Broadly engaging with tranquillity in protected landscapes: A matter of perspective identified in GIS.

Article English OPEN
Hewlett, Denise ; Harding, Lisa ; Munro, Tom ; Terradillos, Ainara ; Wilkinson, Keith (2016)

References to the subjective notion of tranquillity have long been extensively deployed in marketing\ud literature and in planning policy in relation to both its promotion and its protection, particularly in protected\ud areas. Whilst a liberal use of the term has ensued, a plethora of research interprets tranquillity\ud primarily with noise, and where broader interpretations are progressed, traditional, directional questioning\ud techniques are evident in attempts to understand tranquillity and quantify its features. Surprisingly,\ud few enquiries have taken a broader, inductive approach to determining the range of stakeholders’ views\ud and of these even fewer have engaged specifically with local residents and particularly those classed as\ud hard-to-reach. Using these latter approaches, of the few and most recent studies conducted, the Broadly\ud Engaging with Tranquillity project provides a replicable framework for determining and mapping tranquillity.\ud An extensive community engagement process launched the study, using participatory principles\ud from which stakeholders’ views were modelled using Geographical Information Systems. Results of this\ud research are reported together with an interpretation of the models created according to four distinct\ud groups representing views of institutions and members of the public. Similar views are identified amongst\ud the groups with tranquillity commonly related to natural environments, whereas nontranquillity was\ud primarily equated to seeing and hearing people and the products of human activity. Yet distinctions are\ud identified between the four groups that have important implications for who should be involved in determining\ud local characteristics of tranquillity and for how protected area managers might include nonexpert\ud views in their understanding and conservation of tranquillity.
  • References (70)
    70 references, page 1 of 7

    Beirle, T. T. C., & Konisky, D. M. (2001). What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning − the Great Lakes. Environment & Planning C: Government and Policy, 19, 515-527.

    Bell, S. (1999). Tranquillity mapping as an aid to forest planning. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.

    Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Dudley, N., Jaeger, T., Lassen, B., Lassen, N., Pathak Broome, B., et al. (2013). Governance of protected areas: From understanding to action. best practice protected area guideline. series No. 20. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

    Berto, R. (2014). The role of nature in coping with psycho-physiological stress: A literature review on restorativeness. Behavioural Sciences, 4(4), 394-409.

    Bradbury Huang, H. (2010). What is good action research? Why the resurgent interest? Action Research, 8(93), 93-109.

    Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validity by the multi-trait: Multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

    Chambers, R. (1994). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development, 22, 953-969.

    Conrad, E., Cassar, L. F., Christie, M., & Fazey, I. (2011). Hearing but not listening? A participatory assessment of public participation in planning. Environment & Planning C: Government and Policy, 29, 1-782.

    Countryside Commission and Countryside Council for Wales. (1991). Areas of outstanding natural beauty, a policy statement (Vol. 356) Cheltenham: CCP.

    Campaign Protection Rural England. (2006). Saving tranquil places. London: CPRE.

  • Metrics
    0
    views in OpenAIRE
    0
    views in local repository
    20
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    Winchester Research Repository - IRUS-UK 0 20
Share - Bookmark