How park managers maintain and conserve their site whilst justifying the social, economic and natural

values. By WASIU ADEJOBI OLUKOYA Student ID: 119072457 BSc. (Hons) International Tourism and Hospitality Management University of Sunderland

APRIL 2012

Acknowledgements I would like to thank a number of people without whom this dissertation would not be possible. Firstly, to my wonderful parents, my Dad who has supported me mentally and financially all through my life, and my mum whose words of encouragement kept me going on, also to my siblings whose intelligence makes me strive to be the best! I dont tell you guys often how much yall have impacted in my life. To all the stakeholders involved in this work who presented invaluable information, allowing me conduct my research successfully. To my dissertation supervisor, Miss. Sharon Wilson who has given me continued understanding, support and encouragement coupled with the insightful suggestions, guide, patience and time. If not for your help, this dissertation would have been a joke! And lastly but definitely not least to my lecturers and friends (Guy, Kristie and John) who have made my time whilst studying this programme worthwhile.

List of Headings Acknowledgement.......................................................................................... 2

Abstract..........................................................................................................

Figure and Table List.....................................................................................

Appendices List.................................................................................

Introduction.................................................................................................... 1.1 Background......................................................................................... 1.2 The study area..................................................................................... 1.3 The research question.......................................................................... 1.4 Rationale.............................................................................................. 1.5 Aims & Objectives..............................................................................

10 10 11 14 14 14

Literature Review.................................................................................................. 2.1 The Tourism Industry.......................................................................... 2.2 The Impacts of Tourism....................................................................... 2.3 Sustainable Tourism............................................................................. 2.4 Nature-Based Tourism......................................................................... 2.5 Natural Heritage................................................................................... 2.6 Protected Areas................................................................................... 2.7 Meaning of National Parks................................................................... 2.8 History of National Parks in England................................................. 2.9 National Park Authority...................................................................... 2.9.1 The Management Plan......................................................

16 16 17 18 19 21 21 22 23 27 27 29 30 30 31 32

2.10 Economic and Social Benefits of National Park Authority....... 2.10.1 Recreation and Tourism................................................... 2.10.2 Better Informed Society.................................................. 2.10.3 Rural Development.......................................................... 2.10.4 Social Inclusion................................................................

2.10.5 Regulating Service............................................................ 2.11 Funding........................................................................................... 2.11.1 Sustainable Development Fund........................................ 2.11.2 European Fund................................................................. 2.12 The Effects of Governments cut on National Park......................... 2.13 Volunteering.................................................................................... 2.14 Modes of Environmental Volunteering........................................... 2.14.1 Activism............................................................................ 2.14.2 Monitoring........................................................................ 2.14.3 Education.......................................................................... 2.14.4 Restoration....................................................................... 2.14.5 Sustainable Living............................................................ 2.15 Motivations for Environmental Volunteering................................ 2.16 Barriers to Environmental Volunteering........................................ 2.16.1 Lack of Time.................................................................... 2.16.2 Management Cost............................................................ 2.16.3 Gender............................................................................. 2.16.4 Information and Awareness............................................

32 34 34 35 36 37 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 43 43 44 44 44

Methodology........................................................................................................ 3.1 Introduction................................................................................... 3.2 Theoretical Approach..................................................................... 3.3 Research Strategy........................................................................... 3.4 Quantitative Research Approach.................................................... 3.4.1 The Questionnaire......................................................

45 45 45 46 46 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 50

3.5 The Qualitative Approach............................................................... 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.5.5 3.5.6 Participant Observation............................................ Focus and Group Interview..................................... Triangulation............................................................ Textual Analysis of Secondary Data...................... Sampling................................................................. Purposive Sampling....................................................

3.5.7 3.5.8 3.5.9

Interviews.................................................................. Interview Schedule.................................................... Coding........................................................................

51 52 53 54

3.5.10 Research Limitations..................................................

Results and Discussions.......................................................................................... 4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 4.2 Community Participation......................................................................... 4.3 Economic Development........................................................................... 4.4 Social Inclusion........................................................................................ 4.5 Funding.................................................................................................... 4.6 Conservation............................................................................................ 4.6.1 Visitor Monitoring................................................................................

55 55 55 56 57 58 60 60 62

4.7 Volunteering Motivations.......................................................................

Conclusion...........................................................................................................

69

References...........................................................................................................

72

Abstract NBT is seen as one of the fastest growing components of tourism (Scott, 2003), as the number of visits to NPs and PAs keeps increasing. It creates lots of job opportunities to the people and it brings about motivation for travel. NBT is a global phenomenon, and its attractions include: landscapes, farmlands, rivers, scenery, NPs and forest. These attractions motivates tourist trip. The (Northumberland) NP will be the main focus of this study. This study examines how park manager conserve and maintain their site whilst justifying their role as a key contributor to economic and social development of the local community. There is several challenges NNP face in achieving this duty particularly with the current funding challenges they face (e.g. the governments reduction programme).

Figure and Table List

Figures Figure 1: The Cheviot Hill Figure 2: NNP Interactive Map Figure 3: National Parks in the United Kingdom Figure 4: Showing process linking NPA spending to benefits to the community Figure 5: Conceptual framework of individual motivations for environmental volunteering and benefits to individual, environment, wider society and volunteering organisation 12 13 25 29 43

Tables

Table 1: IUCN Categories of Protected Areas Table 2: National park designation in England Table 3: Grants and other incomes Table 4: demographic profile of the sample Table 5: Background overview of sample Table 6: Objectives overview of sample

22 26 36 62 64 66

Abbreviation List ANPA DEFRA Association of National Park Authority Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ENPAA IUCN English National Park Authority Association International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources NNP NNPA NPAs PAs SDF UK WTO Northumberland National Park Northumberland National Park Authority National Park Authorities Protected Areas Sustainable Development Fund United Kingdom World Tourism Organisation

Appendices List

Appendix 1: Interview Schedule

82

Appendix 2: The designed questionnaire

83

Appendix 3: E-mail sent to potential respondent

87

Appendix 4: Designed consent form for interview

89

Appendix 5: Graphical representation of the questionnaire results

90

Introduction 1.1 Background NPs have become important tourist attraction all over the world due to the increase in the growth of nature-based tourism (Juutinen et al, 2011). Several authors (Hockings et al, 2000; Prato, 2001; Saterson et al, 2004; Damania and Hatch, 2005; in Juutinen et al, 2011) argue that the last decade have witnessed a rise in the level of awareness in evaluating the management effectiveness of NPs and other PAs. Papageorgiou and Kassioumis (2004) described the creation of NPs as a means of conserving the cultural heritage and natural ecosystem for a broad range of human activities. The fourth congress held by IUCN described NPs as natural areas where ecological integrity of ecosystems are protected as well as providing foundation for recreational, educational, scientific, spiritual and opportunities for visitors (McNeely, 1994). Therefore, the need for managers to balance visitor and community needs with conservation objectives is imperative (Alden, 1997; Cope et al, 1999; Kerkvliet and Nowell, 2000; in Beunen et al, 2008). In the first place, NPs and other PAs were established in order to conserve their cultural and biological values but, such is not the case these days as a result of their multifaceted role in the society (Juutinen et al, 2011). Tourism and outdoor recreation are seen as the main threats to biodiversity of PAs (Cole and Landres, 1996) and as a main factor which endangers species (Wilcove et al, 1998; Czech et al, 2000; In Juutinen et al, 2011). For effective management of NPs, there must be a sound planning and management in place in order to ensure the right balance between providing opportunities for peoples leisure and protecting the environment (Torkildsen, 2005). The less effectiveness of managers within protected area will result into reduced demand for the tourism site, loss of amenity, environmental degradation and reduced economic benefit to both the locals and government (Buultjens et al, 2005). Eagles et al, (2005) stressed that in order to ensure effective management and sustainability within NPs, park authorities and
10

mangers must involve stakeholders in the management process. They further highlighted three major groups of stakeholders who influences the management of tourism in NPs and PAs, they include: the park managers and tourism operators; the visitors; and lastly, the local community. Funding is extremely important if national parks are to (successfully) achieve their purposes. However, such is not the case these days because national parks are currently lacking funds needed to fulfil its purpose as a result of the (recent) reduction programme by the government. This (cuts) raises so many questions as to whether the national parks will cope i.e. achieving their statutory purpose and duties. If these cuts are so severe and it does affect the national parks in carry out their multifaceted role within the society, then the role of the authority would be questioned. There has been relatively little research looking into the impact of these cuts on Englands national parks. 1.2 The study area The Northumberland is a county located in North-East England covering an area of 5103 square kilometres with total population of about 1,900 people (being Englands most sparsely populated County). The County has six Districts, two (Tynedale and Berwick-Upon-Tweed) of which are among English less populated Districts (each of these Districts have a population density of about 27 people per square kilometre). However, there is a sharp increase in the population density in both Blythe Valley and Wansbeck, these two Districts are heavily urbanised areas sharing it borders with Newcastle-Upon-Tyne and North Tyneside.

11

Figure 1: The Cheviot Hill

Source: (Simon Fraser; in NNP, 2009) The NNP (located in the County of Northumberland) was designated in 1956. It covers an area of 398 square miles, straddling the boundaries of Tyneside District, Alnwick and Berwick-Upon-Tweed Borough. NNP has a total population of about 1900 people who reside in small hamlets, villages and farms. Thirty percent of the NP is dominated by enclosed farmland and forests while the remaining seventy percent is dominated by wild, extensive, and open moorland. Aside from its endowed archaeology remains, NNP also accommodates recent buildings of historical value (e.g. the military architecture). Tourism in NNP is regarded as an important activity because the NP relies so much on tourism than other PAs in the North-East (SQL Limited, 2004). The NP received more than 2 million visitors in 2002, and its tourism expenditure has been estimated to be more than 42.8 million per year (Ibid; In Gandariasbeitia, 2010). NNP houses the only four rivers in England and as a result, it achieves the highest standard of water quality (ENPAA, 2010).

12

Figure 2: NNP Interactive Map

Source: (Crown, 2009; in NNP, 2011)

13

1.3 The Research Question The 20th century saw a rise in the pursuit of environmental conservation (which has become a significant theme) particularly in achieving rural development (Pimbert and Pretty, 1995). Generally, conservationists have the belief that there is an inverse relationship between human actions and the environments well-being. Several professionals widely agree that problems such as: degradation of rangelands, loss of forests, soil erosion, desertification and destruction of wildlife will emanate if protected areas (PAs) are not well conserved. This can only be achieved if funds are made available to the managers of these PAs which brings about the research topic: How park manager conserve and maintain their site whilst justifying its natural and socio-economic value. This endowed destination (Northumberland NP) will be the main focus of research aims to answer this question. 1.4 Rationale The researcher chose this topic in order to understand if the government reduction programme had any effect on NPs i.e. what areas of work have they cut out on? What measures do park managers seek to cope with these cuts? 1.5 Aims To answer the research question effectively, the research aims are as follows: To understand the role of park managers within NNP To identify some of the management techniques adopted by NNPA

The aims highlighted above require specific objectives in order to be successfully achieved: the researcher applied the following objectives:

14

To review academic literatures (and secondary documents) which relates to NP management

To explore some of the measures taken by park managers in protecting national parks To examine the effects of the (government) spending cuts on NNP To explore the motivations for environmental volunteering within NNP

15

LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Tourism Industry Several authors (Turner and Turner, 1978; Robinson, 1979; Smith, 1981; Graburn, 1989; In Corbin and Russell, 2010) define tourism as activity which is characterized by consumption, travel, conspicuous and the search for other activities. The World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) described tourism as the largest industry in the world because it surpasses industries i.e. agriculture, electronic, steel, and auto. Besides creating 204 million jobs to the people, the gross output of its goods and services reached 3.4 trillion US dollars (In McIntosh et al. 1995). Global tourism generated 7 trillion US dollars in 2007, and it is estimated that the figures will rise to US$13 trillion in the following decade (WTTC, 2007; In Stolton and Dudley, 2010). These days, Travel plays a crucial role in the lives of people. Since 1945, the numbers of global travellers keep increasing which has made tourism arguably the largest form of temporary migration in the world (Timothy and Boyd, 2003). Tourism involves travelling away from ones home for recreation, business or pleasure, and the activities which go with such travel (Lockwood et al, 2006). The WTO (1994) described tourism as a set of activities which involves person(s) travelling to and staying in a place outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes (in Gamely, 1998). Therefore, before one is considered as a tourist, the WTO stipulates that the person would have travelled more than 50km, and stayed overnight but not more than 12 months (Lockwood et al, 2006). Stolton and Dudley (2010) described tourism as a range of travel and leisure experiences which can come in the form of spending a day at a local beach to an all inclusive trip to the Arctic. In tourism, travelling to places vary considerably. At one end, we have extensive international voyage which requires planning and could be achieved with the assistance of tour operators, travel agents and other travel based businesses that specialises in organising holidays. At the other end, we have trips
16

which are relatively quick e.g. a day shopping trips, getaway weekend trips to neighbouring town or city (Corbin and Russell, 2010). The link between tourism and PAs can be traced back to over a hundred years ago, when the first protected area was created e.g. the first mandate by the US congress indicated that US parks would be seen as a pleasure ground for both travellers and visitors (Ceballous-Lascurain, 1996; In Stolton and Dudley, 2010). 2.2 Impact of Tourism Tourism in natural areas can be either positive or negative. These impacts are physical and cultural and can only be managed effectively if they have been identified, measured and evaluated (Ceballous-Lascurain, 1996). There are three areas tourism development can

impact host communities, they include: economic effects e.g. increased income, increased jobs, tax revenue, local government debts and inflation; socio-cultural effects e.g. increased crime rate and prostitution, effects on cultures and tradition, increases intercultural communication; effects on the environment e.g. littering, pollution and overcrowding (Andereck et al, 2005; In Torn, 2007). Tourism provides economic development, through the provision of increased employment opportunities and income (Buultjens et al, 2005). However, recent literatures have been related to negative tourism impact (Newsome et al). Negative impacts of tourism vary according to the way tourism is managed in the area, number and nature of tourists and the type of physical facilities present in the area (Kandari and Chandra, 2004). Tourism can cause adverse environmental impacts (i.e.

overdevelopment, pollution, overcrowding, wildlife disturbances, vehicle use and unregulated recreation) on PAs (Hvenegaard, 1994; In Newsome et al, 2002), these environmental impact can affect minerals and fossils, soil, air and water, sanitation, landscapes and cultural environment (Kandari and Chandra, 2004). However, several authors (Holding and Kreutner, 1998; Cullinane and Cullinane, 1999; Steiner and Bristow, 2000; in Beunen et al, 2008) recommended that these problems can be addressed if there is balance between nature and
17

environment on one hand, and tourism and recreation on the other. On the other hand, the positive benefits of tourism in natural areas have been fostered for more than two decades (Newsome et al, 2002) it conserves nature while at the same time providing funding for the maintenance of NPs and PAs, (Buultjens et al, 2005). In 1985, the European Heritage Landscapes Conference (held by the Director of the Countryside Commission of the UK) advocated the cooperation between tourism and conservation. He pointed out three reasons why conservation should involve tourism, they include: tourism brings resources to conservation; tourism creates conservation which posses economic justification; tourism provides support for conservation (Phillips, 1985; In Newsome et al, 2002). In Kenya for example, natural attraction is used in promoting tourism in protected and non-PAs (McNeely et al, 1992; Tosun, 1998; Nepal, 2000; In Buultjens, 2005). Other areas of this relationship include biological impacts on the environment by tourists (Edington and Edington, 1986) as well as environmental carrying capacity aspects (Industry and Environment, 1986; In Newsome et al). Ceballous-Lascurain (1996) classified tourism impacts into two namely direct and indirect. Direct impact is caused by tourist (and it affects the soil, vegetation, water resources, landscape, animal life, cultural environment, sanitation, minerals and fossils) while indirect impact is caused by the infrastructure created in connection with tourism impact. 2.3 Sustainable Tourism Sustainable tourism is a phenomenon of the 1990s and its origin came from the wider concept of sustainable development which has been ever present (Swarbrooke, 1999). Tourism within PAs must be sustainable because these areas are often located in sensitive environment and they have important environmental values. McKercher (1993) defined sustainable tourism as a vague concept which is difficult to carry-out. Therefore, it is crucial for managers to consider its benefit and work towards achieving such benefits (In Buultjens et al, 2005). Sustainable tourism as defined by the World Tourism Organisation is tourism which
18

improves the quality of life of the host communities, providing high quality experience for guests while also maintaining the quality of the environment (WTO, 1993; In Buultjens et al, 2005). The Brundtland Report defined sustainable tourism as a form of tourism which meets the need of the host community, the tourists and the tourism industry today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (in Swarbrooke, 1999). Hunter (1997) supported these views; he later added that sustainable tourism must also safeguard the environmental resources base of tourism which encompasses built, cultural and natural features so as to achieve its benefits (In Ritchie and Crouch, 2003). Travis and Ceballos-Lascurain described sustainable tourism as tourism which is developed and managed in a way that all tourism activity (particularly those that focus on heritage resources i.e. natural or cultural) continues indefinitely (In Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996). To attain sustainable tourism, tourists must be carefully managed in order to prevent/reduce the negative impacts on the environment, visitors satisfaction and the host community (Buultjens et al, 2005). Kandari and Chandra (2004) argued that tourism development can pose huge threats to PAs particularly if such development is not properly planned and controlled. They stressed that with sustainable tourism, such threats are reduced and tourism within NPs is turned into opportunities while supporting conservation objectives. According to Buultjens et al (2005) the less effectiveness of management (within PAs) will lead to environmental degradation thereby resulting to loss of amenity, reduced economic benefits and reduced demand for the tourism sites. 2.4 Nature-Based Tourism The term nature-based tourism (NBT) is seen as a simpler concept than ecotourism and in a view to avoid the confusion and controversy surrounding the term ecotourism some researchers (McKercher, 1998; Deng et al, 2002; in Spenceley, 2003) use NBT as a less contentious concept. For centuries, the establishment of NPs and other PAs has been a
19

cultural phenomenon (Eagles et al, 2005). NBT is a rapidly growing sector of the tourism industry and it can be described as tourism which is directly independent on the use of nature (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996) estimated to generate US$1 trillion in 19988 (Filion et al, 1992) and it is proven (in many part of the world) to be a powerful incentive for conservation (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996). NBT depends heavily on the quality of the environment, more than any other forms (Boyd et al, 1996; in Deng et al, 2002). Today, NBT is considered as one of the most significant areas of research in tourism (Hall and Boyd, 2005). Newsome et al. (2002) described NBT as tourism which occurs in a natural setting and it embraces viewing of nature as the primary objective. NBT include: tourism which are developed in order to protect and conserve the natural environment (e.g. NPs, ecotourism); tourism which focuses specifically on natural environment (e.g. marine tourism, nature tourism, wildlife tourism); and lastly tourism in a natural setting (e.g. adventure tourism). However, NBT does not necessarily benefits host community, nor contribute to the conservation of biodiversity but it includes sub-categories of tourism which does e.g. ecotourism (Spenceley, 2003). Most research (e.g. Cater and Lowman, 1994; Hall and Johnston, 1995; Holden, 2000; Butler and Boyd, 2000; Newsome et al, 2002) on NBT focuses both on the relationship between tourism and the physical environment (in natural areas) and its political, economic and social relation with destination (Hall and Boyd, 2005). NBT is underpinned by the eco-centric philosophy in order to ensure that the natural environment provides a platform for environmental conservation and understanding (Newsome et al, 2002). In recent years, there has been increase in park visitation prompting increased awareness of the importance of ecological protection and the need to manage negative impacts caused by visitors (Eagles et al, 2005). 2.5 Natural Heritage Generally, the word heritage is associated with ancestry and inheritance i.e. something transferred by a generation to its future generations. Certain areas (in many countries) have
20

huge cultural importance and heritage value. In a natural context, heritage include landscapes, NPs, island, rivers, NPs, wilderness, garden as well as other components i.e. flora and fauna (Herbert 1989; Zeppel and Hall, 1992; in Leask and Yeoman). Nature as the name indicates encompasses all form of tourism i.e. adventure tourism, ecotourism, mass tourism, and low impact tourism. Natural heritage as a form of tourism involves travelling to a particular destination in order to enjoy its natural attributes and wildlife. There has been increased recognition of the interdependency between the society and nature (particularly in rural populated areas) as a result of calls for the promotion of the principles of sustainable development (Stockdale and Barker, 2009). In such areas, the value of natural heritage begins from careful and continued forms of environmental modification (Stockdale and Barker, 2009). Holdgate (1992) argued that the maintenance of natural heritage depends on the promotion of management objectives which account for both conservation and socioeconomic development (in Stockdale and Barker, 2009). 2.6 Protected Areas Nowadays, the potential criteria for sustainable governance of PAs are defined not only by their complexity and inner nature, but by their economic and social impact at all levels (Juutinen et al, 2011). PAs varies across the world, including their size, geographies and resources they protect, the purpose for which they are established and the management body responsible for protecting them (Phillips, 2002; in Brown et al, 2005). According to the World Conservation Union (IUCN) PAs are geographical spaces which are recognised and managed through legal or other effective means in order to achieve long-term nature conservation objectives in association with ecosystem services and cultural values (UNEPWCMC, 2008). There are set of standard management categories (based on management goals) defined by the IUCN. Ladle and Whittaker (2011) argued that out of all PAs, NPs are seen as the most widely recognised categories.
21

These categories are represented in the table below: Table 1: IUCN Categories of Protected Areas

Source: (Orlovic-Lovren, 2011) 2.7 Meaning of National Park There is no single definition for NP (Korpas, 2007). Richard et al (2000) defined NP as a natural environment with large and untouched area, protected at the highest level by the highest authority, with tourism (recreation) among its uses. Several authors (McNeely, 1990; Furze et al, 1996; Mitchell, 2003; In ) defined NP as a bounded physical area of land protected from human habitation and exploitation for the conservation goals of biodiversity protection, continuation of ecological services, as well as spiritual, intrinsic and aesthetic values. According to the IUCN (1969) NPs can be described as the following: a large area with natural landscape of great beauty where ecosystems (plants, animals, habitats, geomorphologic sites etc.) are protected from human exploitation and habitation; an

22

area where visitors are encouraged to visit under strict conditions and rules for cultural, recreational, educative and inspirational purpose; and lastly an area where government takes steps to prevent possible exploitation of the area and enforce people to respect its geomorphologic, aesthetic and ecological features (Osten, 1972; in Richard et al, 2000). Aside from protecting natural beauty, NPs create a link with the past as a result of maintaining cultural characteristics and allowing public access and enjoyment (Uzzell, 1992). 2.8 History of National Parks in England NPs in England falls in category II of IUCN classification of PAs (Brown et al, 2005) and are seen as a breathing space for the mental, physical and spiritual wellbeing of the nation (ENPAA, 2009). The growing concern regarding the unplanned development of public access to scenic uplands led to the introduction of NP in England (MacEwan and MacEwan, 1982; Rydin, 1998; Stockdale and Barker, 2009). NPs (in England) were seen as an invention of the immediate post war years (Thompson, 2010; Clarke and Clarke, 2011) and they were created as a means of protecting the countryside (Gandariasbeitia, 2010). NPs were created in an era of austerity by the Labour administrations (Thompson, 2005; 2010) commitment on the reform of government policy in the countryside (Thompson, 2005). The Dower Report (1945) was commissioned by the government in response to pressure group calls for institutional reforms. This report envisaged that NPs should be created in areas which have important recreational and scenic values (Stockdale and Barker, 2009) and its ownership must be passed to the public, and must fulfil four aims i.e. public access, agricultural protection, wildlife and building conservation, and landscape preservation (Hall, 1992; Howkins, 2003; in Stockdale and Barker, 2008). The Hobhouse (1947) Committee largely endorsed the Dowers recommendation, but the proposal for public ownership of NPs was rejected which led to the enactment of the NPs and Access to the Countryside Act in 1949. The UK has a total of 14 NPs which covers more than 20,000km2 i.e. over 8% of UKs territory (Travis, 2011) with
23

Lake District (1951) being the first NP created in England (Thompson, 2005) an additional eight NPs have followed since then (Stockdale and Barker, 2009). The Lake District is one of UKs top tourist destinations (ENPAA, 2009) and it is the largest NP (with 2229 km2) in the UK, while the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads (288km2) are the smallest (MacEwen and MacEwen, 1987; in Ratcliffe et al, 2004). Annually, the country records 75 million visits to its NPs (ENPAA, 2009).

24

Figure 3: National Parks in the United Kingdom

(Source: Barker and Stockdale, 2008)

Britains NP (unlike some other countries) are not publicly owned land, however they operate in a similar way (Torkildsen, 2005). MacEwen and MacEwen (1982, 1987) highlighted two distinctive reasons why NPs were created as: for agricultural productivism; and a site for nature conservation and outdoor recreation (in Thompson, 2005). Being the most treasured landscape in England (Torkildsen, 2005) NPs were primarily created to protect beautiful and spectacular areas of countryside as well as providing opportunities for people to appreciate and enjoy (Uzzell, 1992; Owens and Green, 1997). In addition, NPs were created to balance the recreation needs of the populace as well as the need to conserve the nations environment in terms of cultural and natural heritage (Suckall et al, 2009) as stipulated by the countrys

25

NPs and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (Section 5) as amended by the Environmental Act, 1995 (Section 61) which described the two main requirements of NPs as: conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and promoting public opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of Parks (MacEwen and MacEwen, 1982, 1987; In Clarke and Clarke, 2011). The 1995 Act also gave NPA additional duty to: promote economic and social development within the local community without incurring significant expenditure while performing this duty,. To achieve this purpose, NPs will have to foster co-operation not just with the local communities but also with public bodies who promotes economic and social development within NP (in Cairncross, et al, 2004) Table 2: National park designation in England NP Peak District Lake District Dartmoor North York Moors Designation Year 1951 1951 1951 1952 Area (sq km) 1438 2292 953 1436 Population 37,937 42,239 34,365 23,939

Yorkshire Dales Exmoor Northumberland The Broads The New Forest South Downs

1954 1954 1956 1989 2005 2009

1762 694 1049 303 567

19,654 10,900 2,000 5,721 34,935

(Source: DEFRA, 2011)

26

2.9 National Park Authorities In the UK, NPs (spanning for more than 50 years) are run and managed by the NPAs and other separate bodies e.g. the National Trust, the Council for NPs, English Heritage, the Countryside Agency and others. The NPA are made up from local authority appointees; Secretary of State (parish nominees); and Secretary of State (national appointees). The NPA are independent body funded by the central government (Torkildsen, 2005; ENPAA, 2009; Thompson, 2005) and they have become increasingly autonomous from local authorities (Gandariasbeitia, 2010; Thompson, 2005). Historically, the NPAs are creatures of the local government (they operate in a similar way as the local councils) and they posses so much powers in controlling development within NPs (Thompson, 2005). Each of the nine NPs in England has a NP Authority (i.e. a local body) which protects the special qualities and encourages the public to understand and enjoy them (ENPAA, 2009). NPA supports the development and promotion of sustainable tourism within NPs because it helps enhance their statutory purpose and it is their duty to foster the economic and social wellbeing of the local communities (ENPAA, 2009). 2.9.1 The Management Plan The introduction of the Environmental Act (1995) enhanced the powers given to NPA (in respect to matters like sustainability) by making them become responsible for the development and preparation of NP management plan (Ratcliffe et al, 2004). Each NPA were charged to provide their own local plan which must focus on the conservation of the natural environment as well as the economic and social needs of the local community (Ratcliffe et al, 2004). This management plan is a strategic document which guides the delivery of NP duty and purposes. The management plan consist a description of the following: the ambition of the NP; how the ambition is achieved; the role of the park; issues affecting the NP and associated trends. Thompson (2010) described the management plan as integral because it
27

facilitates detailed understanding of future strategies to achieve their objective (i.e. conservation and recreation). However, the success of this management plan can be achieved if NPA involves all key stakeholders (e.g. government agencies, local authorities, NGOs, farmers, land owners and local community) to assist in the delivery of the plan.

28

2.10 Economic and Social Benefits Associated with NPA Without the NPAs, it is assumed that the NP designation would still be in place while the statutory duties would shift to relevant local authorities. This would pose additional burden on local authorities while needing extra funds to accomplish these purposes. The benefits of NPAs can be assessed in a number of ways as shown in the diagram below.

Figure 4: Showing process linking NPA spending to benefits to the community

Source: (DEFRA, 2011)

29

2.10.1 Recreation and tourism NPAs have a duty to promote opportunities for the public to enjoy the NP and fostering economic welfare for the local communities. These duties can be successfully accomplished by NPAs if they promote a sustainable recreation and tourism. The NPAs work on access, cultural heritage, biodiversity and conservation of landscape can all have impact on the level of recreation and tourism in the NP. Recreation activities (e.g. cycling, horse riding, walking, rock climbing and visiting villages) overlaps with tourism because most of this activities are carried out by tourists and residents living in and around the NP (DEFRA, 2011). 2.10.2 Better informed society According to Walshe (2008) a significant emphasis has been placed on environmental education, a good example of such programmes is the UNs Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (in DEFRA, 2011). NPAs are required to promote opportunities for public to enjoy and understand the special qualities NPs posses. Two benefits can be generalised from this statement: firstly, the impact environmental education has on environmental behaviours; and the impact access to natural environment has on the quality of education. Ofsted (2004) report shows that outdoor educations gives depth to the curriculum and helps contribute to students personal, physical and social education (in DEFRA, 2011). NPAs educate not just the young ones alone but also the general public in a more direct approach through visitor centres, outdoor learning centres, conservation volunteers, guided walks, rangers and work with schools. With these learning mechanisms, NPAs educated the people on issues affecting the NPs and this feed through into people undertaking more environmental behaviours (DEFRA, 2011).

30

2.10.3 Rural development As part of their duty to foster economic and social wellbeing of local communities, NPAs develop projects which build social capital and have a multiplier effects on the local community and wider economies. NPAs have direct impact on local economy as a result of the jobs they creates to the local people. Also, with regards to funding, NPAs lever funding for community based LEADER projects and they foster economic prosperity through their administration of the SDF (DEFRA, 2011). The effective implementation of any nature conservation concepts and practices must evolve around the everyday life of the local community within the protected area (Borrini-Feyerabend et al, 2004a, b; in Tomicevic et al, 2009). NPs must be seen as areas which bring economic and social benefits to the local people (Brown et al, 2005). The special and distinctive nature of NPs is associated to the way they combine their statutory purpose (i.e. recreation and enjoyment by the public) with a proactive role social and economic development of the local community (Thompson, 2010). To ensure successful management of NPs the participation of the local people is fundamental (Govan et al, 1998) because, without local support, PAs will not achieve their aims, nor survive (Brown et al, 2005). The support and co-operation of the local people is increasingly recognised as a major factor which influence the sustainable management of NPs (Wells and Brandon, 1993; in Tomicevic et al, 2009). In achieving sustainable conservation, environmental planners and NPAs should involve the local community. Similarly, several authors (Rao and Geisler, 1990; Gibbs and Bromely, 1990; Western et al, 1994; Gibson and Marks, 1995; in Tomicevic et al, 2009) identified community-based conservation as a new conservation paradigm which focuses on the management of biodiversity for, by and with the local community. Many NPs have pioneered schemes of this nature in place and they work in partnership with other bodies in order to achieve these projects (Brown et al, 2005). According to Ezebilo and Mattsson (2010) NPs provide economic benefits to the locals
31

directly through subsidies (payment); and indirectly (by government or non-governmental actors) through provision of services (e.g. small business facilitation and agricultural development); infrastructures (e.g. health centres, schools etc.). Also, NPs creates employment for the locals in tourism related businesses e.g. guided tours, hotels and lodges, tea shops, restaurants, kiosk etc. (Ezebilo and Mattsson, 2010). However, much debate persists on how NPs provide income, job and affordable housing for local people in ways that are sustainable i.e. support the protection, enjoyment and enhancement of the NP (Brown et al, 2005). 2.10.4 Social Inclusion Specific programmes (aimed at socially excluded groups) are being run by NPAs in order to encourage groups (who would not usually access the NP) enjoy the benefits NP offers (DEFRA, 2009). Social exclusion occurs when certain groups within the community are pushed to the extreme and prevented from participating in training and education as well as being restricted from gaining access to services and citizenship activities (Wilkinson and Marmot, 2003; in Wahl, 2009). Social exclusion is also a consequence of what happens to people who do not get a fair deal throughout their life thereby finding themselves in difficult situations (e.g. discrimination, poor skills, poor housing, unemployment, family breakdown, racism and crime). If not addressed, this could be passed from one generation to another (DEFRA, 2009). 2.10.5 Regulating Service The land management and ecosystem activities within NP boundaries provide lots of regulating activities i.e. water quality services and carbon seizure. However, the location of the NP as well as the habitats present will determine the type of regulating services and the extent to which these services are provided within the NP (DEFRA, 2009). There are two
32

aspect of regulating services provision within NP: the first one is the regulating services protected due to designation of the NP (e.g. clean water from uplands and carbon storage in moorland); and the second one is the regulating services which are improved due to the specific work carried out by NPAs. In the UK, the forest and woodlands remove about 4million tonnes of carbon (each year) from the atmosphere and NPAs contribute to this through the plantation of tree schemes (DEFRA, 2009).

33

2.11 Funding Funding is extremely important if national parks are to achieve their specific purpose and duties within the community. Most of its fund (between 53% and 85%) comes from the central government through DEFRA. National parks also receives fund (both locally and internationally) from external sources e.g. SDF, HLF, European fund, Natural England etc. These funds are targeted at conserving and maintaining Britains breathing space while also creating opportunities for the local communities (e.g. job creation) so as to achieve economic and social development. Some of these (external) funding bodies are briefly discussed below: 2.11.1 Sustainable Development Fund SDF is grant scheme aimed at encouraging business prosperity and strong dynamic communities in a way that enhances the cultural heritage and natural value of the NP, as well as helping visitors and the local people to understand and enjoy the special qualities of these endowed destinations. The SDF scheme began in 2002, and it gives annual grants of about 200,000 to each national park to help develop sustainable projects (DEFRA, 2011). SDF is designed to support and promote projects which demonstrate measures of sustainable development. Such projects must: engage volunteers and local communities in planning, delivery and operation; educates and raise awareness of the need for sustainable development; involves young people; bring different organisations together to tackle rural problems in a spirit of cooperation and partnership; connects people from an urban centre with the NP; involves the sustainable management of land; develops model of sustainable living in the countryside that can be applied elsewhere; add new dimension/values to an existing sustainability project (NNP, 2010).

34

2.11.2 European Funds The funds the NP receives from Europe include: LEADER; European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund; European Regional Development Fund; and the Rural Development Programme. The LEADER fund (for example) is a wide European approach aimed at encouraging sustainable development through local business and communities (at large). Such fund delivers part of the rural development programme (within the UK) and it provides financial advice and support on the following: bio-energy (increasing the production and use of bio fuels and biomass); tourism and recreation (promoting tourism and recreation as a driver for sustainable economic development); sustainable farming and forestry (supporting the development of farming and forestry supply chain business); micro-enterprises development (encouraging entrepreneurial activity); sustainable communities (creating conditions for growth so as to sustain viable communities (NNP, 2010).

35

Table 3: Grants and other incomes (2008/2009)

2.12 The Effects of Government Cuts on National Parks National parks are currently undergoing difficult time as a result of the reduction in government spending of about 30 percent which is part of wide-ranging public-sector reduction by the coalition government, as it belief it is necessary to tackle the countrys fiscal deficit. Thompson (2010) pointed out that these cuts will affect the management of NPs in England over the coming years. Aside from NPs, these cuts have also affected Natural England and Environmental Agency, the combined forces which tackles conservation, pollution and flood protection (Williams, 2011). Many conservationists belief these cuts will mean that economic development will assume as high a priority as conservation (TMDH Ltd, 2010). According to Ruth Chambers (CNPs head of policy) the cuts may not be so bad in the governments eye but, when inflation and the impact of secondary funding cuts are considered, this will lead to

36

a detrimental effect on NP authority in fulfilling their duties. There will be budget planning challenges for NPAs due to the funding uncertainty for the next few years however, it is also an opportunity for NPs to explore other possible funding sources and ways to minimise the impacts of funding cuts in the future (Smith, 2010). The chief executive of CNP (Helen Jackson) argued that the effect of these funding cuts on NPs will lead to loss of jobs and reduction in service as a result of their functional role in rural employment (in Smith, 2010). NPs are powerful advocates for sustainable development as a result of the key role they play in supporting the local communities along with their conservation responsibilities (Smith, 2010). However, DEFRA pointed out that these cut does not mean NPs will lose their status (TMDH Ltd. 2010). In order to make ends meet, NPs will have to make some difficult choices and decisions on which area of work they will have to cut back on (Thompson, 2010) this might affect their role in championing sustainability and result in less activity on key work such as education and raising awareness to the public about key environmental challenges i.e. climate change. A review of governance arrangements is currently being made by DEFRA, and it include an examination of the extent to which NPA are accountable to the communities within the NP (Thompson, 2010). 2.13 Volunteering These days, most environmental organisations do not have the funding required to hire a large labour force, therefore, they rely heavily on volunteers to help out in order to save considerable amount of money (Ryan et al, 2001). There are several definitions of volunteering as a result of diverse countries across the globe. Volunteering as defined by these authors (Noble, 1991; Cordingley, 2000; Penner, 2004) is a pre-social behaviour whereby a person willingly offers to help another person, group or cause without monetary reward (in Measham and Barnett, 2007). Volunteering can be defined as any activity (which is unpaid for) where someone spends time in order to help an individual, group or not-for37

profit organisation who they are not related to (Volunteering England Information Team, 2006). Volunteering as defined by the code of practice is an activity which involves spending time and engaging in something that benefit the environment, individuals or groups other than close relatives (Home Office, 2005:4; Measham and Barnett, 2007). According to Stebbins (2004:5) volunteering is either a formal or informal help (with no or little pay) rendered for the benefit of the volunteer, other people and organisations. The NPAs adopts volunteering as a technique in order to achieve their objectives. Volunteering benefits both the NPAs (particularly if the work carried out by volunteers is much more than the cost in organising them); volunteers (they enjoy what they do); and the public (volunteering creates public goods which might not have been created). There has been growing interest in the role environmental volunteers play in the management of natural resource (Ryan et al, 2001; Byron and Curtis, 2002; Hunsberger et al, 2005; in Measham and Barnett, 2007). Environmental volunteering is a constructive way which helps people bond with their environment and natural resource management rely heavily on volunteer labour (Measham and Barnett, 2007). In Britain, environmental volunteering takes place in many organisations e.g. the Forestry Commission, Natural England, National Trust, Scottish Natural Heritage, Countryside Council for Wales etc. and in a wide range of habitats i.e. NPs, green space, green infrastructure, grasslands, woodlands, coastal areas, wetlands and a range of indoor environments (OBrien et al, 2008). The focus of this study will be specifically looking into environmental volunteering within NPs. 2.14 Modes of Environmental Volunteering The environment has benefited so much from the work of volunteers as a result of their help in restoring ecosystem, building and maintaining trails, campaigns, identifying and monitoring endangered species and their habitats (Ryan et al, 2001). Measham and Barnett

38

(2007:7) highlighted five principal mode of environmental volunteering activity. They include: activism, monitoring, education, restoration and sustainable living. However, they further argued that in any given context, volunteers may engage in more than one mode of activity. Each of these modes are briefly explained below 2.14.1 Activism Environmental volunteering is a pro-active approach aimed at bringing change and empowerment (Bell, 1999) and it lies at the core of social action in civic society (in Measham and Barnett, 2007). Brunckhorst et al, (2006) stressed the importance of civic engagement in local affairs, as well as issues in the usage of resource (in OBrien et al, 2008:18). Activism occurs at various levels, from international (e.g. Greenpeace and Friend of the Earth), to local (e.g. action groups campaigning on local environmental issues). 2.114.2 Monitoring This is another aspect of environmental volunteering. The importance of volunteer groups is broadly recognised as human capital for carrying out environmental monitoring (Jacoby et al, 1997; Carr, 2004; in Measham and Barnett, 2007). According to Cohn (2008) environmental volunteers help scientist gather data on a larger geographical scale and over o long period of time than is possible in more traditional scientific research. However, the issue of data reliability is often raised in relation to volunteer environmental programme (Cohn, 2008; in OBrien et al, 2008) also, volunteer labour is a long-term monitoring which can be difficult to fund through other mechanism (Earthwatch, 2006; in Measham and Barnett, 2007). Reynolds and Elson (1996) argued that effective monitoring and review enable managers make informed decision on PAs. Several literatures (Scottish Natural Heritage, 1993; Countryside Commission, 1996; MacGregor, 1998; in Cope et al, 2000) identified three distinct components of visitor monitoring as: visitor counting (collection of quantitative data of
39

visitors with the use of manual or technological methods i.e. broken beam system, infrared detection etc.); visitor profiling (i.e. collecting demographic, socio-economic and recreational pursuit of visitors using questionnaires, aimed at describing them to the resources); and surveying visitors opinions (aimed at understanding visitors motivation to a resource). Cessford and Muhar (2003) highlighted five monitoring processes park management require as: operational auditing of budget and performance measures; monitoring visitors number, characteristics and pattern of use; social impacts i.e. visitors satisfaction and conflict with the quality of their recreation experiences; the current state of natural, historic and cultural heritage features of conservation as well as its related sustainable issues; and the physical impacts i.e. visitors effect on natural, cultural and historic heritage features. In the UK countryside, there are wide range of monitoring approaches taken by land management agencies and this method varied from place to place (Cope et al, 2000). 2.14.3 Education Primarily, this aspect of environmental volunteering focus on volunteers assisting with community education (Measham and Barnett, 2007). They further stressed that education occurs in line with another mode of environmental volunteering (e.g. restoration or monitoring). A good example is Reef Environment Education Foundation which involves volunteers in the monitoring the environment as part of their education programme (Pattengill-Semmens and Semmens, 2003; in Measham and Barnett, 2007). 2.14.4 Restoration Volunteer Development Scotland (2006) described restoration as improving access, managing or improving habitats, and gardening for wildlife (in OBrien et al, 2008). According to Measham and Barnett (2007:10) ecological restoration is perhaps the most obvious form of environmental volunteering. Volunteers involvement in environmental
40

restoration generally focuses on removal of noxious weeds, replanting of vegetation and providing habitat for wildlife (Measham and Barnett, 2007). 2.14.5 Sustainable Living This mode of environmental volunteering is intimately related to both activism and community education (OBrien et al, 2008). According to Hobson (2006b) this aspect of environmental volunteering is the most recent, and it relates to new interest in reducing the ecological footprints by implementing effective modes of energy use and reducing waste at the household level (in Measham and Barnett, 2007). For example, the Green Volunteer Network of Singapore promotes practices such as sustainable transport use, eco-labelling and recycling (Hobson, 2006a) also, the Sustainable Living Foundation (2007) engages volunteers in promoting and designing ways to recycle, reuse and recycle energy and material goods (Measham and Barnett, 2007). 2.15 Motivation for Environmental Volunteering Not until recently, there has been relatively little research focusing on factors that motivate people to participate in environmental volunteering (Ryan et al, 2001). The decision to volunteer is a complex one that must be considered in a broader context of social pressure, personal attributes, circumstances and the organisations characteristics (Penner, 2004; in Measham and Barnett, 2007). Several studies (Westphal, 1993, 1995; Still and Gerhold, 1997; Schroeder, 1998; Roggenbuck et al, 2000; Grese et al, 2000) found that helping the environment is an important motivation for volunteering (in Ryan et al, 2001). People volunteer as a result of their connectivity with the environment or nature (Dutcher et al, 2007) and environmental volunteers often cite the environment as the main motivation for volunteering (Dalgleish, 2006; in OBrien et al, 2008). Roggenbuck et al. (2000) study (Save Our Stream Volunteers) found out that people volunteer in environmental programmes in
41

order to protect the environment as well as learning and enjoying nature (in Ryan et al, 2001). Volunteering fulfils different functions for different individuals (Snyder et al, 1999). Also, social factors (e.g. networking and making new friends) can be a motivating factor which encourages environmental volunteering. Some authors (Haas, 2000:35; Ryan et al, 2001; Gooch, 2005:18; Christie, 2004:5; Peers, 2007:19; in Wahl, 2009) revealed the high value volunteers place on friendship and social opportunities they had through their participation as well as opportunities to meet new people within the community (Austin, 2002:182; in Wahl, 2009). The organisation has influence on volunteer motivation (Ryan et al, 2001). Therefore, organised volunteer programmes tend to be more appealing to volunteers while volunteers may be discouraged in taking part of disorganised programmes (Ryan et al, 2001). However, motivation can change over time e.g. ones initial reason for volunteering may be different from those sustaining continued voluntary action (Penner, 2004; in Measham and Barnett, 2007).

42

Figure 5: Conceptual framework of individual motivations for environmental volunteering and benefits to individual, environment, wider society and volunteering organisation

Source: (OBrien et al, 2008) 2.16 Barriers to Environmental Volunteering There are several barriers to environmental volunteering among which are: 2.16.1 Lack of time Time is seen as one of the most obvious reason why people fail to volunteer. Warburton and Crosier (2001) described time constraint as one of the factors which impacts on potential
43

volunteers decision to participate. Pope (2005:30) report on Victorian non-volunteers found out that the most common barrier to environmental volunteering is that people are too busy to participate. The report carried out by the Commission on the Future of Volunteering (2008:16) found out that some people shy away from volunteering because they do not want to let managers down if they are unable to turn up regularly (in Measham and Barnett, 2007). 2.16.2 Management Cost The cost of planning, recruiting and training volunteers may discourage managers from having volunteer particularly if the organisation is facing funding constraint (Tacticos and Gardner, 2005). 2.16.3 Gender There is evidence from previous studies that being married and having kids is associated with higher levels of volunteering (Taniguchi, 2006:87). Taniguchi also reported that women are significantly more likely than men to volunteer. 2.16.4 Information and Awareness Lack of information and awareness about volunteering opportunities pose huge participation barriers to the public, particularly to people from the minority groups, young people and people in low socio-economic groups (Pope, 2005). People who do not have the strength, physical fitness and health are also being affected by the lack of information and awareness of the volunteer programmes in place in the national park because some activities require little fitness/strength to carry out (The Commission on the Future of Volunteering; in Measham and Barnett, 2007).

44

Methodology 3.1 Introduction The research was conducted in order to elicit information and understanding on how Northumberland NP is managed and protected. The method used in conducting the research intends to influence the research. The researcher adopted both the quantitative (to understand volunteers motivation) and qualitative (to understand stakeholders perception on the topic) method in the field research. This chapter explains the reason as well as the advantage of adopting the quantitative and qualitative research methods. Aside from the introduction, this chapter also explain the questionnaire survey i.e. definition; the type of questionnaire survey conducted; how, when and where the survey was conducted. Also, the later part of this chapter looked into some of the qualitative methods (e.g. observation, focus group, interviews, triangulation etc.) open to the researcher. The last part of this chapter looked into some of the research limitations. 3.2 Theoretical Approach Finn et al. (2000:13) described theories as a conceptual framework which helps make sense of the research findings, and indicates the conditions under which the research was conducted. There are different types of theoretical approaches (e.g. deductive approach, positivist approach, interpretive approach etc.) but only some are ever appropriate (Veal, 2010). The researcher adopted the interpretive approach because it allows the sample group provide their own explanation of their behaviour or situation (Bryman and Bell, 2007) thereby, allowing the researcher to see a clear picture of the topic through the subjects eyes (Veal, 2006). This approach (interpretive) allowed the research to be conducted as accurate as possible.

45

3.3 Research strategy The researcher finds it helpful to differentiate between the quantitative and qualitative research methods. Ritchie et al (2005) argued that the difference between both research methods is mainly related to the amount of data collected or analysed. Bryman and Bell (2007) described the quantitative research method as a research strategy which emphasizes quantification in the collection and analysis of data while the qualitative research method on the other hand was described (Bryman and Bell, 2007) as a research strategy which emphasizes word (rather than quantification) in the collection and analysis of data. According to Sirakaya-Turk (2011) the quantitative methods are particularly good at eliciting the etic (outsider perspective), while the qualitative method is good at eliciting the emic (insider perspective). Both the qualitative and the quantitative method can be adopted to form two distinctive clusters of research strategy (Bryman and Bell, 2007). To sum up, the qualitative research method are more flexible, develops new theoretical insights, and explores meaning by analysing text and words, whereas the quantitative research strategy is strictly structured, requires the collection of statistical data and tests hypothesis (Ritchie et al, 2005). In order achieve a successful research, the researcher adopted both methods. 3.4 The Quantitative Research Approach The quantitative research method is based on numerical measurement of data (Thomas, 2003) and specific aspect of phenomena; it seeks measurement and analysis of data which are easily replicable by other researcher (King et al, 1994; in Thomas, 2003). To be successful, this method requires careful sampling strategies and experimental design.

46

3.4.1 The Questionnaire Veal (2010) described the questionnaire as a written/printed or computer-based schedule questions and a pro forma for recording answers to the question. The questionnaire can also be described as any (written) research instrument which presents respondents with a series of questions to which they are to react either by selecting from among existing answers or by writing out their answers (Brown, 2001; in Dornyei and Taguchi, 2010). There are several types of questionnaires (e.g. street survey, household survey, telephone survey, on-site survey, captive survey, mail survey and E-survey) in leisure and tourism field. In order to understand peoples motivation towards environmental volunteering, the researcher adopted the E-survey technique (where survey is conducted online i.e. via the internet) which involves not much questions (Veal, 2010). There are two main types of E-survey samples: the convenience and the probability sample. The researcher considered the convenience sample because it deals with volunteers, and it is less costly to generate than probability sample (Schonlau et al, 2002) and it creates privacy for researchers to voice out their opinion on the topic. The questionnaire was designed by the researcher using Key Survey website and it was a single paged questionnaire and it consists three different sections: the first section sought to understand the demographic (e.g. age, sex, marital status, occupation status etc.) of the sample; the second section consist the background questions (e.g. how close do volunteers live to the NP, volunteers travel options to the NP, how pleased are volunteers with the programme etc.) which sought to understand the samples connection with the volunteer programme; and the third section include objective questions (e.g. how many time do you volunteer, what motivates you to volunteer, favourite volunteer tasks etc.) which seeks to understand what motivates people to participate in NNP volunteer programme.

47

The researcher sent an online survey link to the (Northumberland) NP volunteer coordinator (via email) on 28th March 2012. With the help of the coordinator, the questionnaire link was forwarded to respective volunteers. The filling process lasted for 3 weeks after which the researcher collected, analysed and interpreted the data gathered from the sample. 3.5 The Qualitative Research Approach According to Denzin and Lincoln (1987) qualitative research involves the collection and studied use of various empirical materials personal experience, case study, life history, visual text, observation, interview, introspective, interaction and historical- which describe routine and problematic moment and meaning in individual lives. This type of research method is based on the assumption that people involved in a particular situation e.g. tourism and leisure, are in a better position to explain their feelings and experiences in their own words, and they must be allowed to voice out their opinion without being constrained by the framework imposed by the researcher or any other intermediary (Veal, 2006). The qualitative research method consists of several (specific) methods, and they include focus group, indepth interviews, participant observation, case study approach, triangulation, the analysis of text, sampling. The following methods will be explained as well as their relevance to this research. 3.5.1 Participant Observation Participant observation helps researchers gain holistic understanding of the phenomena being studied (DeWalt, 2002). This method encourages the participation of the researcher in the social process being studied (Veal, 2006:202). This method of data collection may be appropriate in some research but, it was not required in this research. The negative aspect of participant observation is that it does not rely on individuals attitude and ideas towards the subject (Chin, 2009).
48

3.5.2 Focus and Group Interviews A focus group is seen as an option for this qualitative research, and it can be described as a form of qualitative research method whereby a small group of people interact with one another in order to explore a particular topic in a relatively unstructured manner (Finn et al, 2000). The main advantage of this research method is that it gives a clear understanding of a particular social situation to both the researcher and the participants during the research process (Finn et al, 2000). However, the focus group method would have been fruitless if it had been adopted in this research because the aim of the research is not to observe the interaction among park authorities in NNP but rather to obtain their opinion; secondly, the strong opinionated personalities might overshadow the quieter ones and the result generalised will not represent the opinion of everyone (Jennings, 2001; in Chin, 2009). The research aims to give equal opportunities to contacted respondents for them to voice out their opinion on the topic without being influenced by one another. 3.5.3 Triangulation Triangulation is used in both the quantitative and qualitative research methods (Veal, 2006). Triangulation can be defined as the study of social phenomena using more than one method or source of data (Bryman and Bell, 2007:412; Veal, 2006). Although, the adoption of triangulation can be fruitful in many cases however that does not mean it must be conducted in all qualitative study (Flick, 2009). Triangulation can be used in four different ways: adopting more than one sampling strategy; analysing data in two or more ways; involving different interviewers, analyst and observers; and lastly, adopting two or more methodology to gather data (Duffy, 1987:131; In Veal, 2006). Triangulation was somewhat used in this research, thereby providing a conclusive research paper. However, not all qualitative methods were suitable for this research only few were utilised (Veal, 2006)

49

3.5.4 Textual Analysis of secondary data Documental analysis from DEFRA, NNP, NPA and NP managers provided a more detailed background on how park managers maintain and conserve natural areas. These documents equipped the researcher before, during and after the interview process giving a clearer picture on how managers manage this endowed natural areas. The secondary data provided the researcher with a triangulation method with which to analyse, compare and contrast from the primary data collected. The secondary data allowed freedom from mediation by the rapport of the researcher and the researched (Jennings, 2001:69) allowing an unbiased view of the management of NPs. 3.5.5 Sampling Sampling is necessary in most survey and observational research (Veal, 2011). Thompson (2012) described sampling as a research method which involves selecting and observing some part of the population in order to understand something about the whole population. The researcher adopted the Non-probability sampling where the selection chance for each element within the population is unknown (Clark, 1998:76) also, with each element of the population being studied not having equal opportunity of being included in the research (Jennings, 2001:138) this was necessary and it helped the researcher gain access and information from the representatives of Northumberland NP. It was inappropriate to adopt the probability sampling because the specific requirement of experience and expertise within NNP were a prerequisite for the research. 3.5.6 Purposive Sampling The purposive sampling can be described as a method of selecting samples within samples (Patton, 2002; in Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009:387). Veal (2006) defined the purposive

50

sampling as a method whereby individuals are selected on the basis of key criterion and other factors. The various stakeholders (i.e. representatives from the public sector) were selected through the purposive sampling method. However, the convenience sampling method was used and as a result, all participant were contacted (at their organisation websites) via the internet, this paved the way for the researcher to get organised before visiting Northumberland. To ensure a broad understanding of the topic, this small scale research intends to involve five participants (i.e. public sector). The public representation came from some members of the park authority (e.g. the funding officer and the park ranger) who are directly involved in the management of NNP. 3.5.7 Interviews The context of peoples behaviour is understood by researchers with the help of interviews (Seidman, 2006). The researcher employed an in-depth interview in order to gain a clear understanding of how park managers maintain and conserve their sites whilst justifying their existence, social, cultural and natural value. This form of qualitative research method tends to be much longer than questionnaire based interview and it is usually characterised by its length, depth and structure (Veal, 2006). Interviews (if properly constructed) tend to be more consistent because people are able to make meaning through language (Seidman, 2006). An in-depth interview requires a comprehensive detail therefore the researcher organised one-toone interview with different stakeholders who participated in the research. The semistructured approach allowed probing to seek clarification and elaboration (Finn et al, 2000) and it gave the interviewee enough room to speak freely whilst allowing the researcher to steer the conversation towards interesting topics (Jennings, 2001; In Chin, 2009).

51

The researcher contacted all interviewees using an email and arrangements were made immediately the informants agreed to take part in the interview. In order to ensure respondents convenience, the researcher allowed the informants to decide the location, date and time the meeting will take place with the hope that the respondents will feel comfortable (i.e. more open and willing to talk much longer when asked to voice out their opinions on NNP) in the surroundings they look familiar to. As suggested in the emails sent to respondents, the interview length was intended to last for thirty minutes. The researcher perceived thirty minutes will be sufficient enough to gain adequate amount of data from respondents without subjecting them to interview fatigue thereby avoiding the collection of invalid data. However, some of the interview lasted more (two hours) than the required time. 3.5.8 Interview Schedule The interview was (tape recorded) split into two different sections (the background and the objective). The background section comprises of questions which seeks to understand respondents roles and experience within NNP to create a better understanding about their informed opinions. This gave the researcher an insight on how knowledgeable the respondents would be on subsequent topics. Also, the background questions (focusing specifically on questions relating to the informant) built a rapport between the researcher and the respondent, paving the way for the interviewee to feel relax while answering other questions. The objective section on the other hand comprises of questions which is directly related to the project topic. These questions tend to create a platform on which to discuss how NNP managers maintain and conserve their site while also highlighting the challenges they currently face (particularly issues relating to funding) in ensuring sustainability within this
52

endowed destination. This section also includes question which was designed to understand the negative impact of tourism to NNP. Also, there were questions (in this section) which seek to understand if the locals are allowed to participate in the management of the NP. In addition, there were questions which were aimed to highlight the current sustainable projects being undertaken by the park authority and to determine the success of those completed. Furthermore, the latter part (of the objective questions) was based around the management plan of the NNP and it includes questions which seek to understand if the management plan has been successfully implemented. 3.5.9 Coding After transcribing the data gathered from the interview, the need to code is imperative. Coding is as technique used in the grounded theory approach, and it means categorizing data into segments using a short name that simultaneously accounts for each piece of data (Boeije, 2009). According to Lewins and Silver (2007:81) qualitative coding can be described as a process which identifies segments of data relating to or being an example of a more general idea, category, instance or theme (in Boeije, 2009). It allowed the researcher to select, separate and sort data before making analytic account of the data (Boeije, 2009). Usually, codes are attached to chunk of varying-sized words, sentences, whole paragraphs or phrases connected to a specific setting (Basit, 2003). Coding can be done either manually or using computer software (e.g. NVivo). However, due to time constraint (in learning this software) the researcher chose to use the manual technique. Significant statements were coded in-terms of theoretical themes found in the literature (e.g. conservation, community participation, funding, development, tourism promotion, volunteers). Fragments of relevant information were highlighted (using a particular colour) according to the category they fell into. Information on conservation was highlighted using dark blue marker; information on community participation was highlighted using purple marker; information on funding was
53

highlighted using a tan marker; development was highlighted using an orange marker; while social inclusion was highlighted using green marker; lastly, volunteering was highlighted using a red marker. 3.5.10 Research Limitations There are several limitations to this research, among which are: Lack of time: this research would have been a complete success if not for the little time the researcher had in completing the whole project. Insufficient funds: there was little money available to the researcher in the course of conducting this project. Had there been enough funds, the researcher would have increased the number of visits to the destination (NNP) so as to broaden the researchers knowledge about the destination. Also, some of the field trips were carried out before the completion of the literature review and as a result, the researcher was unable to dig into some questions which might have added more understanding to the study. Lastly, the researcher encountered some difficulties as a result of adopting online survey. The initial survey (link) designed online by the researcher crashed making it difficult for volunteers to submit their filled questionnaires, and the researcher lost some of the questionnaires that were already submitted before the link crashed. However, the researcher had to design a new questionnaire to address this problem. Also, the researcher intended to gather information from at least fifty volunteers unfortunately only thirty-one volunteers partook in the survey. Another problem worth mentioning was the delay in completion of the questionnaire. These problems delayed the researcher in compiling the results gathered from the field trip.
54

55

Results and Analysis 4.1 Introduction The aim of this chapter is to discuss and explain the results of the field research conducted in NNP in March/April 2012. The researcher divided this chapter into two: With a qualitative approach, the researcher focuses on understanding and explaining the inner thoughts of stakeholders in relation to the topic; while the other part seek to explore the motivations towards environmental volunteering using quantitative approach (questionnaire). The researcher compiled the information gathered (through primary and secondary data) and sectioned it into several themes. Each theme represents stakeholders perceptions on the topic (in relation to authors views). The stakeholders positions/role within NNP include: the visitor development officer (whos in charge of policy and strategic development of tourism projects within NNP in relation to sustainable tourism) represented in the research as Manager A; the volunteer coordinator (who holds a developmental role aimed towards developing volunteers so as to benefit not just NNP but volunteers themselves) represented in the research as Coordinator C; the funding and climate change officer (whos role about is grant acquisition and authorising funds in order to support local projects and getting messages i.e. about climate change across to other organisations and partners) represented in the research as Officer B; and the park ranger supervisor (who coordinate and supervise voluntary rangers in order to achieve conservation goals e.g. footpaths creation, patrols etc.) represented in the research as Supervisor D. 4.2 Community participation NNP adopts a community-led approach based on community facilitation, engagement and capacity building. All stakeholders highlighted the importance of community participation in

56

the management of NNP with Manager B indicating that it is a collective responsibility which must be fulfilled between NPA and the local community. Several authors (Rao and Geisler, 1990; Gibbs and Bromely, 1990; Western et al, 1994; Gibson and Marks, 1995; in Tomicevic et al, 2009) were in complete support of this notion, they stated that the development of a new conservation paradigm (community-based conservation) which purely focuses on the management of biodiversity for, by and with the local community. With Govan et al. (1998) stating that local participation is fundamental to successful management of national parks, NNPA established a close linkages with the local communities through farm liaison work, education, ranger service and interpretation activities (Supervisor D). Community participation is crucial to the success of national parks therefore it is critical for managers and policy makers to understand the attitudes of the local people so as to implement programs that would facilitate increasing participation in resources management (Tomicevic, 2009) particularly now that the NP has lost most of its work force due to the reduction in governments spending (Supervisor D). Also, the support and co-operation of the local people is increasingly recognised as a major factor which influence the sustainable management of national parks (Wells and Brandon, 1993; in Tomicevic et al, 2009). However, most stakeholders believed Wells and Brandon (1993) statement is not entirely the case within NNP, with Manager A claiming that the park authority have seen signs of one tourism cluster seeing other tourism clusters as competitors which is a major issue the NPA is currently working on to avoid fragmentation taking place. 4.3 Economic Development NNPA has a direct impact on the rural economy as a result of the jobs it creates to the local economy. As at 2010, NNP employed about 80 staffs (i.e. full-time, part-time and seasonal) however these numbers have reduced due to the cuts (Supervisor D). Surprisingly, the spending cuts have not stopped NNPA from developing projects that benefit the local
57

community (Manager A). For example, Funds of about 20,000 are being allocated (annually) to each of these areas (Rothbury, Bellingham, Wooler and Haltwhistle), and the communities within these areas apply for such grants if they want to develop a project (e.g. construction of local churches, community centres etc.). Such bid must demonstrate good practice (i.e. would not have any negative impact on the environment) before grants are issued and the NPA guides these communities in a way that is more conducive to the NP and its purposes. This conforms with Ezebilo and Mattsson (2010) view that national parks provide economic benefits to the locals directly through subsidies (payment), job creation (e.g. guided tours, tea shops, hotels etc); and indirectly (by government or non-governmental actors) through provision of services (e.g. small business facilitation and agricultural development) and infrastructures (e.g. health centres, schools etc.). Supervisor D indicated that besides the jobs created by tourism clusters (e.g. B&Bs, lodges, tea shops etc.) within the national park, the national park also employs local contractors (e.g. plumbers, carpenters etc.) for the implementation of some projects. Also, NNP also use the Action Area approach (which is well regarded by managers and partners) to empower local communities and businesses to deliver the national park purposes by building networks linked to funding and support (Solace Enterprises, 2010). 4.4 Social Inclusion All stakeholders highlighted the need for the national park to promote social inclusion (as stipulated by the Environmental Act 1995) and they stressed that NNP creates projects aimed at promoting social inclusion within and outside its border, examples of such projects include: the Walking to Well-being projects (aimed at addressing health inequalities); the Age Concern (aimed at bringing the elderly people into NNP); the Ruperts Wood environmental project for children at Rochester; the Hadrians Wall Bus project (aimed at engaging more people e.g. the elderly, the ethnic minority groups, young unemployed groups
58

and disabled people within the communities to access the countryside). These projects (sponsored by DEFRA, SDF, Countryside Agency, English Heritage, NNP etc.) support and engage local communities/volunteers in planning, delivery and implementation (Cordinator C). 4.5 Funding In 2009, NNPA received direct funds of about 3.3million from the government through (DEFRA) and attracts about 1m in other income (e.g. car parks, visitor paybacks etc.) that same year. However, such is not the case any longer because there have been a reduction of about 30 percent in the funds from government. The countrys national parks are facing difficult times because funding is extremely difficult to find these days (Manager A). Thompson (2010) prediction that the cuts will affect the management of national parks (in England) over the coming years is entirely true as highlighted by most stakeholders, stressing that the government cuts have had massive impacts on the national park and as a result, the national park have had to make some staff redundant with Officer B indicating that 18 jobs (mostly rangers) have gone out of 80 strong work-force, with eight managerial position reduced to four. Also, the loss of farming and rural enterprises posts would affect plans for farm environment as well as other farm-based initiative (Supervisor D) however the effect of this is still to be seen. Not all areas (within NNP) are affected by these cuts with Coordinator C indicating that the cuts have not affected volunteer programmes but, he believed it might at some point. Majority of stakeholders claimed that beside job losses, NNP have also had to cut back on some areas of work e.g. there has been significant cuts on the maintenance of the rights of way network (Supervisor D). Also, the Ingram visitor centre is on the brink of being shut down (Manager A) while the Rothbury visitor centre is next in line (Officer B) this would considerably affect tourism businesses, residents and visitors. Smith (2010) suggest that there will be budget planning challenges for NPAs due to funding
59

uncertainty for the next few years however, it is also an opportunity for national parks to explore other possible funding sources and ways to minimise the impacts of funding cuts in the future. Smiths view conforms to Officer B who suggested a way NNP can combat these challenges is by seeking (more) external funds (e.g. Heritage Lottery Fund, SDF, European funds) in order to successfully accomplish its purposes. However, Manager A held a separate view to this, he felt the European economy is not in good shape presently and it might decide to cut back on the funds it currently gives NNP. Over the last decade, the largest external funder of NNP during the last decade has been the HLF (the NNPA is currently applying for funds of about 10 million from the HLF in developing the Sill landscape centre) while the Regional Development Agency (One North East) is the lowest external funder of NNP (Officer B). The funds NNP used to receive from One North East were spent in promoting the NP as well as local businesses within and outside the national park boundaries (Manager A). Governments decision stopping One North-East from giving grants to NNP had a massive impact on the national park (Manager A). However, Officer B felt the national park was not affected when funding stopped from One North-East because he (Officer B) felt the funds NNP used to receive (from One North-East) was so little. Funds should not be described as little so long as it will make a difference (Manager A). According to Supervisor D, visitor payback (coupled with other good nature funds) is one of the funding sources the national park will have to rely on in order to cope through this difficult period. Visitor payback is seen as a mechanism where people can make donations towards looking after the NP. The main benefit of visitor payback is that it recognises that people really want to make a contribution towards looking after the NP. Funds generated from visitor payback as well as other good nature funds are used in conserving the wildlife and habitats of NNP for future generation (Officer B).

60

4.6 Conservation

Supervisor D declared that conservation is very much the priority of NNP as stipulated by the countrys National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as amended by the Environmental Act 1995. The area includes internationally significant areas of peat bogs, some up to 20m deep full of CO2 stored for up to 10,000 years these peat areas of the NP store the equivalent carbon produced by 17million car over 10 years. Slight damage or poor management of these areas would have serious impact on the CO2 emission in the county. Most of the projects (e.g. footpath maintenance, clearing species, rodent entrance etc.) being carried out within NNP are geared towards conservation (Supervisor D). The NP is involved with all aspect of renewable and energy conservation projects (Manager A). For example, in the past, some farms (due to their remoteness) relied on back-up diesel generators, the NPA facilitated and finance the removal of these generators for small wind turbine. These projects have helped reduce air pollution within the national park. Also, there are awareness programmes (e.g. coast and country seminars) being organised by NNP aimed at creating more awareness about green issues to businesses within the NP (Officer B)

4.6.1 Visitor Monitoring Not only do we monitor and manage visitors, we also recommend areas and activities they can engage in (Supervisor D). Cope et al. (2000) stated that the UK countryside has a wide range of monitoring approaches adopted by land management agencies. Several literatures (Scottish Natural Heritage, 1993; Countryside Commission, 1996; MacGregor, 1998; Cope et al, 1999) identified three distinct components of visitor monitoring as: visitor counting (collection of quantitative data of visitors with the use of manual or technological methods i.e. broken beam system, infrared detection etc.); visitor profiling (i.e. collecting demographic, socio-economic and recreational pursuit of visitors using questionnaires, aimed
61

at describing them to the resources); and surveying visitors opinions (aimed at understanding visitors motivation to a resource). There are quite a number of visitor monitoring tools in place within NNP (Manager A). There are infrared counters (which visitors trigger when they go over it) along Hadrians Wall and the long Penine way, this mechanism gives the NNPA a quantifiable understanding on the number of people making use of these areas. However, the disadvantage of these infrared counters is that it does not give NNPA a qualifyable understanding of visitors profile and whether the visitors are enjoying their experience or not, prompting NNPA to develop visitor surveys in order to get feedbacks on how satisfied visitors are with their experience as well as the equality profile of visitors and where/why they visit. With the help of these feedbacks, NNPA have a clear understanding of (extra) services (e.g. creating more toilets, visitor centres etc.) visitors require which are currently not being offered in the NP. The voluntary rangers and volunteers also help NNP in monitoring visitors numbers, this helps the NP implement effective management decisions (Supervisor D) which conforms to several authors (Jacoby et al, 1997; Carr, 2004; in Measham and Barnett, 2007) view that volunteer groups are broadly recognised as human capital for carrying out environmental monitoring.

62

4.7 Volunteer motivations In order to gain holistic understanding as to what motivates the sample to participate in environmental volunteering. This study aims to understand volunteers motivation from three different key themes (demographic, background and objectives) as explained in the methodology chapter. Table 4: demographic profile of the sample Variable Gender: Age: 15-25 years 26-35 years 36-45 years Above 45 years 0% 3% 16% 81% Ethnicity: White Black Mixed Asian Chinese Other 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Marital status: Single Married 32% 68% Male Female 71% 29% Percentage (%) of total sample

63

Occupation Status: Student Employed Un-employed Retired 0% 45% 3% 52% Do you have any varying difficulty e.g. disability Yes No 0% 100%

There was considerably more male (71%) than female (29%) in the sample. This projection was a complete opposite of Taniguchi (2006:87) view who argued that women are more likely to participate in volunteering than men. However, his view that marriage brings about higher level of environmental participation is clearly demonstrated from the sample with sixty-eight percent of respondents married while thirty-two percent were single. Respondents age were split into four different groups: the first group is the 15 to 25 years, however none of the respondents fell into this category this might be as a result of lack of information and awareness in attracting the young ones as proposed by Pope (2005) or because the survey period coincides with school term-time, with Coordinator C pointing out that the NP receives young volunteers during summer holidays; three percent of respondents were between the 26 to 35 years category; sixteen percent of respondents were between ages 36 to 45 years; a much larger percentage (81%) fell into the last group which include people who are over 45 years and more than half of them (52%) are retired from work. Forty-five percent of respondents are still in employment, while 3 percent were unemployed. All respondents (100%) were white with none of them having any form of varying difficulty e.g. disability. This clearly shows the lack of participation of the ethnic minority groups and
64

people with varying difficulties. Therefore, there is need for NNPA to create more awareness in encouraging these groups to participate in its volunteer programmes in order to accomplish its multifaceted role within the society

65

Table 5: Background overview of sample Variable How close do you live to the NP? 1-10 miles 11-20 miles 21-50 miles More than 50 miles 32% 26% 42% 0% How do you travel to the NP? By walk Own transport Public transport Other 0% 87% 13% 0% Are you expenses? Yes No reimbursed your travelling Percentage (%)

100% 0%

How pleased are you with the volunteer programme so far? Very pleased Somewhat pleased Neutral Somewhat displeased Very displeased 74% 26% 0% 0% 0% Do you encounter any difficulty while volunteering? Yes No 0%

66

100% How would you describe your relationship with the local community? Very good Somewhat good Neutral Not good Very bad 84% 13% 3% 0% 0% How would you describe your relationship with the paid staff? Very good Somewhat good Neutral Not good Very bad 81% 19% 0% 0% 0%

Thirty-two percent of respondents live between 1-10 miles from the NP, twenty-six percent live between 11-20 miles, while the remaining forty-two percent live between 21-50 miles. Majority of the respondents (87%) travel to the NP in their private cars while the remaining thirteen percent make use of public transport and all respondents indicated that their travelling expenses are being reimbursed by the NP. Such reimbursements might encourage more participation of volunteers thereby increasing volunteering days. Most respondents (74%) indicated that they are very pleased with their volunteer programme with 26 percent somewhat pleased. This shows that volunteering programmes are successfully implemented by the NP with most volunteers (81%) describing their relationship with paid staff as very good and 19 percent described theirs as somewhat good. However, Coordinator C indicated
67

that certain tension exist within the national park when volunteers see some of the (paid) park rangers they work with being made redundant. Majority of volunteers (84%) stressed that they have a very good relationship with the local community this conforms with Wells and Brandon (1993) view that the co-operation and support of the local community is a major factor which influences sustainable management. Thirteen percent described theirs as somewhat good while as little as 3 percent indicated theirs as neutral.

68

Table 6: Objectives overview of sample Variable Why do you volunteer? To preserve the environment To learn new skills Social contact Utilise existing skill Keeping active Giving back to the community 68% 0% 6% 0% 19% 6% How many times do you volunteer in a month? 1-2 times 3-5 times 6-10 miles More than 10 miles 58% 39% 3% 0% If you did not volunteer as much as you would have liked, what prevented you? I volunteer as much as I can Lack of time Lack of expertise Scheduled conflict Travelling expenses Other 42% 42% 0% 16% 0% 0% What is your favourite volunteer task? Wall building Wildlife survey Conservation task Footpath maintenance 0% 10% Percentage (%)

69

Guided walk with visitors Other

35% 3% 10% 42%

Has the government cuts affected your programme in any way? Yes No 13% 87% Has the volunteer programme met up to your expectation Yes No 100% 0%

Majority of respondents (68%) indicated that they volunteer in order to preserve the environment. This conforms to several authors (Westphal, 1993; Still and Gerhold, 1997; Schroeder, 1998; Roggenbuck et al, 2000; Grese et al, 2000; in Ryan et al, 2001) purview that helping the environment is an important motivation for volunteering. Nineteen percent of respondents (with most having retired from work) stressed that they volunteer in order to keep active, while as little as 6 percent of respondents indicated their motives as giving back to the community, the remaining six percent highlighted social contact (i.e. avenue for networking and making new friends) as their main reason for volunteering, this clearly demonstrate some authors (Haas, 2000:35; Ryan et al, 2001; Gooch, 2005:18; Christie, 2004:5; Peers, 2007:19; in Wahl, 2009) argument that social contact motivates people to participate in environmental volunteering. More than half of respondents (58%) stressed that they volunteer 1-2 times in a month, thirty-nine percent volunteered 3-5 times, while the remaining 3 percent volunteered 6-10 times. Forty-two percent of respondents indicated that
70

they do volunteer as much as the liked, while 39 percent indicated time constraint as their reason for not participating more (majority of whom are in full time employment) this conforms to Warburton and Crosier (2001) view who described lack of time as a factor which affects decision to participate. The remaining 16 percent indicated schedule conflict. Majority of respondents (87%) indicated that the government cuts have not affected their programme, this supports Coordinator Cs claim who indicated that the volunteer budget was maintained. However, the remaining 17 percent claimed the government cuts affected their volunteer programmes and as a result, there have been less volunteer patrols within the national park. Ten percent of respondents indicated wildlife survey as their favourite task, 35 percent indicated conservation task as their favourite, some respondents (10%) highlighted guided walk with visitors as their favourite volunteer task while as little as 3 percent indicated footpath maintenance as their favourite, the remaining respondents (42%) fell into the other category and they find patrols (aimed at looking for any sort of damage to the NP) and heritage at risk (aimed at monitoring and protecting historical monuments and buildings with NNP) as their favourite volunteers.

71

Conclusion NNP is an important environmental and tourism asset which has a multifaceted role within the society. It was created by the government, and charged with the responsibility to conserve the environment; create opportunities for public recreation; and opportunities for socioeconomic development. Therefore, there is need for the park authorities to protect and maintain its natural and socio-economic value this can be achieved through collaboration between conservation authorities and local communities to jointly manage a resource of high conservation value; this has been the main focus of conservation in both developed and developing countries (McNeely, 1995; Harris et al, 1996; Venter and Breen, 1998; Beltran, 2000; In Papageorgiou and Kassioumis, 2004). Community participation is crucial to the success of national parks therefore it is critical for managers and policy makers to understand the attitudes of the local people so as to implement programs that would facilitate increasing participation in resources management (Tomicevic, 2009). Economic and social development is a key duty national parks must fulfil and the success of national parks (aside from their primary purpose) is measured in terms of their contribution to the local community. The study area showed that managers consider this duty as a key responsibility it must provide as seen from some of the projects (e.g. being administered by the NNPA There is so much concern as to the difficult choices national parks will be faced with over the coming years. The cuts is in its early stage and it has stated having huge impacts as this study have shown, NNP (as well as other national parks in the UK) is currently facing funding challenges as a result of the government cuts. This has led to the national park having to cut back on some areas (e.g. the closure of the Ingram visitor centre) of work as well as reducing some of its work force in order to cope with these cut. This would affect not just the national

72

park alone but the visitors, local businesses and the local people. However, reducing the work force does not seem to be the best solution to these problems because if parks are said to foster economic development (e.g. job creation) in the first place, making staff redundant will result into social exclusion. The best alternative NNP could seek (to reduce to the impact of these cuts) is to try and attract more grants from external sources (e.g. HLF, SDF, European funds etc.). Also, national parks should continue to encourage good nature funds (and visitor payback) no matter how little this contributions are, it tend to make huge difference at the end of the day. National parks have a responsibility of creating specific programmes aimed at encouraging people from all background (e.g. social excluded groups) to make use and participate in the management of the NP. However, the survey carried out on volunteers within NNP found out that most people (particularly the social excluded group e.g. ethnic minority groups, people with varying difficulties etc.) are not participating in the programme. This might be as a result of lack of awareness about the volunteer programme. Therefore, there is the need for NNP to create more awareness about the programmes it has in place so as to encourage more participation of the people within the community irrespective of their background or difficulty. From the survey carried out on volunteers within NNP it was gathered that the main motive why most people volunteer is to help preserve the environment as proved earlier by the work of some authors (Westphal, 1993, 1995; Still and Gerhold, 1997; Schroeder, 1998; Roggenbuck et al, 2000; Grese et al, 2000) who found that helping the environment is an important motivation for volunteering (in Ryan et al, 2001). However, volunteer motivation can change over time particularly if the volunteer programme is not being successfully organised by NNPA. Having said this, the park authority must channel its effort in making

73

the volunteer programmes as interesting as possible for volunteers so as to benefit not only the volunteers but also NNP.

74

References Arnberger, A., Eder, R., Allex, B., Sterl, P., Burns, R., (2011) Relationships between national-park affinity and attitudes towards protected area management of visitors to the Gesaeuse National Park, Austria, Journal of Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier Limited Barker, A., Stockdale, A., (2008) Out of the Wilderness? Achieving sustainable development within Scottish national parks, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 88, pp. 181-193 Basit, T. M., (2003) Manual or Electronic: the role of coding in qualitative data analysis, Journal for Education Research, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp 143-154 Beunen, R., Regnerus, H. D., Jaarsma, C. F., (2008) Gateways as a Means of Visitor Management in National Parks and Protected Areas, Journal of Tourism Management, Vol. 29, pp. 138-145 Boeije, H., (2009) Analysis in Qualitative Research, London: Sage Publication Limited Boyd, S., Butler, R. W., (2000) Tourism and National Parks UK: John Wiley and Sons Brown, G., Weber, D., (2011) Public Participation GIS: a new method for national park planning, Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 102, pp. 1-15 Brown, J., Mitchell, N., Beresford, M., IUCN-The World Conservation Union, IUCN World Commission on PAs (2005) The Protected Landscape Approach: linking nature, culture and community, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Bryman, A., Bell, E., (2007) Business Research Methods, 2nd edition, New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

75

Buultjens, J., Ratnayake, I., Gnanapala, A., Aslam, M., (2005) Tourism and its Implication for Management in Ruhuna national Park (Yala), Sri Lanka, Journal of Tourism Management, Vol. 26, pp. 733-742 Cairncross, L., Downing, L., Green, S., (2004) Planning for Affordable Housing: lessons from English National Parks, [Online]
https://www.york.ac.uk/chp/hsa/papers/autumn04/Green%20et%20al.pdf [12/02/2010]

Castellani, V., Sala, S., (2010) Sustainable Performance Index for Tourism Policy Development, Journal of Tourism Management, Vol. 31, pp. 871-880 Ceballos-Lascurain, H., International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Commision of the European Communities, (1996) Tourism, Ecotourism, and Protected Areas: the state of nature-based tourism around the world and guidelines for its development, UK: IUCN Publication Services Unit Cessford, G., Muhar, A., (2003) Monitoring Options for Visitor Numbers in National Parks and Natural Areas, Journal for Nature Conservation, Vol. 11, pp. 240-250 Child, B., (2004) Parks in Transition: biodiversity, rural development and bottom line, South Africa: IUCN World Conservation Union Clark, J. R. A., Clarke, R. (2011) Local Sustainablility Initiatives in English National Parks: what role for adaptive governance, Journal of Land Use Policy, Vol. 28, pp. 314-324 Clark, M., Riley, M., Wilkie, E., Wood, R. C., (1998) Researching and Writing Dissertations in Hospitality and Tourism, London: Thomson Learning Cope, A., Doxford, D., Probert, C., (2000) Monitoring visitors to UK countryside resources: the approaches of land and recreation resource management organisations to visitor monitoring, Journal of Land Use Policy, Vol. 17, pp. 59-66

76

Corbin, A., Russell, M. A., (2010) Historical Archeology of Tourism in Yellowstone National Park, New York: Springer Publication Corsane, G., (2005) Heritage, Museums and G alleries: an introductory reader , Abingdon: Routledge Courtney, P., Hill, G., Roberts, D., (2006) The role of Natural Heritage in Rural Development: an analysis of economic linkages in Scotland, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 22, pp. 469-484 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2011) National Park Authority: assessment of benefits, London: Crown Publication Dewalt, K., Dewalt, B., (2002) Participant Observation: a guide for field workers, USA: AltaMira Press Duerden, F., (2007) Best Walks in Northumberland London: Frances Lincoln Limited Eagles, P. F. J., (1999) International Trend in Park Tourism and Ecotourism, 4th edition, Switzerland: World Conservation Union (IUCN) Eagles, P. F. J., Bowman, M. E., Tao, C. (2005) Guidelines for Tourism in Parks and Protected Areas of East Asia, UK: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Eagles, P., McCool, S., (2002) Tourism in National Parks: management and planning, UK: CABI Publishing Eaton, B., Holding, D., (1996) The Evaluation of Public Transport Alternatives to the Car in British National Parks, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 55-65 Eckton, G. D. C., (2003) Road-users Charging and the Lake District National Park, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 11, pp. 307-317
77

English National Park Authority Association, (2009) Position Statement: sustainable tourism [Online] http://www.enpaa.org.uk/enpaa_position_statement_-_sustainable_tourism.pdf [18/02/2012] Erdogan, N., Tosun, C., (2009) Environmental Performance of Tourism Accomodations in the Protected Areas: case of Goreme historical national park, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28, pp. 406-414 Ezebilo, E. E., Mattsson, L., (2010) Socio-economic Benefits of Protected Areas as perceived by Local People around Cross River National Park, Nigeria, Journal of Policy and Economics, Vol. 12, pp. 189-193 Finn, M., Elliott-White, M., Walton, M., (2000) Tourism and Leisure Research Methods: data collection, analysis and interpretation, Essex: Pearson Education Limited Flick, U., (2009) An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 4th edition, Hamburg: Rowohlt Tashenbuch Verlag Gandariasbeitia, I. E., (2010) Socioeconomic Impacts of National Parks: a case study from the North-East of England, Regional Studies Association Annual International Conference, Vol. 33, pp. 159-176 Ghimire, K. B., (1994) Parks and People: livelihood issues in national parks management in Thailand Oxford: Blackwell Publisher Ghimire, K. B., Ghimire, K., Pimbert, M. P., (1997) Social Change and Conservation: environmental politics and impacts of national parks and protected areas, UK: Earthscan Publications Limited

78

Hall, C. M., Boyd, S. W., (2005) Nature-Based Tourism in Peripheral Areas: development or disaster, USA: Channel View Publications Halpenny, E. A., (2010) Pro-environment Behaviours and Park Visitors: the effect of place attachment, Journal of Environment Psychology, Vol. 30, pp. 409-421 Honey, M., (2008) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: who owns paradise? 2nd edition, Washington: Island Press Jarvis, T. D., (2000) The Responsibility of National Parks in Rural Development, in Machlis G. E., Field, D. R. (Eds) National Parks and Rural Development: practice and policy in the United State, Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 219-230 Job, H., (2008) Estimating the Regional Economic Impact of Tourism to National Parks: two case studies from Germany, Zurich: Verein Gaia Juutinen, A., Mitani, Y., Mantymaa, E., Shoji, Y., Siikamaki, P., Svento, R., (2011) Combining Ecological and Recreation Aspects in National Park Management: a choice experiment application, Journal of Ecological Economics, Vol. 70, pp. 1231-1239 Kandari, O. P., Chandra, A., (2004) Tourism, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development: volume 5, Delhi: Chawla Offset Press Kang, M., Gretzel, U., (2012) Effects of Podcast tours on tourist Experiences in a national park, Journal of Tourism Management, Vol. 33, pp. 440-455 Ladle, R. J., Whittaker, R. J., (2011) Conservation Biogeography West Sussex: WileyBlackwell Publisher Limited Leask, A., and Yeoman, I., (1999) Heritage Visitor Attraction: an operations management perspective, London: Thomson Learning

79

Lew, A., Hall, C., Williams, A., (2008) A Companion to Tourism, USA: Wiley-Blackwell Lockwood, M., Worboys, G., Kothari, A., (2006) Managing Protected Areas: a global guide, UK: Earthscan Publication Limited Ma. X., Ryan, C., Bao, J., (2009) Chinese National Parks: differences, resources use and tourism product portfolios, Journal of Tourism Management, Vol. 30, pp. 21-30 Manning, R. E., (2009) Parks and People: managing outdoor recreation of Acadia National Park, America: University of Vermont Press Mayer, M., Muller, M., Woltering, M., Arnegger, J., Job, H., (2010) Economic Impact of Tourism in Six National Parks, Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 97, pp. 7382 McIntosh, R. W., Goeldner, C. R., and Ritchie, J. R. B., (1995) Tourism: Principles, practices and philosophies, 7th edition, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Measham, T. G., Barnett, G. B., (2007) Environmental Volunteering: motivations, modes and outcomes, Australia: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Publication Mose, I., (2007) Protected Areas and Regional Development in Europe: towards a new model, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited Neuvonen, M., Pouta, E., Puustinen, J., Sievanen, T., (2010) Visits to National Parks: effects of park characteristics and spatial demand, Journal of Nature Conservation, Vol. 18, pp. 224229 Newsome, D., Moore, S. A., Dowling, R. K., (2002) Natural area Tourism: Ecology, Impacts and Management, Great Britain: Cromwell Press
80

Northumberland

National

Park

(2011)

State

of

the

Park

Report,

[Online]

http://www.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk/lookingafter/memberscommittees/nationalparkauthori ty/?a=145123 [13/02/2012]

Northumberland

National

Park

Overview

[Online]

http://www.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk/understanding/learningzone/?a=148512

[23/12/2011] Northumberland National Park Authority (2009) Management Plan, 3rd review, Northumberland: Northumberland National Park Publication OBrien, L., Townsend, M., Ebden, M., (2008) Environmental Volunteering: motivations, barriers and benefits, International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organisations, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 525-545 Owen, S., Green, J., (1997) National Parks in the UK: themes and issues, England: Stanley Thornes Publishing Limited Papageorgiou, K., Kassioumis, K., (2005) The National Park policy Context in Greece: park users perspectives of issues in park administration, Journal of Nature conservation, Vol. 13, pp. 231-246 Pimbert, M. P., Pretty, J. N., (1995) Parks, People and Professionals: putting participation into protected area management, Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development Publication Raymond, G., (1992) Basic Interviewing Skills, US: Waveland Press Inc. Ritchie, B., Burns, P., Palmer, C., (2005) Tourism Research Methods: integrating theory with practice, Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing Ritchie, J. R. B., Crouch, G. I., (2003) The Competitive Destination: a sustainable tourism perspective, UK: CABI Publishing
81

Ryan, R. L., Kaplan, R., Grese, R. E., (2001) Predicting Volunteer Commitment in Environment Stewardship Programmes, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 629-648 Schonlau, M., Fricker, R. D., Elliott, M. N., Rand Corporation (2002) Conducting Research Surveys Via E-mail and the Web, Santa Monica, CA: RAND publishing Scott, D., (2003) Climate Change and Tourism in the Mountain Regions of North America : International conference on climate change and tourism, Spain: World Tourism Organisation Seidman, I., (2006) Interviewing as a Qualitative Research: a guide for researchers in education, 3rd edition, New York: Teachers College Press Selby, A., Petajisto, L., Huhtala, M., (2011) The Realisation of Tourism Business Opportunities Adjacent to Three National Parks in Southern Finland: entrepreneurs and local decision-makers matter, Journal of Forest Policy and Economics, Vol. 13, pp. 446-455 Sellers, R. W., (1997) Preserving Nature in the National Parks, U.S: Yale University Press Selman, P., (2009) Conservation Designations-Are they fit for purpose in 21st century? Journal of Land Use Policy, Vol. 265, pp. 5142-5153 Shafar, C. L., (1999) National Park and Reserve Planning to Protect Biological Diversity: some basic elements, Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 44, pp. 123-153 Sirakaya-Turk, E., (2011) Research Methods for Leisure, Recreation and Tourism, Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing Stewart, D., Shamdasani, P., Rook, D., (2007) Focus Groups: theory and practice, 2nd edition, California: Sage Publication Inc.

82

Stockdale, A., Barker, A., (2009) Sustainability and the Multifunctional Landscape: an assessment of approaches to planning and management in the Cairngorms National Park, Journal of Land Use Policy, Vol. 26, pp. 479-492 Stolton, S., Dudley, N., (2010) Arguments for Protected Areas: multiple benefits for conservation, London: Earthscan Publication Limited Suckall, N., Fraser, E. D. G., Cooper, T., Quinn, C., (2009) Visitor Perceptions of Rural Landscapes: a case study in the Peak District National Park, England, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 90, pp. 1195-1203 Swarbrooke, J., (1999) Sustainable Tourism Management, UK: CABI Publishing Teddlie, C., Tashakkori, A., (2009) Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioural sciences, California: Sage Publication Inc. Timothy, D.J., and Boyd, S.W., (2003) Heritage Tourism, Essex: Pearson Education Limited Thomas, R. M., (2003) Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods in Thesis and Dissertations, California: Corwin Press Inc. Thompson, N., (2005) Inter-institutional Relations in the Governance of Englands National Parks: a governmentality perspective, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 21, pp. 323-334 Thompson, N., (2010) National Parks in England, Briefing Paper of Centre for Rural Economy, Newcastle: University Publication Thompson, S. K., (2012) Sampling, 3rd edition, Canada: John Wiley and Sons

83

Tomicevic, J., Shannon, M. A., Milovanovic, M., (2010) Socio-economic Impacts on the Attitudes towards Conservation of Natural Resources: case study from Serbia, Journal of Forest Policy and Economics, Vol. 12, pp. 157-162 Torkildsen, G., (2005) Leisure and Recreation Management, 5th edition, Ney York: Routledge Publication Uzzell, D., (1992) Heritage Interpretation: natural and built environment, UK: John Wiley and Sons Veal, A. J., (2006, 2011) Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: a practical guide, 3rd and 4th edition, Essex: Pearson Education Limited Zoltan, D., Taguchi, T., (2010) Questionnaire in Second Language Research: construction, administration and processing, 2nd edition, New York: Routledge

84

Appendix 1 Interview Schedule Background: 1. What is your role/position within NNP? 2. Who are your key partners? 3. Can you give a summary of what you do? 4. How long have you been involved in Northumberland tourism industry? 5. Are there any key policies you are currently working on? 6. What government policies influence your work? Objective: 1. Can you describe the environmental, economical and socio-cultural issues you face? 2. Do you believe these problems are inevitable or do you think they can be avoided? 3. If these problems were to be prevented, who do you think is responsible and why? 4. These problems will greatly affect the national park if not addressed, how can they be challenged? 5. How do you tackle the negative effect tourism brings? 6. Have you got any sustainable tourism projects in place? 7. Would you describe these projects as being successful? 8. It is generally believed that education leads to more environmentally aware behaviour however, there is little evidence to back this up are there any environmental programmes in place? 9. Do the local community participate in the management of the NNP? 10. Do you think they should be more involved? About the NNP Management Plan: 1. Were you aware of the management plan? 2. What was your involvement in the development of the plan? 3. Do you think the plan has been implemented successfully? 4. How could the plan be improved? 5. As we are approaching the end of the current plan, if you were to make any changes (personally), what would it be?

85

Appendix 2 The designed questionnaire NNP Volunteer Programme I am a student from the University of Sunderland, and am carrying-out a survey in order to understand the role of volunteers within Northumberland National Park. Could you spare some few minutes to answer the questions below. Your answers would be dealt with in utmost confidentiality. Demographic: 1. Gender: Male Female 2. Age: 15 - 25 26 - 35 36 - 45 Above 45 3. Ethnicity: White Black or Black British Mixed Asian or Asian British Chinese Other 4. Marital Status: Single Married 5. Occupational Status: Student Employed Unemployed Retired 6. Do you have any varying difficulty (e.g. disability) ? Yes No

86

Background: 7. How close do you live to the National Park? 1 - 10 miles 11 - 20 miles 21 - 50 miles More than 50 miles 8. How do you travel to the National Park? By walk Own transport Public transport Other 9. Are you reimbursed your travelling expenses? Yes No 10. How pleased are you with the volunteer programme so far? Very pleased Somewhat pleased Neutral Somewhat displeased Very displeased 11. Do you encounter any problem while volunteering? Yes No 12. How would you describe your relationship with the local community? Very good Somewhat good Neutral Not good Very bad 13. How would you describe your relationship with paid staff? Very good Somewhat good Neutral Not good Very bad
87

Objectives: 14. Why do you volunteer? To preserve the environment To gain new skills Social contact (i.e. to meet new people) Utilise existing skills Keeping active To give something back to the community 15. How many times do you volunteer in a month? 1-2 times 3-5 times 6-10 times More than 10 times 16. If you did not volunteer as much as you would have like, what prevented you? I volunteer as much as I liked to Lack of time Lack of expertise Scheduled conflict Travelling expenses Other 17. What is your favourite volunteer task? Wall building Wildlife survey Conservation task Footpath maintenance Guided walk with visitors Other 18. Has the government cuts affected your programme in any way? Yes No 19. Has the volunteer programme met up to your expectation? Yes No Comments

88

20. Do you have any additional skill you would like to share with the national park? Yes No 21. If the National Park is to do anything differently, what should it be?

22. Based on your experience, what advice do you have for future volunteers?

23. What advice/ideas do you have for Northumberland National Park as it continues to embrace its purposes?

THANK YOU!

89

Appendix 3 Email sent to potential respondents Dear Sir/Madam, I am conducting a research study as part of a degree in International Tourism and Hospitality Management at University of Sunderland in England. My research seeks to understand how park managers maintain and conserve their site whilst justifying the social, economic and natural values, and I would like to meet with you to discuss your views on this topic. I have chosen this destination because it is widely recognised as one of the heritage spot in England. My research study is somewhat close to my heart and I hope to conduct a successful study with the help of yourself and your expertise. The aim of the research is to identify the issues and opportunities Northumberland National Park faces as a tourist destination, as acknowledged by those within Northumberland tourism industry. In order to conduct this research successfully, I would like to meet and talk with you, as a main actor within Northumberland tourism industry, to understand your thoughts and opinions on the topic. The interview will last approximately thirty minutes and will be tape recorded. The information provided in the interviews will be vital to my research study and will allow you to voice your opinions on the topic. I understand that you may be concerned with confidentiality issues with the interview being tape recorded. May I assure you that the recording will only be listened to by me in order to help me process all the information, and possibly by an examiner who assesses my study. Your name will not be mentioned in any part of the research study either and I will provide a confidentiality contract for us both to sign which promises what is written above. Please could you inform me of who is most appropriate to contact for this matter so that I may contact them directly. I shall contact you again later this week to discuss this further. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me via email: adejobi@hotmail.co.uk or mobile: 07983174344 should you have any further questions. I look forward to hearing from you soon
90

Yours faithfully Jobi Olukoya University of Sunderland Edinburgh Building Chester Road Sunderland SR1 3SD Telephone: 0191 515 2077

International Tourism and Hospitality Management Degree Student ID: 119072457

91

Appendix 4 Designed consent form for Respondents BACHELOR DEGREE DISSERTATION How park managers conserve and maintain their site whilst justifying their natural, environmental, economical and socio-cultural value on the other hand Wasiu Adejobi Olukoya BSc. (Hons) International Tourism and Hospitality Management University of Sunderland Student ID 119072457 CONSENT FORM FOR INTERVIEWEES 1. I, the undersigned, voluntarily agree to participate in this research study. 2. I have been given an explanation by the researcher of the nature, purpose and length of this study. I have been given the opportunity to ask questions on all aspects of the study. 3. I am aware this interview is recorded. I have a clear understanding that the recordings are for the sole benefit of the interviewer, however, an external examiner may be required to listen to the recording. 4. I understand that all personal data relating to research participant is held and processed in the strictest of confidence and in accordance with the Data Protection Act (1998). I agree I will not restrict the use of the results on the understanding that this study is purely academic in nature. 5. I understand that I am free to withdraw from the interview at any time without needing to justify my position and without any prejudice. 6. I confirm I have read and understood the above and freely consent to participate in this study.

Name of participant

Name of researcher

Signature/Date

Signature/Date

92

Appendix 5 Graphical representation of the questionnaire results

93