| 
|
"If indeed all the world is a stage, and men and women have their exits and their entrances, then perhaps the late 20th century tourist is the audience."[1]
Having identified in earlier chapters the characteristics that make the Downland a special place and the management regimes that seek to perpetuate that specialness, this study now investigates and seeks to define tourism in the context of this special place. To effect this a number of considerations are explored.
First, and of paramount importance, is an understanding of the nature and difficulty in defining tourism. There is also a further debate as to the role that it then plays. The two key participants in tourism are the visitor and the host and tourism will affect each in different ways. Within these two participants groups, individuals will be the recipients of both desirable and undesirable outcomes from tourism. Like many human activities, tourism often fails to direct the benefits towards those who suffer its adverse consequences. Tourism is a tool that can achieve desirable outcomes but the tool needs skilled management to ensure its positive effectiveness for all.
What therefore is tourism? At a conceptual level, tourism is an activity that stems from the process of travelling. To travel is to tour, whether it be to walk the dog, hunt for food or to circumvent the globe for adventure. Participation ranges from visitor to host, receiver to supplier. The underlying motivation to participate is that it provides a perceived benefit. Tourism therefore is a process that enhances lifestyle and is extensively engaged in throughout the living world. At this level, tourism is inseparable from basic human activities, capable of intruding into all aspects of life.[2] We may well ask at this stage whether the notion that there is a clearly defined tourism industry is sustainable?[3] Such a broad ranging concept is of limited value in a study such as this and it is therefore necessary to condense our definition of tourism to more manageable proportions.
Academics have produced a host of definitions of tourism, mainly from the visitor's perspective. There is a potential area for future debate in defining tourism from the host community's perspective. Some of the existing definitions endeavour to encapsulate the psychology of tourism as well as the material manifestations. Others separate these two components, depending on the end usage. This suggests that tourism is a subject determined by its definition and that each definition is case specific. This does little to assist in identifying tourism for the purpose of this study until a definition is selected. Hunziker has produced one of the classic definitions: "Tourism is the sum of relations and phenomena which result from travelling and visiting an area by non-residents providing that it does not entail resettlement or paid work." [4]
How might the nature of tourism within this broad definition be explored? Tourism is capable of delivering a variety of experiences that meet the psychological and physiological needs of both visitor and host. On the Downland it can be argued that, for the tourist, enjoyment is the principal motivation, rather than necessity. Such experience is therefore an entertainment, in that tourism provides a means of personal fulfillment and satisfaction otherwise missing in our essential daily toil. There is therefore a consumer demand that is identifiable and satisfiable.
The elements of tourism can be seen as a number of different markets with demand, supply, cost and benefit factors. Tourists needs can include mobility, sustenance, entertainment, clothing, shelter, social interaction, etc. In the case of the Downland it will be shown that the "product" is consumed in a variety of ways and that usage can be categorised. Supporting the direct requirements of tourism are the facilities that meet the indirect requirements. These range from food supply mechanisms to road networks. An elaborate commercial and social infrastructure becomes necessary to support tourism within a society. This integrates itself inextricably with the normal day to day activities of that society.
It has been argued that tourism is a heterogeneous activity of man that impinges on many aspects of human enterprise.[5] As such it is a potent tool for impacting on the economic, political and social activities of society. From the academic viewpoint it also renders it a particularly diverse subject necessitating interdisciplinary research.[6] The anatomisation of tourism into supply and demand factors then provides a framework for management. The market opportunities can be both with the host and with the visitor. For example the need for environmental conservation is a demand need of the host community which can be pursued by the hosting of tourists to secure wide scale support for such issues. Vice versa, a visitor seeks a particular conserved landscape and this need is fulfilled by the host in exchange for some gain, either direct or indirect.
With tourism, in its broadest sense, being potentially so varied, how can a meaningful definition, appropriate for the Downs, be honed from Hunziker's general definition? One approach is to distill out superfluous usage which is possibly less relevant to this study. For example, considering whether or not tourism involves overnight stopovers away from home. It will be demonstrated in the Downland Visitor Survey that participants in Downland recreation include a substantial percentage of overnight visitors as well as day trippers. It will also be shown that a wide variety of recreational outdoor pursuits are enjoyed by tourists, suggesting that Downland tourism should be considered as a general recreation or leisure activity not in the home; this is an approach recognised in academic theory.[7]
Involving travel to reach the Downs confirms the view that Downland tourism is away from the home, but this raises the question how far is away from home? By selecting recreation and leisure this excludes business travel and commuting, but does it include convalescence, second homes and retirement as well as some of the more obvious mundane activities such as walking the dog or going to the pub, and what about leisure taken on a business trip? How can this be identified and quantified?
The nature of the Downland implies that much of the recreation and leisure is outdoor, however this is only part of the tourist experience which will be shown to include eating, travel and accommodation. The definition of tourism on the Downs can now start to be formulated to include "the hosting or participating in outdoor recreation and leisure and associated activities away from home".
As noted earlier in this chapter we are dealing with the pursuit of a non essential activity of man which is not vital to the material continuation of life. Downland tourism therefore is an entertainment experience for the visitor, away from home, that, if successful, enriches the lives of both visitor and host. The definition of tourism for the Sussex Downs can thus be further refined as:
"The hosting or participating in away from home outdoor recreation and leisure pastime, and associated activities, that ideally enriches both visitor and host."
This is a particularly wide definition but includes the use of the Downland by local residents for recreation. Such a definition enables a true picture of visitor use of the Downland to be formulated. To exclude the use by significant numbers of local people would create a false impression of the value of the Downland as a recreational resource. This has considerable implications which will be debated in this thesis and provides a considerable challenge to find a means of quantifying the market and then segmenting the overall usage of the Downland. Such approaches to countryside usage evaluation are increasing receiving wider credibility.[8]
Management planning can be substantially assisted by improved understanding of market segmentation. Market analysis by behavioural characteristics leads to enhanced economic appraisal of the tourism cost versus benefits equation. There are however additional indirect benefits, less easily quantifiable. These may be improved infrastructure such as roads, for the host community. The injection of tourism into a local economy also causes a ripple effect. The benefits accruing to one business by creating employment and wealth, in turn generate spending power which triggers further economic activity, as the proceeds are dispersed. The multiplier effect thus puts tourism into a pump priming role for economic growth.[9]
Tourism is therefore an exploitable opportunity for capitalist processes. Traditionally, in a market economy, the "bottom line" becomes the goal. This opens the door to the danger of the relentless pursuit of financial gain at the expense of all else, with the result that tourism becomes a destructive force. Pursued to extremes it fundamentally changes the nature of the experience of the tourism consumer to the point where it looses its original raison d'etre. Theme parks replace open countryside and hotel complexes dominate once quiet villages.
The intrusion of tourism into a region prompts social reaction. Initially tourism is seen as a fringe industry providing benefits hitherto not available, both in infrastructure and economic wealth. In time this degrades to a "them and us" attitude which fosters exploitation by both the host and the visitor. Not only is the quality of the tourist experience reduced, the host community replaces traditional hospitality with antagonism. The blocking of the main street in Alfriston with coaches everyday is a classic example of what precipitates this deterioration in attitude. In the end this will negate much of the effort put into developing visitor numbers.[10] To avoid such conflict within the host community requires wide scale planning participation and education.[11]
In pursuing a plan of tourism development, clear objectives are essential to ensure that the change that tourism brings about is sympathetic with the best interests of the community at large. Seen in a positive light, tourism provides the justification for achieving objectives that may otherwise be unobtainable such as the enhancement of the landscape and heritage or the economic well being of a rural community. Bad management will result in the segregation of benefits and costs, to the disadvantage of the recipient of the costs.
Tourism also has inherent dangers that are pertinent to where and how tourism is developed. Academic study has produced a wealth of literature on how to identify specific dangers. These dangers are relative to place and time however and generalisations run the danger of solutions being missed that are likewise place and time specific. Tourism however can add valuable dimensions to the activities of a community in achieving a variety of goals. Change is inevitable but by incorporating tourism planning into that change, a valuable tool becomes available which enables the skilled user to shape change to advantage.
A further consideration is that because of the pervasive nature of tourism and the mobility of its participants, it recognises few boundaries to limit its area of impact. This is important in selecting the region for this study. The Downland is a potential provider of a particular type of tourism. This is often only part of the whole experience in that it is supplemented by accommodation and other facilities elsewhere. Such supporting facilities are as essential as the core experience and need to be included in any study of tourism. In selecting a region for study therefore, this point has been accommodated by the inclusion of a outer peripheral zone around the Downs as an integral part of the area under scrutiny.[12]
The final point that needs consideration is tourism dependance. A community placing its reliance on tourism as an economic and social engine, as in any other industry, invests time and resources to that end. A decline in tourism receipts, often for reasons beyond the reasonable control of the host community, results in the multiplier effect going into reverse. The local economy collapses and hardship results.[13] One solution to this ever present threat is diversification of interest. Alternative enterprises provide a buffer to single industry dependance, whether they be agriculture or a business unrelated to the Downland environment.
From the foregoing text, it can be seen that tourism as a concept is nebulous and that it needs qualifying in the context of the proposed study in order to make a manageable debate. In the case of the South Downs, tourism should be seen as hosting or participating in entertaining outdoor recreation and leisure experience away from home that ideally enriches the participants. This applies to both the host and the visitor. The segmenting of the market is essential in coming to terms with the demand and supply implications and this is developed further in Chapter 7.
Having arrived at a very broad definition of recreational tourism and, given that the visitor appeal of the Downland is essentially for rural outdoor recreation, this chapter now reviews the commercial tourism resources and general infrastructure in the region at large that is available to support the particular type of experience.
Pearce identifies seven broad categories as important locational factors for tourism. These are climate, physical conditions, attractions, access, existing facilities, land tenure and use and other factors such as development incentives.[14] In this chapter, three of these are considered in the context of the Sussex Downs. These are access, existing facilities and commercial attractions. The direct public expenditure on tourism is also identified. Pearce's other factors are covered elsewhere in this thesis.
It is worth noting that it is generally recognised that the South East has one of the densest networks of tourist attractions in the country.[15] The distribution of tourist resources was discussed in Chapter 1,6. Many of these attractions are clustered in the south coast seaside resorts leading to the adoption of the southern peripheral area as part of the study area.
Mobility and Access Factors
Access to a market and mobility within the tourist zone are key factors in determining the level of demand and the distribution of that demand respectively. WSCC have observed that: "Some places to visit have shown disappointing attendance figures because of poor access and inadequate communication". [16] In the case of the Sussex Downs, railways and roads are considered as being key to the private and public transport resources for mobility and access, particularly from catchment zones in excess of 5 miles distance. As such communications can become a management tool to hinder or enhance access. The development or non development of the communications infrastructure are considered in tandem with the policies of visitor access to the Downland in Chapter 15.
Railways The region is well served by railways with three major routes radiating from London, one to Portsmouth, one to Littlehampton and one to Brighton and Newhaven dividing at Burgess Hill. In addition there is an east-west route linking Chichester with Eastbourne via Littlehampton, Brighton and Lewes. This route will be particularly important with the opening of the Channel Tunnel because it has the potential to distribute overseas visitors throughout the Downland and surrounding regions.
The development of railways in the south east is covered by Griffiths. The extent of the rationalisation that took place between the original establishment in the 19th century and that of the early 1980s is considerable. Of the original 566 km of line built, 37 percent has closed, ie. 208 km. The existing network therefore comprises the strategic main line routes with some commuter lines in the north east. Rail links in the north east of the county and east of Hastings are not electrified.[17]
The Serpell options for further closures, based on the 1983 Serpell Report, gives a further insight into possible rail establishment in the future.[18] This is subject to the present Government policies on privatisation and rail funding, but does highlight track that is financially of doubtful viability. The "worst" options suggest closure of all track linking with the Downland except the London to Brighton/Eastbourne main lines. Road development may precipitate this closure or it may be offset by rail traffic generated by Eurotunnel.
The Railways Bill now going through parliament could well be the catalyst to further closure alongside privatisation. One particular route at risk is the south coast line from Portsmouth, through Brighton to Eastbourne.[19] This has implications for both the future of east-west freight traffic being transferred to the Honiton Folkestone trunk route which passes through the Downs and also for the future development of passenger traffic. This line could become a strategic route for Downland visitors, either for movement within the region or the conveyance of Eurotunnel traffic. Its future should be considered in the context of regional tourism transport infrastructure discussed in Chapter 15.
The importance of rail for Downland tourism should not be overstressed however. Only 10 percent of visitors researched in the East Sussex Tourism Survey Locations Study, 1992, used the train. However within the total sample, two access points to the Downland, Brighton and Lewes, were substantially higher at 20 and 18 percent respectively.[20] It will later be shown that less than 1 percent of Downland visitors use the train.[21]
Roads The region is less well served with roads than railways. Road patterns however are similar to that established by the railways, that is an east west coastal route and a north south network radiating from London.[22] Only recently has there been significant progress in improving road links. The M25 provides a useful access route for the important Greater London catchment zone and this in turn funnels traffic down the M23 to a point south of Crawley where it links with Gatwick Airport. Unfortunately motorway standard roads do not progress further south to Brighton although work is now completed on improvements to the A23 trunk road between Crawley and Brighton.
Another important route radiating from London is the A3M which links London to Portsmouth. Like the M23/A23 it is a mixture of motorway and main road. Stretches of motorway are divided by torturous sections of sub standard local roads. The other north south link is the A24 London-Worthing road, but this is not a fast route in many sections by todays standards although it has extensive stretches of dual carriageway.
The possibility of an east-west route is being pursued slowly. The Honiton Folkestone trunk road scheme has the potential for conveying considerable numbers of tourists from mainland Europe following the 1994 opening of the Channel Tunnel. Extended planning arguments mean that the route is being developed piecemeal and in spite of impressive progress with sections such as that in the vicinity of the University of Sussex at Falmer, other lengths, like that skirting Worthing, are the subject of endless public debate, as the conflict between Downland conservation, urban housing needs and economic benefits are resolved.[23]
The result is that the Sussex Downs are not linked directly to the national Motorway system and are not likely to be in the foreseeable future. This is seen as a blessing in many quarters.[24] Instead reliance will be placed on trunk routes. The implications of this are, arguably, twofold:
a) Economic: If tourism is capable of being managed to give substantial economic benefits to a region without detracting from the quality of the Downland then this benefit will be reduced by poor road access. Both visitors and commerce depend heavily on road transport. Traditional industries are disappearing in the region and new economic generators are essential. For example, an important consideration in this thesis is that modern agri-industry no longer requires the formerly marginal Downland. This is seen as particularly important when considering the future Downland landscape. If farming is to assume a lower order of economic importance in the future, the community will have to find methods of creating alternative wealth to sustain the local economy and finance more altruistic uses of the Downland.
b) Quality of Life: Failure to generate economic wealth within the community at large will reduce the funding available for conservation schemes on the Downland as well as reducing local quality of life. Enhancement of the Downland through public access improvement and conservation provides opportunities for enhancing leisure opportunities for local residents as well as visitors. Economic wealth within the community, based on tourism, can be seen as an essential part of maintaining general, long term, living standards.
The deficiencies in rail and road links have been highlighted in recent press editorials. One warning has come from the Federation of Sussex Industries. The Honiton to Folkestone trunk route needs urgent completion to open up the Euro market via the Channel Tunnel. Similarly, the rail link between Ashford and Hastings needs electrification in order to ensure a through route to the Channel Tunnel by rail. Both of these links are seen to supplement the Newhaven port traffic which has sound reasons for remaining competitive after the Tunnel opens.[25] The typical conflict that exists between the various factions was illustrated by the West Sussex Gazette on the 14th January, 1993, when on page two there were two separate articles, the first highlighted the Sussex Downs Conservation Board's concern about road gap closures on the A24 creating the need for a bridge to which it objected. The other highlighted the view of Worthing Councillors who strongly favoured a bridge.[26] The lack of a mutually acceptable overall policy resulted in conflict of opinion. Such conflict will have to be resolved against a background of common objectives if, not only transport links but tourism generally is to be progressed for the common good.
In 1989, national road traffic forecasts predicted 2.5 times more traffic on all roads by 2025. Most of this increase will be outside urban areas and much of it will be for leisure purposes.[27] Clever traffic planning and management must be priority, not only to accommodate the visitor pressure that this will create but also to minimise the vehicular impact on fragile environments like the Downland. The importance of car as a mode of travel can be gauged from the two WSCC South Downs Way visitor surveys, 1991. Both samples showed in excess of 80 percent of visitors using cars and will be shown to reflect the findings of the Visitor Survey detailed in Chapter 6. The planning and manipulation of vehicular mobility becomes an important management tool in the dispersal of Downland visitors.
Rumour that the Department of Transport has a hidden agenda in the shape of an east - west motorway through Sussex features in the press from time to time.[28] The 1989 White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" sets out the need for a strategic study to be undertaken for a possible Kent/Hampshire route. Such a study is dependant on a regional traffic model which requires further development.[29] It will be some years before details are available but may well be the means of resolving some of the issues discussed in this section. Whether such a venture is acceptable on environmental terms however will no doubt become the subject of intense public debate if the matter is progressed.
Airports There are no major airports within the study region. Gatwick International Airport is linked by road and rail to the region. Shoreham and Goodwood airports are licensed for use by public aircraft and for training, but are essentially local airports where the flight training facilities are likely to be the most important tourist resource. Similarly gliders use fields at Parham and Ringmer.
Shipping The Newhaven Dieppe route has historically been troubled by strikes and irregular sailings. Now that Sealink Stena have assumed control of the route it is anticipated that the provision of a fast reliable route will enhance the flow of visitors to and from the continent.[30] The need for "improvements" to the A26 road north to accommodate this traffic threatens the Downland Ouse valley. If the Downland is to be maintained as a conserved landscape, such development will have to be justified as furthering conservation ideals and strategies.
Channel Tunnel Button considers the impact of the tunnel on southeast England and notes that the 1994 opening of the tunnel will coincide with the final creation of the Single European Market. The removal of internal EC trade restrictions is expected to give an immediate 4.5 percent growth in the EC's Gross Domestic Product. The southeast commands 36 percent of the UK Gross Domestic Product and Button cites Keeble (1982) who estimates that of any European region, the southeast has the greatest potential to benefit from the tunnel. Lack of good transport links however will curtail benefits. The proximity of the southeast to the tunnel will result in regional unplanned benefit by default. Sub regions however run the risk of being excluded from any beneficial influence by not planning adequately. The potentially massive returns of this major infrastructure investment may be redirected, if the southeast fails to capitalise on the opportunities.[31] How economic generation can meet environmental demands is discussed later in this thesis.
Having reviewed mobility and access factors, an inventory of general tourism resources is now presented. A number of industry reference works have been used for general background as well as the specific sources identified in the text footnotes.[32]
General Visitor Attractions
An indication of the number of general visitor attractions can be made from the following data for East and West Sussex Counties prepared by the SEETB 1989. West Sussex alone claims to have more than 130 visitor attractions, at least ten of which attract more than 100,000 visitors per annum.[33] The SEETB map of the South East of England identifies 315 organised tourist venues of which 36 fall within the Downland core study area - see table 4:1.
Table 4:1
EAST AND WEST SUSSEX VISITOR ATTRACTIONS
type of venue quantity
Houses and Castles 36
Gardens 22
Wildlife Attractions 13
Museums 68
Railways 3
Vineyards 15
Watermills 9
Source: SEETB Facts Sheets.
Within the larger study area the most popular commercial venues with visitors in excess of 100,000 are detailed in Table 4:2.
Table 4:2
PRINCIPAL COMMERCIAL TOURIST ATTRACTIONS.
venue visitors p.a.
(000s)
Drusillas* 330
Brighton Aquarium 160
Royal Pavilion, Brighton 314
Palace Pier Brighton 3,500
Bluebell Railway 205
Volks Railway 122
Arundel Castle* 154
Weald and Downland Museum* 172
Smarts Amusement Park 650
Butlins South Coast World 182
Fishbourne Roman Palace 102
Chichester Cathedral 250
Sheffield Park 130
Brighton Museum 130
Wildfowl Trust, Arundel* 124
Beckhurst Glass/Eastbourne Pier 250
Source: SEETB Facts Sheets and general industry data.
It will be noted that only four venues, identified in Table 4:2 with an asterisk, are situated within the boundaries of the Sussex Downs, all others being in the peripheral zones of the study region.
Country parks exist at:
Goodwood (interpretation planned)
Ditchling Common
Seven Sisters (interpretation facilities)
In addition, informal estimates suggest that Beachy Head has in excess of one million visitors per annum.
Coastal Resorts
The principal coastal resorts are Bognor, Littlehampton, Worthing, Hove, Brighton, Newhaven and Eastbourne all of which lie within the peripheral zone of the study region. The coastline extends for approximately 90 miles excluding Chichester Harbour but including Selsey Bill and 8 miles of Heritage Coast at Beachy Head. No major resort lies within the Sussex Downs delineated area but approximately 7 miles of the heritage coastline does.
Brighton, Eastbourne and Worthing have major conference facilities.
Tourist Accommodation
East and West Sussex in total have available the following establishments and bed spaces. Most of this will be concentrated in the southern peripheral zone which incorporates the seaside resorts, although the Gatwick Airport complex is amassed with the West Sussex data see Table 4:3.
Table 4:3
TOURIST ACCOMMODATION IN SUSSEX.
establishments bed spaces
Hotel/Guest House 750 30,872
B & B 288 2840
Farmhouse 58 409
Group Accommodation 15 1182
Self contained cottages/flats 161 824
Holiday centres 3 1144
Caravan/Camp sites - static 9379
touring 6498
total 15,877 est 63,508
Source: SEETB Facts Sheets.
In addition to Table 4:3 there is an indeterminate pool of unregistered accommodation. Some of the above establishments are seasonal. The data is based on that collated for publication in 1990.
It can be seen from the above that there is in excess of 100,000 bed spaces available in one form or another for overnight tourism of all types throughout East and West Sussex. In chapter five, it is estimated that there is a met demand for 19.9 million tourism nights in Sussex.
Up to 54 percent of this will be with a friend or relative.
The bedspaces identified above, which excludes friends and relatives, offer a total of approximately 36 million overnight beds per annum of which only 19.9 million are taken up at the absolute maximum. More likely the take up is nearer 10 million. There is thus ample spare capacity bed space in East and West Sussex to accommodate substantially more overnight visitors. The question arises however that if the bed space is so underutilised, has investment and therefore quality dropped to a point where the standards are not generally acceptable? Certainly some of the so-called tourist accommodation in Brighton is low in quality but not low cost.
Entertainment and Events Facilities
The Counties of East and West Sussex host a whole range of events ranging from sailing at Brighton Marina to the International Clowns Convention at Bognor. These are important factors in attracting tourism to the area and the Downland provides opportunities for diversification of interest. Whilst the Downland may not in itself be the principal attraction for many visitors, the opportunity for outdoor recreation on the Downs may well appeal to visitors who are in the region for other purposes. This is discussed further under principal user groups.
In developing the theme of other attractions acting in tandem with the appeal of the Downland to present a package of experience, the presence of theatres, restaurants and other facilities in the peripheral zones takes on greater importance.
East and West Sussex have 17 principal theatres 11 of which are in the study region peripheral zones.
There are four major racecourses in the study region, these are Brighton, Plumpton, Fontwell Park and Goodwood. These establishments provide convenient outdoor venues for other activities such as car boot sales, folk festivals, etc. In view of the fact that they have in situ infrastructure and management, they are particularly relevant to the provision of large scale outdoor organised activities on the Downland. A fifth racecouse at Lewes is in private hands and is used for horse training purposes.
Expenditure on Tourism
The important role played by public authorities in tourism development is considered further in Chapter 13. The local and regional expenditure on tourism for 1989/90 by public authorities is summarised in Table 4:4.
Table 4:4
LOCAL AND REGIONAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
By County Councils:
West Sussex CC UK pounds 45,000
East Sussex CC UK pounds 115,000
By District Councils:
West Sussex DCs UK pounds 512,000
East Sussex DCs UK Pounds 1,868,000
Total Council Expenditure: UK Pounds 2,540,000.
Source: personal communication.
The figures in Table 4:4 are supplemented by the South East England Tourist Board but is confused by the fact that some Tourist Board Expenditure is included in the County Councils figures. In 1991/2 this amounted to œ194,000 and is included in the total SEETB expenditure detailed in Table 4:5.
In considering the benefit of this expenditure to the Sussex Downs it must be remembered that the SEETB covers four counties, East and West Sussex, Kent and Surrey. Therefore any apportionment is somewhat less than the Sussex Councils who are the most dominant direct financial investors in tourism development.
Table 4:5
SEETB INCOME AND EXPENDITURE 1991/2
Income: (UK pounds)
Local Authority & Commercial Membership 343,994
Income from Activities 631,224
Tourist Info Centre & Financial Support 98,261
ETB 494,738
Interest 4,942
________
Total 1,573,159
Expenditure:
Staffing 447,000
Operating and activity costs 1,069,701
Depreciation 25,376
Interest payable 8,853
Total 1,550,930
Source: SEETB.[34]
In summary, from the earlier parts of this chapter it can be seen that tourism is inseparable from basic human activities. In the case of Downland tourism, a definition which encompasses all outdoor recreation is arrived at for the purpose of this thesis. The link between travel and Downland recreational tourism prompts an evaluation of mobility and access. A number of problems and opportunities are identified, both with tourism as an industry and with general mobility and access, without which tourism would not exist. The inventory of tourism resources in the study area indicates the extensive nature of existing tourism, which has been considerably aided by the direct expenditure through Local Authorities and SEETB. The recreational resources of the study area are detailed in Figure 2:4. A greater understanding of tourism in the south east can be further gained through appraising the extensive earlier research and this is now summarised in the following chapter.
Footnotes:
[1] Ryan C. 1991, Recreational Tourism, Routledge, London. p5.
[2] Gunn C A. 1988, Tourism Planning, 2nd ed. Taylor & Francis, New York. p4.
[3] Clark G. Darrall J. Grove-White R. Macnaghten P. & Urry J. Lancaster University, 1994, Leisure Landscapes - Leisure, Culture and the English Countryside: Challenges and Conflicts, CPRE, May, 5.6.
[4] Hunziker W. 1951, Le Tourism Social, Alliance Internationale du Tourisme, Berne.
[5] Pearce D. 1989, Tourist Development, Longman, Harlow. p2.
[6] Przeclawski K, 1993, "Tourism as the Subject of Interdisciplinary Research" in Pearce and Butler, Tourism Research - Critiques and Challenges, Routeledge, London, p9-19; Shaw G. Williams A M. 1994, Critical Issues in Tourism: a geographical perspective, Blackwell, Oxford, see introduction.
[7] Pearce D. 1989, p1.
[8] Clark G. et al, 1994, 5.12.
[9] Ryan C. 1991, p70/71.
[10] ESCC. 1992, "Alfriston - A Busy Parish", Countywide, Issue 3, November.
[11] Murphy P E. 1985, Tourism, Routeledge, London. p134/135.
[12] Tourism and Recreation Unit, Univ. Edinburgh, 1981, National Parks, A Study of Rural Economies, Countryside Commission, CCP144, p75.
[13] Pearce D. 1989, p14.
[14] Pearce D. 1989, p151/2.
[15] WSCC, 1986, Visitor Survey. Nov. P1.
[16] WSCC, 1986, p1.
[17] Griffiths I L. 1983, "Road and Rail in Sussex", in Sussex: Environment, Landscape and Society, University of Sussex Geog. Editorial Committee, Alan Sutton, Gloucester, p239 - 243.
[18] Dept. of Transport, 1983, Railway Finances, Report of the Committee chaired by Sir David Serpell, HMSO, London.
[19] Ghazi P. 1993, "Freight abandoning Rail for Roads", Observer, 31 Jan.
[20] Leisure Research Unit, University of Brighton, 1992, East Sussex Tourism Survey Locations Report, table 38.
[21] A finding from the Downland Visitor Survey as detailed in Chapter 6 and thereafter.
[22] Griffiths I L. 1983, fig. 63.
[23] West Sussex Gazette, 1992, A27 Bypass Blues for Residents, 31 Dec. p3.
[24] Short B. 1993, personal communication, University of Sussex, Jan.
[25] Stanley A. 1992, "Improvements Needed to Road and Rail Links", West Sussex Gazette, 24 Dec. p3.
[26] West Sussex Gazette, 1993, Attack on Road Closures & Support for Road Bridge, 14 Jan. p2.
[27] Countryside Commission, 1992, Trends in Transport and the Countryside, CCP 382. p4.
[28] West Sussex Gazette, 1993, Motorway Proposal is Decade's Most Damaging, 18 Feb.
[29] Knight J. 1993, "East-West Motorway Needed", West Sussex Gazette, 1 June.
[30] SEETB, 1992, Annual Report and Accounts, P2.
[31] Button K. 1994, "The Channel Tunnel and the Economy of Southeast England", Applied Geography (1994), 14, 107-121.
[32] ESCC, 1992, A Tourism Strategy for East Sussex. Oct.; WSCC 1992, Standard Visitor Surveys - South Downs Way 1 & 2.; BTA/ETB Research Services, 1992, Regional Tourism Facts South East England, CS 974, Tunbridge Wells; SEETB, 1991, South East First, a Strategy for Tourism in South East England; SEETB, 1990, West Sussex, East Sussex, Tourism Fact Sheets.
[33] WSCC, 1986, p1.
