|
|
| |
|
| |
| |
 |
| Contributors: |
Lingard, Robin. Wylie, Rick. Hull, Howard. Denyer, Susan. Gordon, Clive. Cunningham, Tony. Fox, Peter. Adams, Gordon. Warburton, Caroline. Jackson, Duncan & Middleton, Victor. [edited by Rick Wylie and foreword by John Lackie] |
| Conference: |
Proceedings of the second Westlakes Environment, Science and Technology Seminar |
| Title: |
Ethics to Expediency: tourism and environmental valuation in Contemporary Britain |
| Publisher: |
Westlakes Research Institute |
| Published: |
2002 |
| ISBN: |
0954168429 (pbk) |
| Price: |
£17.50 |
|
|
| |
| Foreword: John Lackie |
| |
| As Principal and Chief Executive of Westlakes Research Institute I am pleased to write an introduction to this volume of essays based upon the proceedings of the second Westlakes Environmental Seminar. This seminar, which was held in May 2001, was run in conjunction with the Applied Policy Sciences Unit of Newcastle University and the Tourism Society. At the previous seminar, held in May 2000, the question arose: Who pays for the environment? This is the question we address at this second seminar, in which we focus upon the value of the environment, and on the basis of that value – from the ethical to the expedient. |
| |
| We should be clear, I think, that by environment here we’re talking very broadly, we mean not just the things that environmental scientists study, but the aesthetics of landscape and also the daily realities of the environment in which we live. It is very important to recognise that we live in an environment that has been very much shaped by human activities, as well as by the forces of nature, and that it is a very dynamic and not a static thing. The environment in which we live needs to be maintained, parts of it need to be preserved, some of them need to be conserved. But we can’t just stop the clock at some arbitrary instant of time – it is not an option to freeze things in time. This raises some important issues – why should the farmer continue managing things in an inefficient and old-fashioned way simply because the tourists may like to gaze on a fossilised landscape and way of life? It is not fair on the farmer – and the tourists, if they want that, should have to pay for it. But what baseline should we choose for what we consider to be ‘desirable’ in an environment? That is another question. A lot of people clearly have a bizarre and idealised view of the countryside – you can see that in the tension that exists between interests in the countryside, by, for example, the urban commuters who move out into the country and object to the smells and noises of the countryside. Milk doesn’t come in cartons – it is generated by cows that engage in a lot of very basic biological activities, some of which are quite smelly and others are quite noisy. Likewise, the rooster that crows in the morning and wakes you up is there for a good reason - eggs don't come ready made in the supermarket! |
| |
| There can be a significant tension between different groups of people in their approach to the countryside and the way they value it and this has come into very sharp focus here in Cumbria as a result of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Indeed, Cumbria has suffered from this outbreak probably to a greater extent than any other single region in the UK and we’ve had more than 40% of the cases nationally reported here in Cumbria. It may be that the UK in general and, for example, Cumbria in particular, has an opportunity out of this unfortunate crisis. The opportunity as I see it is to do some re-thinking; we should be thinking what is it that we actually want to achieve in the way in which we look after the environment in which we live? We need to plan, I think, to develop a sustainable environment that is desirable and brings modest prosperity to the local communities as well as satisfying the wishes of the visitors. |
| |
| Where am I coming from on this? At this Institute we have two particular thematic interests, one is in healthcare informatics and one is in environmental monitoring and environmental biotechnology. That gives us a rather interesting perspective, I think, on the current situation. The disposal legacy of the foot and mouth epidemic brings some challenges. We need, I think, to start monitoring the environment and monitoring the healthcare of the population, and there is an opportunity to develop a Cumbrian-wide strategy for these important activities. That opportunity should be seized; it would be a pity if it was not. We are also, as a result of foot and mouth, in the middle of a very interesting experiment, though not one that we would have chosen to conduct. We have suddenly removed a very large number of herbivores, buried some of them in large pits, and removed the grazing pressure on the land. The farming communities have been devastated and their normal pattern of activity dramatically changed. Before we say “Let’s just go back to where we were before” we should stop and think what we actually want to achieve in terms of the landscape, in terms of the environment of this county, Cumbria, and the part it plays in the tourist industry of the UK? But what is a desirable outcome from any kind of strategic plan for handling the aftermath of the crisis? Have we any idea what people really want? Whatever we put forward as a plan for the post foot and mouth recovery period has to be inclusive, it has to take account of what not just the environmentalists or conservationists say, but what everybody feels. And I think we have to think about a mechanism for identifying not only environmental attitudes, but also the beliefs upon which those attitudes are based. What does the general public want from the environment, from the landscape, from the Lake District, from Cumbria? And Why? These are the key questions this seminar addresses. |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
