Skip to main content

Outdoor Recreation and the Environment

  • Chapter

Abstract

In the context of outdoor recreation and the environment, the ‘forbidden fruit’ has long been equality of access to all rural environments: landscapes have been there for the public to see (from a distance), to read about, and to be preserved, but (largely) not to be touched, far less used for anything as ephemeral as recreation and leisure. While leisure in capitalist Britain may have brought limited rewards for the ‘good citizen’ (Ravenscroft, 1993), there was never — certainly when The Devil Makes Work was written — a question of ‘unforbidding’ the fruits of rural property for the good of ordinary people (Shoard, 1987; Stephenson, 1989; Ravenscroft, 1996, 1998a; Parker and Ravenscroft, 1999, 2001). Indeed, the rhetoric of the day was largely that rural property required a level of ‘stewardship’ that made recre ational access and use inappropriate in all but the most robust locations (Ravenscroft, 1995). This was widely contrasted with the position elsewhere — especially ‘Europe’ — where, it was claimed, people could exercise ‘citizen rights’ of access over private land (see, in particular, Shoard, 1987). However, as Curry (2002) noted in his work on recreational access in New Zealand, intercountry comparisons are notoriously hard to make, even when the countries share similar legal foundations.

Keywords

  • Public Access
  • Lake District
  • Outdoor Recreation
  • Open Country
  • Forestry Commission

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1057/9780230299979_4
  • Chapter length: 18 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-0-230-29997-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   120.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Anderson, J. L. (2007a) ‘Britain’s right to roam: Redefining the landowner’s bundle of sticks’, Georgetown Journal of International Environmental Law, 19(3): 375–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. L. (2007b) ‘Countryside access and environmental protection: An American’s view of Britain’s right to roam’, Environmental Law Review, 9(1): 241–59.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Angling Trust (2009) A Statement on Inland Navigation. http://www.anglingtrust.net(accessed 27 July 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborti, N. and J. Garland (eds) (2004) Rural Racism (Cullompton: Willan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, A. P. Gilchrist and N. Ravenscroft (2007) ‘Negotiating recreational access under asymmetrical power relations: The case of inland waterways in England’, Society and Natural Resources, 20(3): 213–27.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, J. and C. Critcher (1985) The Devil Makes Work: Leisure in Capitalist Britain (London: Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloke, P. J. and J. Little (eds) (1997) Contested Countryside Cultures (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Countryside Agency (2004) Great Britain Day Visits Survey 2002/2003 (Cheltenham: Countryside Agency).

    Google Scholar 

  • Countryside Agency (2005) The Countryside Agency Diversity Review and Recommended Outline Action Plan (London: Defra).

    Google Scholar 

  • Countryside Agency, Forestry Commission, Environment Agency & English Nature (2000) Improving Access to Woods, Watersides and the Coast A Joint Report to Government on the Options for Change. Publication CA 33 (Cheltenham: Countryside Agency).

    Google Scholar 

  • Curry, N. (1998) ‘Permitted access in England and Wales, in Country Landowners’ Association’, Access to the countryside, Volume 2. Submission to the consultation on Access to Open Country. London: Country Landowners’ Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curry, N. (2002) ‘Access rights for outdoor recreation in New Zealand: Some lessons for open country in England and Wales’, Journal of Environmental Management, 64(4): 423–35.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Curry, N. and N. Ravenscroft (2001) ‘Countryside recreation provision in England: Exploring a demand-led approach’, Land Use Policy, 18(3): 281–91.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Darby, W. J. (2000) Landscape and Identity: Geographies of Nation and Class in England (Oxford: Berg).

    Google Scholar 

  • Defra (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2001) Consultation on Rights of Way Improvement Plans (London: Defra).

    Google Scholar 

  • Defra (2009) Marine and Coastal Access Bill Policy Document (London: Defra).

    Google Scholar 

  • DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) (2000). Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000: Explanatory Notes, Chapter 37 (London: TSO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, B., M. Paterson and B. Seel (eds) (2000) Direct Action in British Environmentalism (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Environment Agency (2006) A Better Place to Play. Our Strategy for Water Related Sport and Recreation 2006–2011 (Bristol: Environment Agency).

    Google Scholar 

  • Feist, M. J. (1978) A Study of Management Agreements. Publication CCP 114. (Cheltenham: Countryside Commission).

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, J. and N. Chakraborti (2006) ‘“Race”, space and place: Examining identity and cultures of exclusion in rural England’, Ethnicities, 6(2): 159–77.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gilchrist, P. (2007) ‘Sport under the shadow of Industry: Paternalism at Alfred Herbert Ltd’, in A. Tomlinson and J. Woodham (eds) Image, Power and Space: Studies in Consumption and Identity, 3–26 (Aachen/Oxford: Meyer & Meyer).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilchrist, P. and N. Ravenscroft (2008) ‘Power to the paddlers? The Internet, governance and discipline’, Leisure Studies, 27(2): 129–48.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Green Lane Association (2006) Media Resource: The NERC Act. http://www.glass-uk.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=391&Itemid=l160, accessed 26 Sepember 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddad, B. M. (2003) ‘Property rights, ecosystem management, and John Locke’s labor theory of ownership’, Ecological Economics, 46(1): 19–31.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Halfacree, K. H. (1995) ‘Talking about rurality: Social representations of the rural as expressed by residents of Six English Parishes’, Journal of Rural Studies, 11(1): 1–20.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H. (1980) Freedom to Roam: The Struggle for Access to Britain’s Moors and Mountains (Ashbourne: Moorland Publishing).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillyard, S. (2007) The Sociology of Rural Life (Oxford: Berg).

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons Environment Committee (1995) The Impact of Leisure Activities on the Environment, HC 246-I (HMSO: London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Land Use Consultants (2008) The Environment, Economic Growth and Competitiveness — the Environment as an Economic Driver. Policy Paper ENV002 (Peterborough: Natural England).

    Google Scholar 

  • LARA (Land Access and Recreation Association) and LDNPA (Lake District National Park Authority) (1997) Lake District Hierarchy of Trail Routes — First Report (Market Drayton: LARA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. and P. Austin (1996) ‘Women and the rural idyll’, Journal of Rural Studies, 12(2): 101–11.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J. (1690/1988) Two Treatises of Government (New York: Cambridge University Press).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenthal, D. (1991) British National Identity and the English Landscape (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortazavi, R. (1997) ‘The right of public access in Sweden’, Annals of Tourism Research 24(3): 609–23.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mauss, M. (1980) The Gift. Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies (London: Cohen & West).

    Google Scholar 

  • Natural England (2006) England Leisure Visits Survey 2005 (Peterborough: Natural England).

    Google Scholar 

  • Natural England (2008) State of the Natural Environment 2008 (Peterborough: Natural England).

    Google Scholar 

  • Newby, H. C. Bell, D. Rose and P. Saunders (1978) Property, Paternalism and Power: Class and Control in Rural England (London: Hutchinson).

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. (2006) ‘The country code and the ordering of countryside citizenship’, Journal of Rural Studies, 22(1): 1–16.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. (2007) ‘Leisure citizenship, constraints and moral regulation’, Leisure Studies, 26(1): 1–22.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. (2008) ‘The politics of access under New Labour: Nothing to CRoW about’, in M. Woods (ed.) Rural Politics in Britain since 1997 (Bristol: Policy Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. and N. Ravenscroft (1999) ‘Benevolence, nationalism and hegemony: Fifty years of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949’, Leisure Studies, 18(4): 297–313.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. and N. Ravenscroft (2001) ‘Land, rights and the gift: The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the negotiation of citizenship’, Sociologia Ruralis, 41(4): 381–98.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Petitions Committee of the National Assembly for Wales (2009) Access Along Inland Water (Cardiff: National Assembly for Wales).

    Google Scholar 

  • Presdee, M. (2000) Cultural Criminology and the Carnival of Crime (London: Routledge).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscroft, N. (1993) ‘Public leisure provision and the good citizen’, Leisure Studies, 12: 33–44.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscroft, N. (1995) ‘Recreational access to the countryside of England and Wales: Popular leisure as the legitimation of private property’, Journal of Property Research, 12: 63–74.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscroft, N. (1996) ‘Access to the countryside of England and Wales: Public/private partnership or the privatisation of public rights?’, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14(1): 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscroft, N. (1998a) ‘Rights, citizenship and access to the countryside’, Space & Polity, 2(1): 33–49.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscroft, N. (1998b) ‘The changing regulation of public leisure provision’, Leisure Studies, 17(2): 138–54.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscroft, N. and P. Gilchrist, (2009) ‘Spaces of transgression: Governance, discipline and reworking the carnivalesque’, Leisure Studies, 28(1): 35–49.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscroft, N. and Z. Matteucci, (2003) ‘The festival as carnivalesque: Social governance and control at Pamplona’s San Fermin Fiesta’, Tourism, Culture and Communication, 4(1): 1–15.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, B. and P. Johnson (1999) ‘Access to “Other” Open Country’, Countryside Agency Board Paper 99/29 (Cheltenham: Countryside Agency). Available at http://www.countryside.gov.uk/LAR/archive/board_meetings/boardPapers/CA_AP99_29.asp (accessed 6 October 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Secretary of State for the Environment (2009) Guidance on Local Access Forums in England, revised March 2009 (London: Defra Recreation and Access Team).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sempik, J. (2008) ‘Building the evidence base for green exercise — Challenges and oppor tunities’, Paper to the Pavilion/Mind/University of Essex conference: Ecotherapy and the Green Agenda for Mental Health. ORT House Conference Centre, London, 2 June 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoard, M. (1987) The Land is Ours (London: Grafton).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibley, D. (1997) ‘Endangering the sacred: Nomads, youth cultures and the English countryside’, in P. J. Cloke and J. Little (eds) Contested Countryside Cultures, 218–31 (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, T. (1989) Forbidden Land. The Struggle for Access to Mountain and Moorland (Manchester: Manchester University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonnies, F. (1957) Community and Society: Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, translated and edited by C. P. Loomis (Chicago: The Michigan State University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Brighton (2005) Improving Access for Canoeing on Inland Waters: A Study of the Feasibility of Access Agreements. Final Report to the Environment Agency. Chelsea School and School of Environment, University of Brighton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallwork, J. and J. A. Dixon (2004) ‘Foxes, green fields and national identity: The rhetorical location of Britishness’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 43: 1–19.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wightman, A., R. Callander and G. Boyd (2003) Common Land in Scotland: A Brief Overview. Securing the Commons No. 8 (London: International Institute for Environment and Development).

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, M. (2005) Contesting Rurality: Politics in the British Countryside (Aldershot: Ashgate).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2011 Neil Ravenscroft and Paul Gilchrist

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ravenscroft, N., Gilchrist, P. (2011). Outdoor Recreation and the Environment. In: Bramham, P., Wagg, S. (eds) The New Politics of Leisure and Pleasure. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299979_4

Download citation