Current Events
Social Exclusion in Countryside Leisure
in the United Kingdom
The Role of the Countryside in
Addressing Social Exclusion
A Report for the Countryside
Recreation Network
By Bill Slee and Derren Jones of Aberdeen University and Nigel Curry, Countryside
and Community Research Unit.
To order copies of this report visit the publications
page or booking form.
Cost £10 including p+p or £10.50 if ordered by visa.
Executive Summary
This project was commissioned by the Countryside Recreation
Network (CRN) to develop its understanding of issues of social
exclusion and inclusion in countryside recreation. The principal
aim was to illustrate best practice examples in providing
countryside recreation by using cases from England, Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The literature review
A review of the literature reveals a range of definitions
of social exclusion. The consensus amongst definitions is
that social exclusion always a set of processes, that through
particular institutional arrangement, one social group does
to another. Exclusion is often associated with poverty, unemployment,
isolation, discrimination and vulnerability. Some authors
and institutions prefer to use the term social inclusion.
They are exploring the same phenomenon, but feel that inclusiveness
is a more positive concept.
Studies identify four groups whose participation rates in countryside recreation
are low: young people; low-income groups; ethnic minorities; and disabled
people. However, one should not assume that all members of such groups
are excluded.
Welfarist social policy argues that the state should endeavour to correct
perceived 'inequalities' in recreation participation. Merit good arguments
suggest that the state ought to provide leisure because everyone benefits
from it (other merit goods include the police and basic education). More
recently, ideas of citizenship have underpinned attempts to create more
inclusive leisure policy. In these, the state limits its role in leisure
provision/management and the citizenry shares the responsibility for its
own leisure.
In relation to countryside recreation, there is evidence of major variations
in participation between different groups. Age, health and disability,
socio-economic group and ethnicity all influence participation in countryside
recreation. There is compelling evidence of low participation rates amongst
ethnic minorities, poorer socio-economic groups and an inference that disabled
and ethnic minorities may feel stigmatised in their use of the countryside.
Methods
The methods used to select the case studies included a trawl
of local authorities, government bodies and NGOs for a long
list of projects relating to social exclusion/inclusion and
countryside leisure. Then 23 projects were shortlisted in
a 4x2 matrix, with one axis reflecting the excluded group
(by age, ethnicity, disability or income) and the other where
the project was located (peri-urban areas or the deeper countryside).
From this, 12 projects were selected for detailed study.Project
staff and beneficiaries were interviewed by semi-structured
interview. Wherever possible, written project information
obtained to obtain a clearer picture of the project.
Cases
The individual projects examined comprised Fairbridge Edinburgh,
The Big Issue Hill-walking Club, Midlothian Council (Vogrie
Country Park), PACE (Promoting Access in Croydon for Everyone),
The National Trust’s Inner City Project in Newcastle
on Tyne, Northampton County Council (Brixworth Country Park),
Greenwood Community Forest (focusing on Bestwood Country
Park), Antrim Borough Council, Black Environment Network,
The Mendip Hills AONB’s Farming and Countryside Education
Partnership, the Glodwick Community Outreach project (Oldham)
and the Youth 70 project in Motherwell.
The background to each project and the results from interviews with key
personnel and beneficiaries are presented case-by-case.
Key findings relating to drivers of 'success'
This research profiled a range of quite diverse initiatives
seeking to combine social inclusion and countryside recreation.
The main drivers behind successful initiatives include them:
• being community driven;
• having empowerment as an objective;
• having social cohesion as an objective;
• promoting partnerships;
• having 'Outreach' as opposed to just 'Countryside' staff;
• being assessed by both 'quantitative' and 'qualitative' indicators; and
• using effective marketing.
Projects tend to have been limited primarily by inadequate
financial resources or inappropriate human resources.
This research project exposed a number of issues that merit
further attention. There are differing perspectives on the
distinction between exclusion and non-participation. When
position in the life cycle precludes affluent young people
from participating in countryside recreation, the problem
is less one of exclusion and more one of designing more attractive
leisure products to better match their leisure preferences.
Yet when poor people desire access to the countryside, but
are excluded by limited resources, when ethnic minorities
feel uncomfortable in a distinctly 'British' countryside,
and when little is done to meet the needs of disabled users,
then forces of social exclusion may be manifest.
Empowerment stands out as a factor of paramount importance.
The achievement of empowerment for an 'excluded' group often
means that the rationale for the project disappears. This
paradox can create a potential conflict of interest: whilst
successful projects devolve power to groups, there may be
a tendency for project staff to maintain paternalistic control,
resulting in continued dependency by the beneficiary group.
The report was sponsored by:
|
