the Nature Conservancy Council in 1990 with a remit to monitor and manage important protected areas outside the responsibility of the Countryside Commission. In Scotland, responsibility went to Scottish Natural Heritage and in Wales to the Coun-tryside Council for Wales (now Natural Resources Wales). This meant that since this time, the ways in which countryside management is supported, promoted, and delivered, have differed between the countries. International trends also influenced policies and developments in Britain. Entry into the EEC/EU in 1973 for example, had a massive influ-ence on subsequent developments. The 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro highlighted environmental concerns of a global nature. With the


emphasis on the concept of ‘sustainable development’ and the import-ance of biological diversity, the UK signed the Convention of Biological Diversity. Within the UK, biodiversity targets and action plans (BAPs) were established and revised following the Millennium Biodiversity Report in 2001. Further BAPs revisions followed a second review in 2005. Because of the 1992 Rio ‘Earth Summit’ and, more latterly, global warming, local authorities adopted ‘Agenda 21’ principles, including reduced environ-mental damage through recycling, sustainable development, and resource use. Highlighting environmental issues through ‘Quality of Life’ indicators allowed local authorities to measure and monitor environmental, eco-nomic, and social wellbeing in their area. Since Britain’s entry into the EU in 1973, the European Union has had considerable influence on UK policy. This includes aspects of agriculture, biodiversity, habitat protection, pollution control, and water management. Such policies and resulting UK Acts have greatly affected countryside man-agement delivery. With around 80 per cent of UK policy originating in the EU, there has been discussion and tension related to the UK’s ability to keep pace with, and to implement, EU policy. As issues of land manage-ment became more critical Europe- wide, the UK signed the European Landscape Convention in February 2006. Other important policy drivers have been the Habitats Directive (1992) and the Water Framework Direc-tive (2000).

Local authority countryside management

As a non- statutory function, countryside management competes with statu-tory local authority provisions. Central government control, statutory duties, and related local authority budgetary constraints severely affect countryside management delivery. Additional funding may be accessed through partner organisations and outside sources, for example Big Lottery Fund. However, the limitations and unpredictability of such funding and partnerships can lead to short- term, targeted delivery of ser-vices. Compulsory Competitive Tendering, introduced in the 1980s, to encourage competition in local services, resulted in less flexible and locally applicable agendas. ‘Best Value’, ‘Comprehensive Performance Assessments’, and, later, ‘Value for Money’ and ‘Fitness for Purpose’ initi-atives were introduced to improve overall performance and provide ‘cus-tomer focussed’ delivery of local authority services. One key aim for countryside services within local authorities was to influence, positively and negatively, aspects of the planning process. Both strategic planning and planning or development controls are exercised by local authorities as statutory bodies, in the context of legislation passed by Parliament. How planning authorities interpret the laws is indicated by planning policy guidance. Continual updates of Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Notes and Statements (PPS) occur in line with changes in population


and economic demands, and influence the delivery of countryside man-agement services. PPS 7, introduced in 2004, considered sustainable devel-opment, quality of life, and the environment. PPG 2 addressed urban sprawl, greenspace, open access, recreation, conservation, and landscape protection. The Town and Country Planning Act (1990) enabled local authorities to enter into agreements with private landowners with respect to development and minimising impacts on local communities. Increas-ingly integrated development plans between local authorities may affect future delivery of countryside management and services due to conflicting funding requirements and constraints. More recently, the British govern-ment at Westminster has tried to pick apart the environmental and conser-vation legislation and planning controls, regarding them as ‘environmental red tape’ and wanting to foster ‘pro- development planning’. The Green Belt and the urban-fringe areas have become particular targets for polit-ical ire, a major shift from the approaches of successive governments over several decades. This is a further indication of political favour and fashion moving away from the aspirations of urban- fringe countryside management.

The history of countryside management

Urbanisation of society, impacts on the landscape, and rural enclosures

With demand for industrial labour coupled with population increase, British society changed from predominantly rural to urban during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Changes in land use associated with industrialisation and urbanisation, following the Industrial Revolution and the rise of urban society, affected agricultural production and rural land-scapes. Densely built, nineteenth- century industrial towns evolved into less- dense, twentieth- century housing, increasing the transition of rural land to urban conurbation. Due to industrialisation and urbanisation of the population, nature and the wild, ‘natural’ environment became increasingly remote from most people (Blunden and Turner, 1985; Evans, 1992; Jenkins, 2002). Detachment from working rural lands gave rise to images of ‘ideal countryside’ in the minds of urban people. Romantic poets and writers such as Wordsworth, Byron, Coleridge, and Ruskin extolled the virtues of ‘wild’ and ‘natural’ landscapes. The idea of country-side as a green and pure, unadulterated landscape, in comparison to harsh, polluted, industrialised urban areas, took hold among urban, ‘industrialised’ communities. ‘Wild’, rural landscapes acquired wistful, romantic patinas (Evans, 1992; Jenkins, 2002), and, from there, it was a short step to the idea that they should be both protected and accessible to urban communities. Against this background of urban growth and some unrest, the political landscape of the UK changed. Polluted atmospheres of towns and cities


triggered protests and legislation to control noxious discharges and protect public health. Additionally, urban parks were created to provide urban dwellers with space away from cramped working and living con-ditions (Evans, 1992). With the development of railways and then personal transport, particularly the motor car, urban dwellers gained easier access to countryside and coast: places not just to be idealised, but also physically enjoyed.

Demand for countryside access and the 1949 ‘National Parks Act’

Changes through Enclosure Acts and advances in agricultural methods limited access to many footpaths and former common land. Unsympa-thetic landowners, with paths and rights of way blocked to prevent public access, exacerbated this. In some instances visitors, considered detrimental to the countryside, were to be kept away (Shoard, 1987). Access to country-side did not necessarily mean access within the countryside, and the importance of game to landowners heightened tensions further. Gener-ally, local people and the public were barred from upland grouse moors and from lowland pheasant woods. A further complication was that the idealised countryside of many urban dwellers did not really exist. Wild spaces were tamed or obliterated through agriculture and wildlife often reduced to a commodity for sport-ing pleasure and commercial gain. In the late nineteenth and early twenti-eth centuries, numerous societies were established to protect the wider landscape and associated access. They also began to engender concerns for wildlife in the context of urban demand for public access and ‘natural’, ‘wild’ landscape. In 1865, the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Pres-ervation Society (now the Open Spaces Society) was formed. The National Trust has its origins in the 1895 National Trust for Places of Historic Interest and Natural Beauty, and in the 1907 National Trust Act. The Fed-eration of Rambling Clubs combined several rambling organisations in 1905, ultimately becoming the hugely influential Ramblers’ Association, and the British Youth Hostels Association was established in 1930. Central government addressed these issues with legislation to introduce improved public access to the countryside. The 1899 Commons Act emphasised the use of commons for public recreation, and the 1925 Law of Property Act granted public access to all urban commons, and to rural commons with the owner’s consent (Glyptis, 1991; Jenkins, 2002). Following the Rural Development Commission in 1909, the 1926 forma-tion of the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) increased pressure on government to consider protecting the wider landscape, and particularly the most wild and beautiful areas. In this context, central gov-ernment established a National Parks Committee of Inquiry in 1929. Its remit was to consider establishing National Parks in order to protect


landscapes considered important, and to meet the growing demand for rural recreation. In parallel the ‘Mass Trespasses’ of ramblers, in the 1920s and 1930s, around Hayfield, Edale, and Hope in the Peak District high-lighted the demand for public access to private land. This led to the for-mation of the Ramblers’ Association in 1935, and the Standing Committee on National Parks followed in 1936. The 1942 Land Utilisation in Rural Areas (‘Scott’) Committee recom-mended the establishment of a Footpaths Commission and the establish-ment of National Parks for recreational use as well as instigating major changes in agricultural production. The 1947 Agricultural Act and 1947 Town and County Planning Act introduced major changes to rural man-agement. The Agricultural Act included subsidy regimes for agricultural stock and crop production. The Town and Country Planning Act included designation of land areas as worthy of protection from development and contained an implicit Green Belt policy. This had implications for later, urban-fringe development and countryside management. Specific, often quite small areas were as important for their flora and fauna or geology. The Nature Conservancy (becoming in 1973 the Nature Conservancy Council) was formed by Royal Charter in 1948, with a remit for nature conservation. It was able to designate National Nature Reserves (NNR) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).

1949 ‘National Parks Act’ to the 1968 Countryside Act

The culmination of these Acts, related committees, and public concern, was the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (National Parks Act), which allowed for the establishment of National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), and long- distance footpaths. In 1951, the Peak District became the first National Park in the UK (Glyptis, 1991; Evans, 1992; Harvey, 2001; Jenkins, 2002). The 1949 National Parks Act established the National Parks Commission, with overall responsibility for establishing the National Parks. Between 1951 and 1957, ten of the original twenty- two National Parks proposed by John Dower in his 1945 report were designated (Evans, 1992). The original twenty- two locations reduced to twelve after review by the Hobson Commit-tee, which attempted to resolve the issues raised by the Forestry Commission and MAFF amongst others over the roles and functions of National Parks (Green, 1981). Much of the work establishing and managing the National Parks was pioneering in its approach. Working in close cooperation with separate National Park bodies, the NPC assisted with establishing trails, ranger services, and visitor centres. It encouraged recreation whilst conserv-ing landscape, flora, and fauna of value, and assisting in maintaining rural and agricultural ways of life within the National Parks. Management systems pioneered at this time established much of the management structure used in subsequent decades (Countryside Agency, 1999).


In the 1960s, with more affluent and mobile urban society there was a previously unforeseen increase in pressure on the countryside in general through recreational and leisure use. National Parks rapidly became popular visitor destinations and AONBs experienced increasing visitor numbers. With this rising pressure came conflicts of interest between nature conservation, recreation, farming, and rural lifestyles, recreation often seen as limiting conservation and vice versa, and both potential threats to farming. It was also clear that many regulations applicable within the bounds of National Parks ought to apply across the wider countryside. However, allowing people to recreate in rural areas, and particularly National Parks, was to be encouraged, though with some trepidation. Widening the approach could deliver greater protection to considerably larger areas of rural landscape than originally envisaged in the 1949 National Parks Act. With the 1968 Countryside Act introduced following the 1966 White Paper, ‘Leisure in the Countryside’, the Countryside Commission with enhanced powers superseded the NPC. It was responsible for developing and managing Country Parks, and encouraging recreation within them and the wider countryside (Glyptis, 1991; Countryside Agency, 1999).

Countryside Commission: trails and Country Parks

The 1968 Countryside Act created the Countryside Commission (for England and Wales) and the Countryside Commission for Scotland (CCS), to broaden the scope of public countryside access from the 1949 National Parks Act. Where the 1949 Act principally covered access to mountains and moorlands, from 1968 access arrangements included rivers, canals, woodlands, and, importantly, areas that became ‘Country Parks’. These were lands near or including water, and covering areas not less than ten hectares, but no more than 400 hectares. There should be opportunities for public recreation, and ‘quiet enjoyment of the countryside and nothing more’ ( John Cripps, Chairman of the Countryside Commission, in Evans, 1992, p. 120). With sometimes- limited wildlife conservation value, Country Parks are often associated with large water bodies, country houses, and land near large urban areas. Toilets, parking spaces, and similar facilities were provided. Often local authority owned with funding assistance from the Countryside Commission, Country Parks offering opportunities for rural, open- air leisure activities without the requirement to travel long distances, helped reduce visitor demand on the more fragile National Parks. Some considered this approach a cynical method of keeping visitors away from ‘true’ countryside; in reality, not all visitors desired to visit the wilder landscapes of the National Parks. The location of Country Parks adjacent to urban areas offered easy access with ready- to-hand facilities. Whilst National Parks were established to conserve wild landscapes and provide opportunities for recreation, Country Parks were


‘tame, organised countryside’ intended for use by less adventurous day- trip visitors (Evans, 1992, p. 121). Following establishment of nature trails in the early 1960s, many Country Parks provided way- marked trails and interpretation brochures for visitors. In addition to Country Parks, the Countryside Commission continued the work of the NPC in establishing long- distance trail net-works. In 1965, the Pennine Way, running 267 miles from Edale in the Peak District to Kirk Yetholm on the Scottish border, was the first such trail established in the UK. Other long- distance trails were developed under the Countryside Commission remit and today traverse a wide variety of the UK countryside. These include the Cotswolds, the southwest coast, Hadrian’s Wall, the North Yorkshire Moors and coast, the Norfolk coast and the Thames Valley (Shoard, 1987; Evans, 1992; Countryside Agency, 1999; Anon., 2006a). The Countryside Commission’s work and remit also expanded the NPC duties of protecting landscapes and associated social structures to include the whole English and Welsh countryside (with CCS in Scotland). By the 1970s, numerous interest groups, from farming organisations, walking soci-eties, wildlife and environmental groups, and the leisure- seeking public, now saw countryside use and protection as theirs. The Countryside Commis-sion recognised the need for more inclusive management structures to limit user- group conflict and increase public access, whilst maintaining country-side in the most appropriate manner. Thus, in 1969, the Countryside Com-mission instigated the concept of ‘countryside management’ (Countryside Commission, 1981a; Shoard, 1987; Countryside Agency, 1999).

Countryside management

Described as ‘the process by which objectives of conservation, recreation and access are secured for public benefit in the management of both public and privately- owned land’ (Countryside Commission, 1981a, p. 1), countryside management also encompasses the agricultural use of the countryside. The approach notes the important role of farmers and land-owners in managing the countryside as ‘care- taker(s) of the rural’ (Nilsson, 2002, p. 11). The farmers and landowners now also include NGOs such as the National Trust, the Wildlife Trusts, and the RSPB. Countryside management can be defined through a list of core func-tions; some local authorities delivering only one or two of these, others the complete range. The set of core functions set out by LAR (Landscape and Recreation division of the Countryside Agency) is given below:

1 Country Parks/sites management.2 Public Rights of Way.3 Wider countryside – contributing to the maintenance of the landscape

and recreational fabric of the wider rural environment.


4 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – contributing to the delivery of AONB management plans and more generally to the delivery of AONB purposes.

5 Biodiversity and nature conservation – helping to maintain key local habitats and species.

6 Landscape and environmental policy – contributing to local authority policies affecting the management of the countryside and seeking to influence the policies and programmes of other bodies.

7 Urban/urban greenspace – which may often be combined with coun-tryside management functions for reasons of local authority structure and/or efficient delivery of ‘environmental’ services in both urban and rural areas.

8 Historic environment – contributing to management of ancient wood-lands, parklands, and associated buildings.

Countryside management was first applied in 1969 as the Upland Manage-ment Experiments (UMEX) in the Lake District and Snowdonia. These demonstrated the benefits of positive landscape management and dia-logue between user groups. In the UMEX projects, comparatively small improvements in landscape benefitted traditionally opposed user groups, in this case farmers and visitors. Critical to the success of UMEX was the appointment of project officers who encouraged user groups to work together, thus acting as a focal point for contentious issues requiring attention (Countryside Commission, 1981a). The successful outcomes of the original six- year UMEX projects led to several National Parks adopting the overall concept. In addition, these suc-cesses led the Countryside Commission to extend the approach to coastal areas. In 1972, again as an initial experiment and in association with the relevant local authorities, the Countryside Commission established Her-itage Coasts in three coastal areas of the UK (Glamorgan, Suffolk, and Dorset). Designed to protect and limit inappropriate development on important areas of coastline, Heritage Coast designation aimed to con-serve the natural coast and encourage public enjoyment. As with UMEX, this initial experiment proved successful, and soon around one- third of the UK coastline was designated as Heritage Coast, much in AONBs or within a National Park (Countryside Agency, 1999). Following projects in upland and coastal areas, experimental country-side management projects began in the urban-fringe regions of the Bollin Valley, Manchester (commenced 1972), and the Metropolitan Green Belt and urban fringe around London in Hertfordshire and Barnet (1975), and Havering (1976) (Hall, 1976). These projects developed in partner-ship with relevant local authorities supported by Countryside Commission grants. As with UMEX and Heritage Coasts, project officers played a crucial role in creating dialogue between the numerous user groups, and coordinating practical work. The countryside management approach


encouraged partnership working to manage the land in the experimental areas. It was considered successful in improving public access and overall maintenance of Green Belt countryside and the urban fringe whilst bene-fitting all user groups. Supported by officers and promotional materials, demonstration projects were established to ‘shop window’ approaches through meetings held with local stakeholder groups in suitable or inter-ested districts. The Countryside Commission and the local authority in question usually hosted these events. Funding was generally offered with up to 50 per cent of staff costs and varying support for programmes of project works. Money was available for strategic land purchase to further countryside management objectives. The local authority match- funded the Commission’s contribution, and of course, this was before the swingeing cuts in local government funding of the later 1980s. It was noted that countryside management was dependent on financial input and political will for its success. Without either of these countryside management was likely to be ineffective and counter- productive (Country-side Commission, 1981a). As Scott (1992) noted, critical elements of suc-cessful countryside management included:

1 defined aims and objectives;2 committed support by funders and partner organisations;3 strong links and communication between all parties;4 project staff capable of understanding all the issues involved, includ-

ing local issues; and5 staff able to carry out practical tasks with or without the aid of

volunteers.

Inherent in a successful project was a degree of autonomy, financial and structural, from controlling organisations to enable the best use of local resources. With this essential support in place, countryside management, as implemented in the 1970s and 1980s, provided value for money and a positive ‘return on investment’ for the Countryside Commission (Scott, 1992). The successes of the UMEX, Heritage Coast, and urban fringe/Green Belt experiments were used to promote these approaches in suitable areas. From the lessons of these experiences, there was increased use of country-side management throughout the UK (Scott, 1992). The greatest demand for countryside management interventions was adjacent to urban areas, i.e. around the urban fringe. Here, visitor demand and pressures on the coun-tryside were considered greatest (Countryside Commission, 1987). Follow-ing the early successes of Groundwork, many countryside management proposals specifically targeted urban–rural fringe problems around the urban core. Disadvantaged and derelict areas were frequently the primary focus, alongside links to established attractions such as Country Parks. In these target areas, countryside management provided public access to the


countryside, the restoration and maintenance of footpaths, bridleways, and similar public access routes, and their associated infrastructure, for example signposts, footbridges, and fencing. Employment of countryside officers, known as rangers in some areas, was critical to the success of countryside management services delivered by local authorities. As recrea-tional demand on rural landscapes in general increased through the 1980s and 1990s, these approaches were applied to the wider countryside. With recommendations on the production of rolling management plans, the promotion of countryside services as a benefit to achieving national objectives, effective use of labour, paid staff and volunteers, and with consideration of long- term funding opportunities, Scott (1992) reached important conclusions. The report stated that countryside man-agement services had become a ‘major component of the infrastructure’ (p. 167) within the delivery of countryside objectives. As such, the services provided by countryside management not only enhanced public enjoy-ment of the countryside, but also benefitted rural communities and the environment. With the changing influences noted above, coupled with the evolving nature of society and changing patterns of public behaviour, Scott (1992) also considered a variety of other factors important. These included:

1 changed agricultural support structures and potential for conserva-tion, rural economies, and recreation;

2 issues of ‘streamlining’ and rationalising the number of advisory ser-vices and projects associated with countryside management services to reduce potential confusion amongst the public and partner organisations;

3 aspects of employee training, qualifications, and career structure asso-ciated with the development of countryside services, particularly with a view to retention and motivation of countryside staff;

4 encouragement of continued commitments by partner organisations to funding countryside services;

5 recognition that partner organisations may be under considerable fin-ancial duress associated with income sources, particularly at that time, the Community Charge. Furthermore, should funding be reduced by one or more partner organisations, this should be done in a sensitive manner.

In recent years, financial constraints became far more acute than any-thing Scott might have envisaged. Reviewing countryside management services twenty- three years after the first UMEX experiment, Scott (1992) recommended the countryside management roles be redefined. In par-ticular, they should take into account the input of partner organisations. He recommended that the Countryside Commission should publicise its aims with respect to future and associated policies. In addition, Scott


recommended a varying mix of inputs and resources reflecting funding and co- working be recognised in the context of individual countryside management service regions. Provision of countryside management ser-vices should allow local flexibility and novelty in operation and organisa-tion, though such variances must be accountable. Varied nature of the countryside and differing demands suggested a region- by-region approach, with good practice adapted accordingly; an approach still valid today. The 1992 Scott report assumed that ‘the estimated total expenditure of all the Countryside Management Services – £10.19 million – represents their total budget in 1989/90’. Ninety per cent of the budget was through public funds including 25 per cent from the Countryside Commission, and 10 per cent from other sources such as earnings or sponsorship. At that time, the Countryside Commission helped to fund 109 projects, cov-ering almost 25 per cent of England and Wales (excluding National Parks and urban areas), and the CCS supported projects in Scotland.

Countryside Commission: Groundwork

In the late 1970s, the Countryside Commission turned its attention to areas around the urban fringe with neglected and derelict physical environments. In 1978, it put forward proposals to central government for a pilot scheme to improve these areas and in 1979, with a change in gov-ernment, the pilot became ‘Operation Groundwork’. The first Ground-work Trust was established in St Helens and Knowsley in December 1981, its role being

to bring together a partnership of public, private and voluntary sector interests in a co- ordinated effort to upgrade the environment, to realise the full potential of under- used land, to convert waste ground to productive use and to improve access to the countryside.

(Anon., 2006b)

Countryside Management Project Areas were another approach to the same situation. Initially to target areas of post- industrial, environmental, and economic decline, Groundwork Trusts were set up in northwest England (Menzies and Barton, 2012); by 1983, there were five additional projects. Judged successful, the concept became national at the end of 1983. At central gov-ernment’s request, the Groundwork Trusts’ remit expanded in 1990, to cover inner- city and town centre areas. Since then much of the work has focussed on supporting people into employment and developing busi-nesses in deprived areas through environmental projects. As the number of Groundwork projects increased, the Countryside Commission estab-lished the Groundwork Foundation (now Groundwork UK), to support


expansion of the Groundwork movement, help raise funds, and facilitate national networks. Today, there are nearly fifty Groundwork Trusts cover-ing nine English regions. One of the important aspects to Groundwork is the idea of public and private partnership, which has now grown dramatic-ally in other areas of service delivery, but which at the time was pioneering.

Fieldfare and access for the less able

Alongside mainstream countryside management services, there evolved independent organisations such as the Fieldfare Trust, established in Shef-field by a former South Yorkshire County Council Countryside Officer, Dr Ian Newman. The objectives of the Fieldfare Trust are to improve access to the countryside for those that are disabled or disadvantaged, and it had ground- breaking projects including the ‘Countryside for All Good Practice Guide’, widely recognised as the National Standards for disabled access in the countryside. Still active and successful, the Fieldfare Trust has pio-neered changes in attitudes to countryside access for all. Aspirations in this field were enhanced by legislation to promote equality for the less able and a duty on public bodies and others to address these issues.

Countryside Commission’s close of tenure

During its life, the Countryside Commission championed many aspects of the countryside. As well as countryside management services, the Country-side Commission instigated the Countryside Character programme to assist policy development in respect of planning and land management. The Commission was instrumental in providing support for rural com-munities and agriculture. It supported tree planting and the creation of woodlands drawing on information gained in the ongoing New Agricul-tural Landscapes surveys instigated in 1972. The Commission established the Countryside Premium Scheme, later the Countryside Stewardship Scheme open to a wide range of landowners as an alternative to CAP- related agricultural production. Demonstration farm projects dissemi-nated good practice. In looking at wider impacts on the rural environment, the Countryside Commission considered the increase of traffic on rural roads, initiating Greenways and Quiet Roads. Healthy Walking and Millennium Greens were further initiatives designed to encourage recreation without resort-ing to vehicular use. To address these issues and wider matters, the Coun-tryside Commission worked with a wide range of organisations. Much more could be achieved by spreading the work across public authorities and NGOs including the RSPB, National Trust, the Wildlife Trusts, CPRE, the Rambler’s Association, and the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV). One of the more publicly obvious examples of the Countryside


Commission’s work was support towards the maintenance of the Public Rights of Way network, including the long- distance trails now called the National Trail Network. Today there are fifteen National Trails in England and Wales with National Cycleways and Bridleways too. The final act of the Countryside Commission was the establishment of the Land Management Initiatives, designed to encourage sustainable farming (Countryside Agency, 1999). The Countryside Commission con-cluded its time with a National Park initiative encouraging land use that conserved the landscape in a productive, aesthetically attractive manner, with benefits for flora, fauna, rural communities, and recreational visitors. Over its lifetime, hindsight suggests that the Countryside Commission was remarkably visionary and successful. In the future, it may be worthwhile revisiting these initiatives as part of a new way forwards.

The Countryside Agency in development

In 1999, the Countryside Commission and the Rural Development Com-mission (RDC) merged (as detailed in the 1998 Regional Development Agencies Act). This was in part a reflection of the Countryside Commis-sion already working closely with the RDC and potential overlapping agendas. In the words of Michael Meacher, then Minister for the Environ-ment, ‘It was therefore thought that a merger could build on that relation-ship and establish a more integrated approach’ (United Kingdom Parliament, 1999). As such, the social, economic, and environmental requirements of the countryside along with recreational use became the responsibility of the newly named Countryside Agency. The new agency was tasked with advising central government and the Regional Develop-ment Agencies on countryside issues, whilst also acquiring a statutory duty to advise the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on landscape issues (UK Parliament, 1999; Defra, 2006a). Defra was itself formed in 2001 from the Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF ) and the Department of the Environment (DoE). The former Countryside Commission had been concerned that the Countryside Agency continued to build on established, successful pro-jects. Recreation and countryside management were noted as important factors of rural land use, and thus the Countryside Commission wanted these to be recognised by the new agency (Countryside Agency, undated (a)). It also wished to continue the Countryside Character approach to rural planning, and working with rural communities overall to improve social and economic situations. Under the Countryside Agency, Land Management Initiatives continued, enhanced by the addition of the Local Products Programmes (LPP). In line with EU Common Agricul-tural Policy reforms, LPPs linked agricultural production to a diversified, sustainable, and environmentally beneficial use of the land. Rural com-munities were supported through Village Shop Development schemes

References Abercrombie, P ., Kelly, S.A. ., and Johnson, T.H. . (1931) Sheffield and District RegionalPlanning Scheme Prepared for the Sheffield and District Joint Regional Planning Committee,University Press, Liverpool and Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, London. Albright, H.M. . (1985) The Birth of the National Park Service, Howe Brothers, Salt Lake City,UT. Albright, H.M. . and Albright Schenck, M. . (1999) Creating the National Park Service: TheMissing Years, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. Aldhous, T. . (1972) Battle for the Environment, William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd, Glasgow. Allanson, P. . and Whitby, M. . (1996) The Rural Economy and the British Countryside,Earthscan, London. Andrews, R. ., Cowell, R. ., and Downe, J. . (2008a) ‘Support for active citizenship and publicservice performance: an empirical analysis of English local authorities’, Policy and Politics, 36(2), 225–243. Andrews, R. ., Cowell, R. ., Downe, J. ., Martin, S. ., and Turner, D. . (2008b) ‘Supportingeffective citizenship in local government: engaging, educating and empowering local citizens’,Local Government Studies, 34 (4), 489–507. Anon . (1983) ‘Green Belt Plan’, Sheffield City Council, Sheffield. Anon . (1987a) ‘A strategy for countryside management’, Sheffield City Council, Sheffield. Anon . (1987b) ‘Out and about in Sheffield’s countryside: a statement of the City Council’spolicies on access to Sheffield’s countryside’, Sheffield City Council, Sheffield. Anon . (1992) ‘Woodhouse Washlands Nature Reserve proposal’, Unpublished report, SheffieldCity Ecology Unit, Sheffield. Anon . (1994a) ‘River Rother wildlife strategy’, Derbyshire County Council and partners,Matlock, Derbyshire. Anon . (1994b) Woodhouse Washlands Proposed Nature Reserve: Feasibility Study, SCEEM,Sheffield City Council, Sheffield. Anon . (1995a) ‘Rivers Don, Rother and Dearne catchment management action plan’, NationalRivers Authority, Northumbria and Yorkshire Region, Leeds. Anon . (1995b) Woodhouse Washlands Management Plan, SCEEM, Sheffield City Council,Sheffield. Anon . (1999a) ‘A strategy for countryside management’, Sheffield City Council, Sheffield. Anon . (1999b) ‘Blackburn Meadows Trust annual report 1998–1999’, Blackburn MeadowsTrust, Sheffield. Anon . (2006a) ‘National trails’, www.nationaltrail.co.uk. Anon . (2006b) ‘Groundwork’s history’, www.groundwork.org.uk. Anon . (2010) ‘Building the Big Society’, Cabinet Office, London. Anon . (2011) ‘Localism Act 2011’, The Stationery Office, Norwich. Anon . (2012) ‘National Park Service overview’, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,DC. Anon . (2013) ‘Monitor of engagement with the natural environment’, Natural England and TNS,Edinburgh. Babb, P. ., Butcher, H. ., Church, J. ., and Zealey, L. . (eds) (2006) Social Trends 36, PalgraveMacmillan, London. Bannister, A. . and Moorhouse, B. . (1984) ‘The making of Rother Valley country park’,Landscape Design, 12, 32–36. Barr, J. . (1969) Derelict Britain, Penguin, London. BBC (2013) ‘Spending review: public sector to lose automatic rises’, www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23053693. Beard, C. ., Egan, D. ., and Rotherham, I.D. . (2000) ‘The changing role of outdoor leisure: acritical review of countryside tourism’, in Robinson, M. ., Swarbrooke, J. ., Evans, N. ., Long, P.., and Shapley, R. . (eds) Reflections on International Tourism: Environmental Management andPathways to Sustainable Tourism (pp. 1–19), Centre for Travel and Tourism, University ofNorthumbria, Sunderland. Bishop, K. . and Phillips, A. . (eds) (2004) Countryside Planning: New Approaches toManagement and Conservation, Earthscan, London.

Blunden, J. . and Curry, N. . (1988) A Future for Our Countryside, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford,in association with the Countryside Commission. Blunden, J. . and Turner, G. . (1985) Critical Countryside, British Broadcasting Corporation,London. Bownes, J.S. ., Riley, T. ., Rotherham, I.D. ., and Vincent, S.M. . (1991) ‘Sheffield natureconservation strategy’, Sheffield City Council, Sheffield. Bracey, H.E. . (1970) People and the Countryside, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Brannan, T. ., John, P. ., and Stoker, G. . (2006) ‘Active citizenship and effective public servicesand programmes: how can we know what really works?’ Urban Studies, 43 (5/6), 993–1008. Broadhurst, R. . (2001) Managing Environments for Leisure and Recreation, Routledge, Londonand New York. Bromley, P. . (1990) Countryside Management, E & FN Spon, London. Bryant, C.R. ., Russwurm, L.H. ., and McLellan, A.G. . (1982) The City’s Countryside: Land andits Management in the Rural–Urban Fringe, Longman, London and New York. Bugler, J. . (1972) Polluting Britain, Penguin, London. Butler, S. . and Comley, V. . (2014) ‘Reconomics: the economic impact of outdoor recreation’,Sport and Recreation Alliance, and Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool. Cabinet Office (undated) ‘Big Society: Overview’, www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/big-society-overview. Carnall, A.W. . (2013) ‘The impact of economic austerity on countryside services’, UnpublishedMSc dissertation, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield. Carson, R. . (1962) Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Cartwright, G. ., Watts, R. ., and Rotherham, I.D. . (2000) ‘Airport, steelworks or historiclandscapes: integrated development of Sheffield City Airport’, in Abstract Proceedings SER2000, Society for Ecological Restoration, Liverpool, Unpaged. Census (2001) ‘Census data’, www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=10150. Christie, M. . and Matthews, J. . (2003) ‘The economic and social value of walking in England’,Report for the Ramblers’ Association, Institute of Rural Studies, University of Aberystwyth,Aberystwyth, www.ramblers.org.uk. Cloke, P.J. . and Park, C.C. . (1985) Rural Resource Management, Croom Helm, London. Colby, C.B. . (1955) Park Ranger, the Work, Thrills and Equipment of the National ParkRangers, Coward-McCann, Inc., New York. Communities and Local Government (undated) ‘How many councils are there in England?’www.communities.gov.uk. Communities and Local Government (2011) ‘A plain English guide to the Localism Act’, DCLGPublications, London. Connell, J. . (2004) ‘The purest of human pleasures: the characteristics and motivations ofgarden visitors in Great Britain’, Tourism Management, 25 (2), 229–247. Conrad, D.E. . (1997) The Land We Cared for … A History of the Forest Service’s EasternRegion, Forest Service, Milwaukee, WI. Cook, H. . and Inman, A. . (2012) ‘The voluntary sector and conservation for England:achievements, expanding roles and uncertain future’, Journal of Environmental Management,112, 170–177. Cooke, A. . (1994) The Economics of Leisure and Sport, Thomson Business Press, London. Cope, A. ., Doxford, D. ., and Probert, C. . (2000) ‘Monitoring visitors to UK countrysideresources: the approaches of land and recreation management organisations to visitormonitoring’, Land Use Policy, 17, 59–66. Countryside Agency (1999) ‘A better countryside’, Briefing Paper CP99/9, March, CountrysideAgency, Cheltenham. Countryside Agency (2000) ‘The economic impact of recreation and tourism in the Englishcountryside 1998’, Countryside Agency Publications, Cheltenham. Countryside Agency (2001) ‘Foot and mouth disease: the state of the countryside report’,www.countryside.gov.uk. Countryside Agency (2003) ‘Integrated rural development and European programmes’,Research notes; Issue: CRN 66, July, Countryside Agency, Cheltenham. Countryside Agency (2004) ‘Summary of the 2002–03 leisure day visits survey for England,Wales and Scotland’, Countryside Agency, Cheltenham.

Countryside Agency (undated a) ‘The Countryside Commission: unfinished business’, Briefingpaper CP99/10, Countryside Agency, Cheltenham. Countryside Agency (undated b) Our history’,www.countryside.gov.uk/WhoWeAreAndWhatWeDo/origins.asp. Countryside Agency and English Tourism Council (2001) ‘Working for the countryside: astrategy for rural tourism in England 2001–2005’, Countryside Agency and English TourismCouncil, London. Countryside Commission (1976) The Bollin Valley: A Study of Land Management in the UrbanFringe, Countryside Commission, Cheltenham. Countryside Commission (1978) Local Authority Countryside Management Projects: A Guide totheir Organisation, Countryside Commission, Cheltenham. Countryside Commission (1979) Countryside Rangers and Related Staff, CountrysideCommission, Cheltenham. Countryside Commission (1981a) ‘Countryside management in the urban fringe’, Report No.CCP 136, Countryside Commission, Cheltenham. Countryside Commission (1981b) ‘Countryside management in the urban fringe’, CountrysideCommission, Cheltenham. Countryside Commission (1981c) ‘Countryside management in the urban fringe’, Promotionalbrochure, Countryside Commission, Cheltenham. Countryside Commission (1987) ‘Recreation 2000: policies for enjoying the countryside’, ReportNo. CCP 234, Countryside Commission, Cheltenham. Countryside Commission (1992) ‘Pennine Way survey 1990: use and economic impact’,Countryside Commission, Cheltenham. Crompton, J.L. . and Shuster, T.J. . (2001) ‘A guide for undertaking economic impact studies:the Springfest example’, Journal of Travel Research, 40, August, 79–87. Crowe, L. ., Rotherham, I.D. ., Doncaster, S. ., and Egan, D. . (2002) ‘Carsington WaterReservoir, Derbyshire: a case study assessment of the social, economic and environmentalimpacts’, Technical Report, Centre for Environmental Conservation and Outdoor Leisure,Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield. Curry, N. . (1996) ‘Access: policy directions for the late 1990s’, in Watkins, C . (ed.) Rights ofWay: Policy, Culture and Management (pp. 24–34), Pinter, London. Davidson, J. . and Wibberley, G. . (1977) Planning and the Rural Environment, PergamonPress, Oxford. Defra (2005) ‘Rural strategy 2004’, www.defra.gov.uk/rural/strategy/default.htm. Defra (2006a) ‘Landscape protection’, www.defra.gov.uk. Defra (2006b) ‘European Landscape Convention: landscape protection, recreation and publicaccess’, www.defra.gov.uk. Defra (2007) ‘An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services’, Defra, London. Defra and the British Horse Industry Confederation (2004) ‘A report of research on the horseindustry in Great Britain’, Defra and the Henley Centre, London. www.defra.gov.uk. Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) ‘Planning guidance notes’,www.communities.gov.uk. Dillon, J. . and Dickie, I. . (2012) ‘Learning in the natural environment: review of social andeconomic benefits and barriers’, Commissioned Reports, Number 092 Natural England,Sheffield. Dixon, J. . (1998) ‘Nature conservation’, in Lowe, P. . and Ward, S. . (eds) British EnvironmentalPolicy: Politics and Policy in Transition (pp. 214–231), Routledge, London. Dobson, J. . (2012) ‘Grey places need green spaces: the case for investing in our nation’snatural assets’, Groundwork UK, Birmingham. Dwyer, J.C. . and Hodge, I.D. . (1996) Countryside in Trust: Land Management byConservation, Recreation and Amenity Organisations, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Egan, D. . and Rotherham, I.D. . (2001) ‘An initial assessment of the economic impact of theWildlife Trusts in the English East Midlands Region’, Unpublished technical report, Centre forEnvironmental Conservation and Outdoor Leisure, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield. English Nature (2006) ‘Importance of landscapes recognised with UK government signing ofEuropean Landscape Convention’, Press release 24 February, www.english-nature.org.uk. Evans, D. . (1992) A History of Nature Conservation in Britain, Routledge, London.

Evans, K. . (2011) ‘Big Society in the UK: a policy review’, Children and Society, 25, 164–171. Everhardt, W.C. . (1972) The National Park Service, Praeger, New York. Fairbass, J. . (2004) ‘EU and British biodiversity policy: ambiguity and errors of judgement’,Research Paper, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment,University of East Anglia and University College London. Fairbass, J. . and Jordan, A. . (2001) ‘Protecting biodiversity in the European Union: nationalbarriers and European opportunities?’ Journal of European Public Policy, 8 (4), 499–518. Flanagan, T. . and Sadowski, P. . (2011) ‘Volonteurope reviews: the value of volunteering’,Volonteurope, London. Foresta, R.A. . (1985) America’s National Parks and their Keepers, Resources for the Future,Washington, DC. French, J. . (1984) Bollin Valley, Willow Publishing, Timperley, UK. Garrod, G. . and Whitby, M. . (2005) Strategic Countryside Management, Elsevier, Oxford. Gartner, B. . (1993) Careers in the National Parks, Rosen Publishing Company, New York. GHK Consulting Ltd and GFA-Race Partners Ltd (2004) ‘Revealing the value of theenvironment in England’, Report for Defra, London. Gilg, A.W. . (1996) Countryside Planning, Routledge, London. Gillard, D. . (2011) ‘Education in England: a brief history’, www.educationengland.org.uk/history. Glyptis, S. . (1991) Countryside Recreation, Longman, London. Goodchild, B. . (2008) Homes, Cities and Neighbourhoods: Planning and ResidentialLandscapes of Great Britain, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Aldershot. Gratton, C. . (2004) ‘Sport and economic regeneration’, Sport Industry Research Centre,Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield. Gratton, C. ., Shibli, S. ., and Kokolakakis, T. . (1999) ‘Leisure forecasts 1999–2003’, LeisureIndustries Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield. Gratton, C. ., Shibli, S. ., and Kokolakakis, T. . (2000) ‘Leisure forecasts 2000–2004’, LeisureIndustries Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield. Green, B. . (1981) Countryside Conservation, Unwin Hyman, London. Green, B. . (2002) Countryside Conservation: Land Ecology, Planning and Management, Taylor& Francis, Abingdon. Groome, D. . and Tarrant, C. . (1985) ‘Countryside recreation: achieving access for all’,Countryside Planning Yearbook, 6, 72–100. Groundwork (2012) ‘90% of adults say green spaces important for good places’,www.groundwork.org.uk. Hall, A. . (1976) ‘Management in the urban fringe’, Countryside Recreation Review, 1, 8–13. Harrison, C. . (1991) Countryside Recreation in a Changing Society, TMS Partnership,University College London, London. Harrison, K. ., Rotherham, I.D. ., and Doncaster, S. . (2004) ‘The Humberhead Levels regionalrecreation resource area level one (review) and level two regional area action plan’, TechnicalReport, Tourism and Environmental Change Research Unit, Sheffield Hallam University,Sheffield. Harvey, G. . (2001) ‘Reinventing agriculture’, in Sissons, M. . (ed.) A Countryside for All: TheFuture of Rural Britain (pp. 77–88), Vintage/Random House, London. Hawkhead, T. . (2013) ‘Save our spaces: an article from Groundwork UK’, Science OmegaReview UK, www.scienceomega.com. Heinrich, B. . (2009) ‘Clear-cutting the truth about trees’, New York Times, 20 December. Henley Centre (2000) ‘Future trends for outdoor recreation’, Report for Natural England,Peterborough. Highland Council (2007) ‘Delivering council responsibilities under the nature conservation(Scotland) act 2004’, www.highland.gov.uk. Hill, H. . (1980) Freedom to Roam: The Struggle for Access to Britain’s Moors and Mountains,Moorland Publishing, Ashbourne. HM Government (2011a) ‘The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature’, The StationeryOffice, Norwich. HM Government (2011b) ‘The natural choice: what the natural environment paper means forlocal authorities’, http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/documents/newp-summary-la-110607.pdf.

HM Treasury (2010) ‘Spending review 2010’, The Stationery Office, Norwich. HM Treasury (2013) ‘Spending round 2013’, The Stationery Office, Norwich. Hollett, D. . (2002) ‘The pioneer ramblers 1850–1940’, North Wales Area of the Ramblers’Association, Betws-y-Coed, Printed in Manchester. Holt, A. . (1990) ‘A charter for whom? The access provision of the National Parks and access toCountryside Act 1949’, Ramblers’ Association, London. Hudson, I. . (2001) ‘The use and misuse of economic impact analysis’, Journal of Sport andSocial Issues, 25 (1), 20–39. Jenkins, J. . (ed.) (2002) Remaking the Landscape: The Changing Face of Britain, Profile BooksLtd, London. Joad, C.E.M. . (1934) A Charter for Ramblers or the Future of the Countryside, Hutchinson &Co (Publishers) Ltd, London. Joad, C.E.M. . (1945) The Untutored Townsman’s Invasion of the Country, Faber & Faber,London. Jordan, A.J. . (2002) ‘How Brussels reformed British environmental policy’, Research Note,Economic and Social Research Council, www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre. Jordan, A.J. . (2004) ‘The Europeanization of British environmental policy’, conferenceproceedings, ESCRC/UACES conference ‘Britain in Europe and Europe in Britain: theEuropeanization of British politics’, 16 July, Sheffield Town Hall, Sheffield. Kearns, A.J. . (1992) ‘Active citizenship and urban governance’, Transactions of the Institute ofBritish Geographers, New series, 17 (1), 20–34. King, A.A. . and Clifford, S. . (1985) Holding Your Ground: An Action Guide to LocalConservation, Maurice Temple Smith, London. Kisby, B. . (2010) ‘The Big Society: power to the people?’ Political Quarterly, 81 (4), 484–491. Land Use Consultants and Lumsdon, L. . (2004) Getting back on track: regenerating rural life –informal recreation and the West Midlands economy, Advantage West Midlands and theCountryside Agency, Cheltenham, www.countryside.gov.uk. Lavery, P. . (1982) ‘Countryside management schemes in the urban fringe’, Planning Outlook,25 (2), 52–59. Leiper, N. . (1999) ‘A conceptual analysis of tourism-supported employment which reduces theincidence of exaggerated, misleading statistics about jobs’, Tourism Management, 20, 605–613. Lowe, P. . and Ward, S. . (eds) (1998) British Environmental Policy: Politics and Policy inTransition, Routledge, London. McKay, S. . (2013) Ramble On: The Story of our Love for Walking Britain, Fourth Estate,London. Mackie, A. . (2013) ‘An investigation into opinions of how Scottish local authority provision forbiodiversity conservation is being affected under current economic conditions’, Unpublisheddissertation, Scottish Rural University College, Aberdeen. Manning, R.E. . (1999) Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction,Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. Marren, P. . (2002) Nature Conservation: A Review of the Conservation of Wildlife in Britain,1950–2001, Collins New Naturalist, Vol. 91, HarperCollins, London. Matheson, J. . and Summerson, C. . (eds) (2000) Social Trends 30, HMSO, London. Mellanby, K. . (1967) Pesticides and Pollution, Collins New Naturalist, London. Menzies, W. . and Barton, P. . (eds) (2012) Partnership for Action: Groundwork: The EarlyYears, Groundwork UK, Birmingham. Mourato, S. ., Atkinson, G. ., Collins, M. ., Gibbons, S. ., MacKerron, G. ., and Resende, G. .(2010) ‘Economic analysis of cultural services executive summary’, Department of Geographyand Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, London. Mourato, S. ., Atkinson, G. ., Collins, M. ., Gibbons, S. ., MacKerron, G. ., Resende, G. .,Church, A. ., Molloy, D. ., Morling, P. ., and Pretty, J. . (2011) ‘UK national economicassessment: assessment of ecosystem related UK cultural services’, UK National EcosystemAssessment: Technical Report, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. National Digital Archive of Datasets (NDAD) (2004) ‘Countryside agencies’, National Archiveswebsite, www.ndad.nationalarchives.gov.uk/AH/30/detail.html. National Statistics Online (2001) ‘Census data 2001’, www.statistics.gov.uk. Nilsson, P.A. . (2002) ‘Staying on farms: an ideological background’, Annals of TourismResearch, 29 (1), 7–24.

Northumberland National Park Authority (2012) ‘Northumberland National Park regretsRothbury and Ingram visitor centres to close for 2013’,www.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk. Oliver, D. . (1991) ‘Active citizenship in the 1990s’, Parliamentary Affairs, 44 (2), 157–171. Outdoor Industries Association (2012) ‘The outdoor recreation economy’, Outdoor IndustriesAssociation, Boulder, CO. Oxford, M. . (2012) ‘Councils in adversity: why less isn’t more for nature’, ECOS, 33 (2), 21–25. Patmore, J.A. . (1970) Land and Leisure, David & Charles, Newton Abbott, Devon. Patmore, J.A. . (1983) Recreation and Resources, Blackwell, London. Phillips, A. . and Clarke, R. . (2004) ‘Our landscape from a wider perspective’, in Bishop, K. .and Phillips, A. . (eds) Countryside Planning: New Approaches to Management andConservation (pp. 49–67), Earthscan, London. Pigram, J.J. . and Jenkins, J.M. . (1999) Outdoor Recreation Management, Routledge, Londonand New York. Plummer, R. . (2009) Outdoor Recreation: An Introduction, Routledge, New York and London. Pretty, J. . (2004) ‘How nature contributes to mental and physical health’, Spirituality and HealthInternational, 5 (2), 68–78. Pretty, J. ., Griffin, M. ., Peacock, J. ., Hine, R. ., Sellens, M. ., and South, N. . (2005) ‘Acountryside for health and wellbeing: the physical and mental health benefits of green exercise’,Countryside Recreation Network, Sheffield. Pretty, J. ., Peacock, R. ., Hine, M. ., Sellens, M. ., South, N. ., and Griffin, M. . (2007) ‘Greenexercise in the UK countryside: effects on health and psychological well-being, and implicationsfor policy and planning’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50 (2), 211–231. Pröbstl, U. . (2003) ‘Natura 2000: the influence of the European Directives on the developmentof nature-based sport and outdoor recreation in mountain areas’, Journal for NatureConservation, 11, 340–345. Ramblers’ Association (2004) ‘Walking makes money’, www.ramblers.org.uk. Roberts, L. . and Hall, D. . (2001) Rural Tourism and Recreation: Principle to Practice, CABIPublishing, Wallingford. Robinson, G. . (1990) Conflict and Change in the Countryside, Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Rotherham, I.D. . (1999) ‘Urban environmental history: the importance of relict communities inurban biodiversity conservation’, Practical Ecology and Conservation, 3 (1), 3–22. Rotherham, I.D. . (2003a) ‘A critical evaluation of Doncaster’s borough strategy with particularreference to its performance on sustainability issues’, Sheffield Hallam University and HallamEnvironmental Consultants Ltd, Sheffield. Rotherham, I.D. . (2003b) ‘Executive summary: a critical evaluation of Doncaster’s boroughstrategy with particular reference to its performance on sustainability issues’, Sheffield HallamUniversity and Hallam Environmental Consultants Ltd, Sheffield. Rotherham, I.D. . (2006) ‘Historic landscape restoration: case studies of site recovery in post-industrial South Yorkshire, England’, in Agnoletti, M. . (ed.) The Conservation of CulturalLandscapes (pp. 211–224), CABI International, Wallingford. Rotherham, I.D. . (2010) ‘Environment, economy and community: responding to futureenvironmental change with reducing public sector resources’, People, Place and Policy, 4 (1),33–37. Rotherham, I.D. . (2012) ‘Transforming lives: RSPB Dearne Valley and the Green HeartProject’, Report for the RSPB and the Green Heart Project, Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield, p.75. Rotherham, I.D. (2013a) ‘New entrepreneurs in conservation: how the RSPB kick-startedtourism in South Yorkshire’s Dearne Valley’, ECOS, 34, 5–11. Rotherham, I.D. . (2013b) ‘The impacts on active countryside tourism of the rise and fall ofcountryside management’, Proceedings of Active Countryside Tourism, Leeds, 23–25 January. Rotherham, I.D. . (2013c) ‘The economic implications of countryside recreation and sports: areview’, Proceedings of Active Countryside Tourism, Leeds, 23–25 January. Rotherham, I.D. . (2014) Eco-history: An Introduction to Biodiversity and Conservation, WhiteHorse Press, Cambridge. Rotherham, I.D. . and Ayamba, M.A. . (2010) ‘Promoting environmental consciousness amongentrepreneurs of African-owned SMEs in the UK’, in Ahmed, A. . and Nwankwo, S. . (eds)Achieving Sustainable Development in Africa: Science, Technology and Innovation in Trajectory

(pp. 231–246), Interscience Publishers, Geneva. Rotherham, I.D. . and Capriello, A. . (2008) ‘A marketing management model for the wildlifeindustry’, in Conference Proceedings of the first Annual EuroMed Conference ‘European andMediterranean Trends And Challenges in the 21st Century’, Proceedings of EuroMed Academyof Business 2008, Annual Conference at Marseille (ISBN-978-9963-634-58-3), 160–181. Rotherham, I.D. . and Cartwright G . (2000) ‘The potential of urban wetland conservation ineconomic and environmental renewal: a case study approach’, Practical Ecology andConservation, 4 (1), 47–60. Rotherham, I.D. . and Cartwright G . (2001) ‘Urban wetland conservation: case studies inenvironmental and economic renewal’, in Atherden, M. . (ed.) Wetlands in the Landscape:Archaeology, Conservation, Heritage (pp. 150–154), Research Centre, York St John University,York. Rotherham, I.D. ., Doncaster, S. ., and Egan, D. . (2002a) ‘The Humberhead Levels sustainableand nature-based tourism and leisure project: phase 1 scoping report’, Technical Report, Centrefor Environmental Conservation and Outdoor Leisure, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield. Rotherham, I.D. ., Doncaster, S. ., and Egan, D. . (2002b) ‘Nature-based leisure and tourism asdrivers for change in England’s Humberhead Levels’, Technical Report, Centre forEnvironmental Conservation and Outdoor Leisure, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield. Rotherham, I.D. ., Doncaster, S. ., and Egan, D. . (2004a) ‘Issues and approaches in valuingwildlife recreation and leisure: in the context of countryside recreation’, in Bull, M. . (ed.)Demonstrating the Economic Value of Countryside Recreation, Countryside Recreation NetworkSeminar Proceedings, Bristol, 11 March, pp. 59–66. Rotherham, I.D. ., Doncaster, S. ., and Egan, D. . (2004b) ‘Valuing wildlife recreation andleisure’, Countryside Recreation, 12 (10), 12–19. Rotherham, I.D. ., Doncaster, S. ., and Egan, D. . (2005a) ‘Nature-based leisure and tourism inEngland’s Humberhead Levels’, Annals of Tourism Research, 8 (2–3), 214–230. Rotherham, I.D. ., Egan, D. ., and Egan, H. . (2006a) ‘A review of the economic value ofcountryside recreation and sports’, Tourism and Environmental Change Research Unit,Sheffield Hallam University, Sport England and CCPR, Sheffield. Rotherham, I.D. ., Egan, D. ., and Egan, H. . (2006b) ‘Executive summary: a review of theeconomic value of countryside recreation and sports’, Tourism and Environmental ChangeResearch Unit, Sheffield Hallam University, Sport England and CCPR, Sheffield. Rotherham, I.D. ., Egan, D. ., and Harrison, K. . (2005b) ‘An evaluation of the local economicimpact of Center Parcs forest holiday villages in the UK’, TECRU (SHU) and HallamEnvironmental Consultants Ltd, Sheffield. Rotherham, I.D. ., Egan, D. ., and Harrison, K. . (2005c) ‘The local economic impact of CenterParcs holiday villages with particular reference to the potential impact of a proposed holidayvillage at Warren Wood, Bedfordshire’, TECRU (SHU) and Hallam Environmental ConsultantsLtd, Sheffield. Rotherham, I.D. ., Glaves, P. ., Handley, C. ., Doncaster, S. ., Harrison, K. ., Argent, J. ., andNolan, R. . (2006c) ‘The delivery of countryside management in England part 2: survey of localauthorities’ delivery of countryside management’, Report commissioned by the Landscape,Access and Recreation division of the Countryside Agency, Tourism and Environmental ChangeResearch Unit, Sheffield Hallam University with Hallam Environmental Consultants Ltd,Sheffield. Rotherham, I.D. ., Glaves, P. ., Handley, C. ., Doncaster, S. ., Harrison, K. ., Argent, J. ., Nolan,R. ., and Smith, G. . (2006d) ‘The delivery of countryside management in England: executivesummary’, Report commissioned by the Landscape, Access and Recreation division of theCountryside Agency, Tourism and Environmental Change Research Unit, Sheffield HallamUniversity with Hallam Environmental Consultants Ltd, Sheffield. Rotherham, I.D. ., Handley, C. ., Doncaster, S. ., Nolan, R. ., and Smith, G. . (2006e) ‘Thedelivery of countryside management in England part 1: the historical context’, Reportcommissioned by the Landscape, Access and Recreation division of the Countryside Agency,Tourism and Environmental Change Research Unit, Sheffield Hallam, University with HallamEnvironmental Consultants Ltd, Sheffield. Rotherham, I.D. ., Harrison, K. ., and Egan, D. . (2004c) ‘Characterisation of the rural/urbanfringe: a case study in the trans-Pennine corridor’, TLECRU, SHU, and Countryside Agency,Sheffield.

Rotherham, I.D. ., Harrison, K. ., Handley, C. ., and Egan, D. . (2006f) ‘A socio-economicappraisal of the impacts of Heritage Lottery Fund support: a case study of the RSPB DearneValley Nature Reserve’, TECRU, SHU, and Heritage Lottery Fund. Rotherham, I.D. ., Harrison, K. ., Handley, C. ., and Egan, D. . (2006g) ‘Executive summary. Asocio-economic appraisal of the impacts of Heritage Lottery Fund support: a case study of theRSPB Dearne Valley Nature Reserve’, TECRU, SHU, and Heritage Lottery Fund. Rotherham, I.D. ., Rose, J.C. ., and Egan, D. . (2000a) ‘A critical evaluation of the wildlife leisureindustry: an emerging component of leisure and tourism’, in Robinson, M. ., Swarbrooke, J. .,Evans, N. ., Long, P. ., and Sharpley, R. . (eds) Reflections on International Tourism:Environmental Management and Pathways to Sustainable Tourism, (pp. 229–245), Centre forTravel and Tourism, University of Northumbria, Sunderland. Rotherham, I.D. ., Rose, J.C. ., Handley, C. ., and Goodman, K. . (2000b) ‘Restoring urban wetmeadows: five years of recovery of a major floodplain in urban South Yorkshire, UK’, in AbstractProceedings SER 2000, Society for Ecological Restoration, Liverpool, Unpaged. RSPB (2008) ‘RSPB Scotland parliamentary briefing’, www.rspb.org.uk. Saunders, G. . (2010) ‘Nature and Big Society: seeing through the baggage’, ECOS, 31 (3/4),65–67. Scotland Government (2010) ‘Scotland’s spending plans and draft budget 2011–12’,www.scotland.gov.uk. Scotland Government (2011) ‘Rural affairs and the environment, portfolio responsibilities’,www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/. Scott, P. . (1992) ‘Countryside management services in England and Wales: value for moneystudy’, Peter Scott Planning Services/Countryside Commission, Edinburgh and Cheltenham. Scottish Wildlife Trust (2011) ‘Scottish spending review 2011 and draft budget 2012–13,evidence from the Scottish Wildlife Trust’, http://scottishwildlifetrust. org.uk. Seabrooke, W. . and Miles, C.W.N. . (1993) Recreational Land Management, 2nd edn, E. &F.N. Spon, London. Sharpley, R. . (1996) Tourism and Leisure in the Countryside, ELM Publications, Huntingdon. Sharpley, R. . (2003) Tourism and Leisure in the Countryside, 3rd edn, Elm Publications,Huntingdon. Shoard, M. . (1980) The Theft of the Countryside, Maurice Temple Smith, London. Shoard, M. . (1987) This is Our Land: The Struggle for Britain’s Countryside, Gaia Books Ltd,London. Stamp, D. Sir . (1969) Nature Conservation in Britain, New Naturalist, Collins, London. Tabbush, P. . and O’Brien, L. . (2003) ‘Health and well-being: trees, woodlands and naturalspaces’, Forestry Commission, Edinburgh. Townsend, M. . (2010) ‘Conservation and Big Society: opportunity or threat?’ ECOS, 31 (3/4),25–27. Townsend, M. . (2012) ‘Conservation in a time of austerity: why fund nature?’ ECOS, 33(2),17–20. Travis, A.S. . (1976) ‘Recreation in the woods today: a United Kingdom review, in, people, treesand woods’, Proceedings of the CRRAG Conference, Countryside Recreation Advisory Group,pp. 19–36. UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) ‘The UK national ecosystem assessment: synthesisof the key findings’, UNEP-WCMA, Cambridge. United Kingdom Parliament (1999) ‘Draft Development Commission (Transfer of Functions andMiscellaneous Provisions) Order 1999’, Second Standing Committee Delegated Legislation, UKParliament, London. Warburton, D. . (2004) ‘Policy context for community involvement in countryside planning’, inBishop, K. . and Phillips, A. . (eds) Countryside Planning: New Approaches to Management andConservation (p. 68), Earthscan, London. Warburton, D. . (2011) ‘Big Society and the environment: empowerment or takeover?’ ECOS,32 (1), 27–33. Watkins, C. . (ed.) (1996) Rights of Way: Policy, Culture and Management, Pinter, London. Wood, R. . (ed.) (1994) ‘Countryside recreation research: work completed by the CRNagencies’, CRN, Cardiff. Yue, C. ., Mahoney, E. ., and Herbowicz, T. . (2013) ‘Economic benefits to local communitiesfrom national park visitation – 2011’, National Park Service, Department of the Interior,

Washington, DC.

The Rise and Fall of Countryside Management - Taylor ...

Documents

Transcript of The Rise and Fall of Countryside Management - Taylor ...