Seeking spirituality: respecting the social value of coastal recreational
resources in England and Wales
Kate Pike(1 David Johnson(2) Steve Fletcher(3) and Paul Wright(4)
Journal of Coastal Research, 2011. Special issue 61, Management of
Recreational Resources, pp.194 – 204
www.jcronline.org/doi/full/10.2112/SI61001.14?prevSearch=pike+2011&searchHistoryKey=
(1)
Southampton Solent University, School of Engineering, Construction, and Maritime, Faculty
of Technology, RM.234, East Park terrace, Southampton SO14 0YN, UK
+44 (0)2380 319000
kate.pike@solent.ac.uk
(2)
OSPAR Commission, New Court, 48 Carey Street, London, WC2A 2JQ, UK
+44 (0) 20 7430 5200
secretariat@ospar.org
(3)
Bournemouth University, School of Conservation Sciences, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow,
Poole, Dorset, BH125BB, UK
+44 (0)1202 961895
sfletcher@bournemouth.ac.uk
(4)
Southampton Solent University, School of Engineering, Construction, and Maritime, Faculty
of Technology, RM.234, East Park terrace, Southampton SO14 0YN, UK
+44 (0)2380 319170
paul.wright@solent.ac.uk
Abstract
Social value is understood by individuals but is itself a contested concept, although community and
participation are key associated terms. Arguably social value of protected areas can be viewed as primarily
recreational and aesthetic. Perhaps as a result, social value is often much less considered when compared to
environmental and economic aspects when planning the establishment and management of protected areas in
coastal locations. Understanding how society values these areas could therefore make a significant difference
to optimising management direction and outcomes. Furthermore, understanding non-monetary values could
help evaluate trade-offs which can be made between scenarios such as alternative development, management
and conservation.
Literature on social value touches on many topics including the emotional appreciation of wilderness and
theory of visitor management. Ironically, in future, climate change may raise social value at the coast given a
public fascination with dramatic storms and sensational rapid change as a result of coastal processes. In order
to identify social value, evaluate how it has been applied, and suggest better future integration, research
focussing on selected coastal protected areas in England and Wales has taken an inductive grounded theory
approach. A combination of practitioner and public interviews were undertaken to inform the design of a
1
normative statement and model of social value. To understand social values at an operational level a detailed
‘zoning chart’ exercise in conjunction with an expert scoring system was applied to four case studies
This work has resulted in validating social value criteria and has highlighted the complexities of measuring
social value, particularly using a scoring system to rate the criteria. Tranquillity, for example, is typically
subjective. Zoning charts proved to be a productive data collection tool, allowing visualisation of the criteria.
All the data collection phases demonstrated that criteria in the ‘spirituality and natural environment’ theme
provided the most social value to the public. Criteria in this theme include areas where it is possible to get
away from other people in order to experience tranquillity, isolation and remoteness: experiences of views
and open coastline: inspirational opportunities for art, poetry and photography: and an outdoor experience in a
place where people want to be.
Keywords: Social value, marine protected areas, marine and coastal protected areas, ecosystem services
Introduction
There is a current environment of change and progress within UK marine protection, reflected internationally
by examples such as the proposal by the UK to protect a huge area of the Indian Ocean (Chagos Reserve) and
nationally by the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009 (DEFRA, 2009). Marine and Coastal Protected Areas
(MCPA) have become the predominant inter-governmental response to the deterioration of marine resources
(IUCN, 2008) and this is particularly apparent within the UK’s government agenda in this area. However,
despite the many initiatives to establish MCPAs, and people being attracted to coastal areas generally (Fabbri,
1990; Fletcher and Potts, 2008) the wider UK public lacks understanding and awareness regarding the marine
environment (Rose, 2008). Halpenny (2000) associates low awareness of the marine environment with weak
administrative structures and low funding for MPAs. Therefore the balance of benefits provided by MCPAs is
reliant on well-planned management if detrimental ecological, social and cultural consequences are to be
avoided (Mastny, 2001; Christ et. al. 2003).
Over the last 20 years, loss of biodiversity has been the primary rationale for establishing protected areas
(Putney, 2003, Mose and Weixlbaumer, 2007). This is despite social, cultural, economic and political factors
helping to shape the development, management and performance of MCPAs, more than the biological or
physical factors (Pomeroy et al. 2003). Furthermore, most social values associated with protected areas are
assumed to have accompanying economic value, for example through coastal functions such as recreation and
tourism (Reichelt, 2008). However, certain attributes of protected areas are difficult to assess in economic
terms, yet are highly important to people. They are the non-material qualities of human life, such as aesthetics
and spiritual value (Putney, 2000). Significantly, due to their predominantly intangible nature, these values
are inherently complex and difficult to communicate to decision makers. There is also a lack of conventional
tools available for their evaluation (Verschuuren, 2006) highlighting the need for an appropriate framework or
methodology (Pike et. al. 2010).
Currently there is much global activity towards establishing MCPAs and MCPA networks following the
Durban World Parks Congress MPA recommendations made in 2003. However, progress towards these goals
is still considered moderate to insufficient (Kothari, 2008). There is a genuine need to understand more than
just economic and conservation values when considering marine and MCPAs, to extend people’s reason for
caring about these places to include their non-material and non-tangible value (Harmon, 2003). Harmon
suggests that the ultimate motivation for caring about protected areas will come from these values. Values
can provide meaning and the motivation to establish and manage protected areas (Lockwood, 2006).
Understanding how society values these areas makes a significant difference to optimising management
direction and its outcomes. This paper discusses the background literature concerning the need to investigate
the social value of MCPAs. Primary research investigated social value through different stakeholder
2
perspectives within England and Wales with the intention of making a contribution to new and established
MCPAs and their future development. The results and analysis provide details of the key themes of social
value that emerged as well as the implications to MCPA managers and areas for further consideration.
Methodology
The research requirements, to establish views on the perception of social value and conduct data collection in
a predominantly non-statistical manner, set this research in the qualitative area of enquiry (Strauss and
Corbin, 1998). An inductive approach was adopted with the ultimate objective of producing a normative
statement of best practice and a conceptual framework of social value. A grounded theory methodology
approach was selected for its associations with inductive research, whereby the researcher develops
theoretical meaning from the data (Mason, 2002). This helped to ‘ground’ the data collected to derive a
normative statement and model of social value that demonstrated the views of the research participants
(Strauss and Corbin, 1990; 1998).
Based on the grounded theory methodology, primary data collection occurred in three phases. Initially 24
semi-structured, telephone interviews with MCPA practitioners were conducted to identify what was
understood by social value within their MCPA and the activities which encouraged or discouraged it.
Secondly the public visiting MCPAs were interviewed in four different sites. Finally four case-study areas
were selected to lead the relevant practitioners through a social value zoning exercise to determine the
operational value of the normative statement and further validate the conceptual framework.
The first draft of the normative statement and conceptual framework was developed after the initial phase of
data collection and refined after the subsequent phases as research progressed. The normative statement can
be described as subjective statements that help to express value judgments regarding the most desirable
situation within a given set of circumstances (Riley, 2006). The statement provides examples of criteria
producing optimum social value and was derived from the collective practitioner and public interviews and
case-studies. The conceptual framework is a visual representation of the key data themes to emerge from the
data collection phases.
At each of the four case-study sites observations were conducted independently from the shore and
additionally by boat at one voluntary marine conservation area. Gillham (2000) refers to this as ‘detached
observation’ which is usually a ‘fly on the wall’ approach used in naturalistic research. The observations
helped the researcher to visualise first hand the natural environment of each MCPA. The exercise also
provided the researcher with an insight into other site aspects such as access, signage, activities, site
maintenance and visitor numbers, which proved particularly useful, combined with the other case study
evidence. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were carried out with the MCPA practitioners in conjunction
with the normative statement of social value, and admiralty charts for the social value zoning exercise. Using
the normative statement criteria as discussion points the interviewees were invited to address each example in
the statement one by one applying a score of one to five. The scores were applied to their current situation
within the MCPA and the projected achievable ideal, as displayed in Table 1.
Table 1 Demonstration of scoring in the normative statement
Example
Current
Base-line surveys
3
Achievable Ideal
5
(Scale of 1-5, with 5 being the most applicable.)
The difference highlighted between the scores indicated areas where social value could be increased. The
scoring mechanism used in the normative statement provided the first set of quantitative data which was used
in support of the previous findings and was particularly enlightening when combined with the semi-structured
detailed interviews. In conjunction with the normative statement scoring, interviewees were asked to indicate
some of these criteria by marking them onto the admiralty charts of their MCPA. This social value zoning
exercise helped to stimulate discussion around each topic and allowed the interviewees to focus on the
3
accuracy of their comments, for example by mapping various social value criteria such as main access points
against areas of tranquillity. The combination of research techniques employed for the case studies proved a
powerful mechanism for obtaining supporting evidence of the statement and model and helped to identify
new, practical issues regarding the management of social value. All the interviews were digitally recorded to
ensure accuracy of transcriptions and data safety through making back up recordings
The interviews were analysed using established techniques consistent with grounded theory. These included
memos and diagrams which helped with data organisation and conceptualisation, and coding which helped to
sort, relate and to continue to develop data categories in terms of their various properties, with final
integration of key concepts (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Data themes were assigned during analysis of the
interview transcripts where direct comments were made. As analysis became more detailed sub-themes were
applied and inferences were noted and also assigned a category. Interconnections in the data were noted and
pertinent quotes from the interviews supporting the results were also recorded. Although there are inherent
biases attached to this type of qualitative analysis, the coding system was undertaken with precision and
consistency which was applied throughout the analysis.
Key analysis and findings
Social value was considered in terms of intangible and tangible social value as discussed below.
Intangible social value
Intangible social value in relation to MCPAs can be viewed as the non-cognitive, emotional responses that
individuals have to the natural environment (Lockwood, 2006). As a theme of social value, spirituality
encompasses the intangible values of an MCPA and is the only social value theme identified which fits
exclusively in the non-tangible category (See diagram 1). During interviews practitioners identified
spirituality as encompassing many elements which included tranquillity, relaxation, the experience of nature,
beaches and coastal towns as part of a recreational experience, and peacefulness, filled with sounds of nature.
The public indirectly identified spirituality as the ‘outdoors experience’ which took them out of their homes
and offices and “away from modern life” allowing them to connect with nature. The smell of the sea,
enjoying the fresh air, bird song and beautiful views, were some of the sensory connections the public made
with MCPAs and, as part of the natural environment, were stated as the main reason they visited such places.
Other intangible social values identified included a perception of dynamic coastal changes and place
attachment as discussed below.
Tranquillity and spirituality
Tranquillity was shown to be highly valued within rural England and has been connected to people’s wellbeing and quality of life (Jackson et. al., 2008). Within a study by the Council fir the Protection of Rural
England (2006) a range of criteria considered to affect tranquillity were studied, including traffic noise and
light glow. A daily presence of these at certain levels, were shown to affect an individual’s mental state. The
TQL study in 2008 focused specifically on constant traffic noise and showed this to be severely degrading
individual’s experience of an area (TQL, 2008). Case studies in Looe VMCA and Chichester AONB
demonstrated areas scarce in tranquillity with constant traffic noise in the majority of the site and the
likelihood of being near other people. Despite this, interviewees at both these sites rated highly tranquillity,
places for solitude, reflection and areas where you could experience isolation. This indicated that the sense of
tranquillity is relative to the surrounding area and equal in the context of social value, if not more important,
when in close proximity to a dense urban population, due to the relative perception of tranquillity. The
Chichester interviewee also mentioned that light pollution was something beyond their control that they had
to accept. This point acknowledges that some features within MCPAs, both natural and man-made,
encouraging and discouraging social value, are fixed. This is a consideration that should be made during site
4
selection and recognised and understood in existing sites, so that social value and management decisions
concerning them are taken into account.
Spirituality was connected with the intangible value of a MCPA which is manifested through the intrinsic
value of the physical environment (Connelly and Smith, 2002). These values play a crucial, yet under-stated
role in coastal and marine environments, particularly due to the draw of such areas for coastal recreation,
development and other activities. The research demonstrated that the importance of spirituality is not highly
recognised by practitioners’ organisations compared with ecology, education and the other environmental
qualities and features, including aesthetics. Despite aesthetics being a non-tangible value that is considered to
be encompassed by spirituality, spirituality was assigned the lowest value. However, practitioners made
numerous references to spirituality throughout the interviews and the elements of this theme were highly
recognised by the public as discussed. This disparity again reinforced the need for a shared understanding of
all the social values effecting MCPAs if a full and effective contribution to MCPA development is to be
made. Intangible social values have an important role in the debate about coastal conflicts, especially within
coastal development and planning. Recognising this importance, social value should therefore be considered
on an equitable basis with the conservation and economic requirements of the area. MCPA organisations
need to get away from only managing measurable outputs and assign equal priority and consideration to
significant but less measurable values.
Dynamic coastal changes
Considering MCPAs and the future of these areas linked to global warming and sea level rise, dynamic
changes within coastal areas are inevitable and their impacts likely to be significant (Stern, 2007). These
changes are associated with negative public perception of decreased value with practitioner’s emphasising
impaired access and impacts to recreational activities, as some of the main changes. The full impacts of these
changes to the natural environment are yet to be fully understood and there is little base-line data available in
most MCPAs to gauge future events in this respect. Despite some MCPAs, such as Looe VMCA, feeling that
this was not something likely to impact them, it does highlight a need for MCPA managers to work with the
relevant authorities to map current events and forecast, as far as possible, patterns in the changing coast.
Understanding future dynamics of MCPAs changing coastal boundaries is likely to help the management of
longer term impacts to social value of the area, as stated by practitioners in terms of recreation, access and
safety of the site. Ironically this ‘threat’ of change may promote social value as communities realise what they
may lose in future. In addition, in some instances, climate change may raise social value at the coast given a
public fascination with dramatic storms and sensational rapid change as a result of coastal processes.
Place attachment
All the phases of data collection, and in particular the case-studies, emphasised the emotive connection people
have with the coast. In respect to MCPAs, spirituality, as discussed, was primarily associated with a sense of
place that can be experienced collectively or individually (Lockwood, 2006). The research demonstrated more
clearly that public perception of the sea is principally focused on the coast, coastal views and landscapes, and
not specifically on marine elements, with interviewees tending to view the sea as the coast. This concurs with
a study by Natural England (Rose, 2008) which highlighted public perception issues surrounding marine
interpretation and awareness.
The sense of place attachment associated with the coast also extended to memorials for loved ones and more
sinisterly with suicide. This was a subject that, when investigated more thoroughly through the case studies,
was found to be common to all the research sites. In Looe VMCA and Pembrokeshire NP individuals had on
occasions hired fishermen to take them out to the sea for the purpose of scattering ashes. Memorial plaques
and benches were also commonplace in MCPAs such as Pembrokeshire NP and Chichester AONB.
One of the darker associations of the Seven Sister’s VMCA is with Beachy Head, a location renown for
suicide attempts, with an estimated 20 people a year jumping to their deaths from the cliff top (BBC, 2005).
5
Beachy Head is an impressive, natural, area and has also been the site of memorial ceremonies and a place to
scatter ashes over the years. However, the strange allure of this location as a suicide spot has primarily been
associated with its height and unrestricted access to the cliff-top. Beachy Head now has a Chaplaincy Team
working visibly in the area trying to prevent suicides. These events demonstrate what could be termed as a
fatal attraction to the area, and has generated widespread interest due to these events.
Tangible social value
Tangible social value relates to the themes of social value that can be managed directly by MCPA
practitioners and that shape the visitor experience through tangible elements (see diagram 1). The natural
environment is again significant to all the tangible themes of social value and the physical nature of the
environment determines what types of activities are undertaken, where infrastructure and access points should
most appropriately be situated, influencing the promotion points of the site. The natural environment also
defines the research and education opportunities that could be undertaken there. It is the tangible themes of
social value that are considered most highly by MCPA’s organisations which are likely to be linked to the
direct management relationship of these values and the numerous, proven methods are available to measure
and evaluate them compared to non-tangible values. Key aspects of tangible social value are considered
below.
Visitor management
Visitor experiences can be shaped by management constructs of social value such as community involvement
projects, involving for example, volunteer work such as habitat’s management and beach cleans. Site
interpretation and other information sources aimed at increasing awareness of the site are also examples of
tangible methods of increasing social value.
.
The visitor experience is also managed indirectly through capacity control via the site’s infrastructure, for
example, restricting or extending car parks and other key access points into the site. The amenities available
help shape the visitor experience and range from small cafes to visitor centres. Arguably, the natural
environment also holds intrinsic value, regardless of whether people are present to value it or not (Connelly
and Smith, 2002). There is also strong evidence that natural recovery of degraded sites occurs where nature is
allowed to be undisturbed, increasing social value, albeit indirectly, through lack of human presence in an
area. Lundy’s no take zone demonstrates that denying human intervention in certain zones can increase its
vitality and productivity, which ultimately increases social value through enhancing biodiversity.
Therefore the management role essentially becomes one of maintaining balance within the site. In essence it is
about balancing the rights of people to enjoy natural settings in protected areas countered against the potential
damage this impact may have on the environment. Responsibility to ensure optimum capacity is essential to
maintaining the natural ‘health’ of the area and is something that requires constant refinement as
circumstances change. Closing areas of a MCPA to the public to protect breeding species or certain habitats,
for example, has undoubted benefits to maintaining the health and recovery of the natural environment, but
restricts the visitor experience and to some extent denies the right to public access.
The public interviews showed that people enjoyed the sense of being able to wander where they liked, but
also visited MCPAs to see wildlife and the countryside. Therefore communicating the reasons why certain
areas need to be restricted clearly and effectively should be a requirement of all MCPAs with restricted areas.
As the literature highlights, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) owns much protected land in the UK but where
feasible, the public are allowed access to the land following the MOD’s presumption in favour of public
access to its estate (MOD, 2006). Some 90% of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park is privately owned,
with the MOD holding a significant proportion of this, which has significant management implications.
Through community initiatives, the National Park staff have worked with the MOD to facilitate visits with
local residents around one of the MOD sites where firing noise was occurring at night. The visit helped to
educate the residents into various military practices and the necessity for them to be carried out. These
6
initiatives led the residents to have a much greater understanding of the situation and on the strength of it,
were far more accepting.
MCPAs and social inclusion
MCPA managers have an important role to play in respect to the construction of social value through various
projects and initiatives, the shaping of the visitor experience as part of the site management and, trying to
ensure a wider public social engagement with the area especially from the typically under-represented groups,
such as ethnic minorities and disabled people. An interesting finding of this research was the lack of ethnic
minority and disabled groups of people visiting the research MCPA sites. This is an interesting area that
MCPA practitioners were certainly aware of and in some cases trying to address. For example, in
Pembrokeshire Coast National Park this is an important part of their remit and they have worked with visually
impaired people and the carers who support disabled people, so they can assist with visits of less-abled
people. Pembrokeshire Coast National Park have their own outreach officer who manages the ‘Social
inclusion and outreach programme’. (Pembrokeshire Coast NP, 2010). However they struggle to increase
inclusion amongst ethnic groups, as the NP does not have large ethnic population to draw on. Castle Hill LNR
and the Seven Sisters VMCA have disabled access to and within their sites and encourage these groups to use
them. In the last few years there has been a concerted effort made by government agencies and the National
Park Authorities to widen social inclusion to the NPs to ensure that they are accessible to everyone
(Pendergast, 2004). Projects such as ‘Mosaic’ provide a good example where efforts have been made to raise
awareness of people from ethnic minorities to the recreational opportunities available from NPs. Mosaic is a
partnership supported by Natural England and developed in response to ethnic minority groups making up a
very low percentage of National Park visitors. Mosaic works to ensure all people have equal opportunities to
enjoy the benefits of National Parks (Mosaic, 2010).
Dense neighbouring urban populations
Another important factor found to influence the dynamics of social value was the population density within
the MCPA boundary and neighbouring location. Dense local populations in the nearby vicinity enabled easy
mobility to the MCPA and particularly spontaneous movement to the area if the weather turned out to be
good. Thus MCPAs with higher nearby populations are contending with less predictable visitor numbers as
they are within easy reach of a mobile population. This has an impact on the site’s capacity, infrastructure and
site maintenance, with additional implications for the management of the MCPA. More remote and rural
MCPA locations generally experienced influxes of visitors at predicable times, such as public and school
holiday periods, and therefore managers could plan accordingly if they had a grasp of visitor numbers. Many
of the better funded MCPAs were recording these numbers through various mechanisms and were then better
informed to make management decisions on such factors as funding allocation, the types of project bids that
needed to be applied for, as well as where site maintenance was most required. This suggested that better
funded MCPAs were more likely to be able to apply management tools, such as visitor counters, to gather
information about the MCPA. Information and knowledge regarding a MCPA provides advantages over
MCPAs without it. These advantages are manifested, for example, through better informed management of
visitor capacity, funding bids and writing management plans. Funding and MCPA management is a vital
component of social value and the research highlighted that better funded MCPAs had more control over their
designation than those lacking in funds and were able to invest in technologies such as GPS photography for
monitoring work as used in Chichester AONB, and visitor counters such as those used in Dungerness NNR
and the New Forest NP. Therefore social value, through the tangible criteria of MCPAs, was increased by
resources especially staff and funds, even though resources had little direct bearing on the non-tangible
criteria of these protected areas.
Overlapping Designations
7
Overlapping protected area designations are a relatively modern phenomenon in the UK. All the research
MCPAs had some overlap designations. Some sites incorporated as many as 85 other designations of varying
types within their boundaries. The main overlapping designations were notably SSSIs as these are the most
prolific protected area designation in the UK. The social value of a MCPA is inclusive of the other
designations overlapping its boundaries and any independent management of them. In the same way as a
MCPA may span two or more counties, each with their own councils and bylaws which may affect the day to
day running of an area and contribute to conflicts or agreement on decision making. Therefore overlapping
designations need to be considered by managers as they have implications for social value.
Literature suggests that overlapping designations can cause confusion to practitioners and the public and may
instil a false perception of protection (Roberts et al. 2003). Whilst this is not disputed, this research has
demonstrated that overlapping designations can also increase social value. For example the interviewee for
the case study at Pembrokeshire Coast National Park felt that multiple protected areas designations helped
raise the public’s awareness of the area as somewhere very special and therefore in need of protection.
Another example is the Seven Sister’s VMCA where there were not enough resources to produce a
management plan of its own but the VMCA was included in the Sussex Downs AONB management plan as it
covered some of the same area, and by implication is partly managed by it within the terrestrial boundary of
the site. Monitoring work was also conducted on the site of the VMCA by the AONB. MCPA designation
remits vary and each will bring a slightly different type of protection to the area. For example SSSIs have a
scientific remit and their sites have to be monitored for certain conditions and flora and fauna, whilst AONBs
are managed for their natural beauty and valuable landscape qualities. Over lapping designations in this sense
may complement each other and add value from their different duties as MCPAs, but there is the potential for
conflicts to arise over the management of the overlapping protections and confusion for the public. In relation
to social value, the question needs to be asked, whose voice really counts? Often there is more than one
person overseeing the same area, due to an overlap(s) which may lead to conflict amongst practitioners and
confusion amongst the public, despite the potential benefits of additional social value. Therefore social value
maybe increased by the better funded designations but with the implication that this deflects attention away
from the poorer ones, for example VMCAs, which are arguably equally important but for different reasons.
This again highlights the need for shared understanding and collaboration between MCPA managers of
overlapping designations. There needs to be greater integration between the land and sea with a less
compartmentalised approach to MCPA management of these vulnerable areas if optimum social value is to be
achieved.
Research education and interpretation
Much research and education was undertaken by MCPA staff with local schools and other learning institutes.
The protected natural environment lends itself well, not only to the curriculum based activities but also to
students who wish to further their knowledge of an area. Research and educational opportunities were
considered an important aspect of MCPAs by practitioners and the public. This category was also collectively
scored highly by interviewees according to how they felt their designation body viewed it, demonstrating the
importance of research and education in many of the MCPAs remits. The case studies also proved that social
value could be greatly increased for the MCPAs concerned, in the area of research and education, as indicated
by the difference in current and achievable ideal scores.
Education, primarily of the young, was regarded by practitioners as a key method of increasing knowledge of
the site whilst promoting good community involvement. All the MCPAs investigated as part of this research
had educational visits taking place within their boundaries. The MCPAs that organised the schools visits
themselves were more disposed to disseminating information about their remit. Opportunities to educate the
young were a vital component of most MCPAs within their remits and, due to the importance placed on the
designation, MCPAs provide a good education platform to enable curriculum based activities and research.
Although it was notable that well-funded designations, particularly the National Park, were investing a lot of
resources in education, it was felt that some of the other designations could raise the profile of their areas by
investing more time and energy into this activity as part of education as well as community involvement
activities.
8
Marketing and promotion
Certain natural features of a MCPA, or flora and fauna can be used as points of interest and as educational
assets, but also in terms of promotion and marketing. The research demonstrated that the majority of
interviewees used low key promotional strategies focussed locally to inform people once they were in the
area. These strategies were largely intended to create a sustainable balance between a MCPA’s conservation
remit and the number of people visiting. The emphasis of MCPA promotion tended to about informing people
about the area rather than a focus on attracting more people to it. MCPAs, where visitor capacity has been
reached, particularly wanted to use promotion as a way of improving the quality of peoples’ visit to the area,
rather than attracting more visitors. The literature (Bushell et. al., 2007) also places emphasis on the quality of
the visitor experience as an essential component to the success of the protected area. Understanding visitor
numbers is of economic significance to the supporting businesses of MCPAs and commerce in the area and
this can translate to ‘visitor spend’ figures. Businesses and the supporting infrastructure of a MCPA rely
economically on the site attracting as many people as possible to make use of their goods and services. This
can be at odds with capacity management and conservation goals, but if an optimum balance is not achieved,
the subsequent consequences will impact all parties using the MCPA.
Marketing and promotion was also strongly connected to community involvement through organised events
and activities aimed at increasing local knowledge of the MCPA. Pembrokeshire’s marine code was a good
example of an effective initiative working within MCPAs in the area. Public Authorities worked in
partnership with the operators to establish a code of good practice. Incentives were used to increase take-up.
Training was offered on developing marine environment awareness and if the operators sign up to the marine
code then they are allowed to advertise free in the NP’s newspaper which has a very wide local and visitor
circulation. This has proved a an effective way of incentivising local operators, including the fishermen and
local businesses in the area, to work together and increase their understanding of key marine issues and
ultimately equip them with the tools to pass this onto the visitors who use their services. Working with
operators using a carrot rather than stick approach, clearly has potential benefits for all concerned. It is also a
way of strengthening and fostering mutual support between stakeholders of the area and increasing
community links between the MCPAs and operators.
Integration issues
The coastal margins are often areas that experience integration issues due to the various complex
administration boundaries which tend to merge in this area. This was an issue that was discussed with all of
the case-study interviewees. It emerged that various responses from the MCPAs had been put in place,
recognising the fact that integration was an issue that needed to be highlighted. Integration issues can stem
from lack of clarity regarding who has control of the area, particularly where boundaries merge. In natural
sites, such as MCPAs, it is impossible to know at all times whether you are within a site’s boundaries or not,
particularly if you are at the edge of the boundary. There is only so much signage that can be used and many
landscape designations discourage this practice anyway. Therefore if an incident takes place it is often
difficult to know whom the right person to deal with the situation is. In this respect one overseeing body
would be helpful in providing confidence that there is a correct point of contact, and would decrease public
confusion, but have the disadvantage of devolving powers from one organisation or another. The same
situation applies to overlapping MCPA designation boundaries to an extent where it is sometimes hard to
determine who is really looking after the area. In the UK protected area situation where much of the land is
privately owned, this is an additional managerial complication. The need for an integrated approach to be
applied to management practices, particularly in the area of enforcement needs to be applied. The community
approach taken towards implementing codes of practice demonstrates a clearer way of producing a united
approach to management through community driven benefits to all concerned. Whilst people are involved
with the issues, they will be in communication, and this is the main channel to effective management and
integration.
Conceptual model
9
The conceptual model is a culmination of the research and provides a visual representation of the key data
themes of social value in MCPAs from the managerial, public and operational level. The model in Figure 1 is
broadly spilt into three sections which communicate the tangible and non-tangible elements of social value
and those that can fit into both these areas.
Spirituality is the only theme to be purely non-tangible and is represented in its own circle. The middle circle
is for the themes that fit into the tangible and non-tangible categories. Interpretation, which makes up part of
the research and education theme within the tangible section, can also be intangible when relating to people’s
individual, emotional interpretation and response to a MCPA. In the same way, access can be associated with
the sense of freedom and un-restricted access, and the perception of being able to move around a MCPA
without any barriers. Activities undertaken in MCPAs were predominantly of a tangible nature although
some, such as enjoying a beautiful view, listening to sounds of nature and watching the sea are examples of
non-tangible activities and as discussed have been categorised under the theme of spirituality. Community
involvement through use of a MCPA as a place of memorial can also be considered a non-tangible function.
In the tangible circle of the model the three key themes include infrastructure, marketing and promotion and
research, education and interpretation. In the cross-over circle, interpretation of an MCPA can relate to
information boards often used on sites to get across messages about the designation. Access can be physical
access points which may include jetties, car parks and coastal towns. Activities are often tangible forms of
recreation, including horse riding, windsurfing and coaststeering and so on. Finally community involvement
may include events organised by the MCPA such as guided walks and festivals and so on.
An outer circle surrounds the three inner circles of the social value themes showing the relationship of the
natural environment and management control over all the other themes. The dotted arrow from management
control to spirituality indicates that MCPA managers only have an indirect control in this area. The research
did not set out to prioritise the themes of social value although this would make an interesting area of future
study. The research does however provide a view of what is required to produce optimum social value of an
area. If one was focusing purely on intrinsic social value, all themes in the model would be un-necessary
except for the natural environment. However, when people visit an MCPA many more themes become
important and often have a reliance on one another for their existence. For example, if people are going to
visit a MCPA, at the bare minimum, access will be required into a site, and infrastructure supporting the
access, in terms of a path or road would be required to facilitate the access, and so on.
The model’s key limitation is the spatial context within which it is set; England and Wales. An example
specifically fixing the model in the context of England and Wales was the lack of mention in respect to
culture. It is likely in other parts of the world that culture and heritage would have a much greater significance
to MCPA managers and the public, particularly in developing countries where culture and the environment
are much more synonymous. In this respect the use of the model and the normative statement is limited to
regional use, although the wider principles of the research methodology could be applied to any MCPA in the
global arena, but the social value findings are likely to vary slightly from the England and Wales model. The
model is principally aimed at anyone involved in decision making, communicating, managing or establishing
MCPAs in England and Wales. There is potential to use the model in other parts of Great Britain and abroad,
with the understanding that additional social value criteria maybe location specific.
10
Figure 1 Social Value of MCPAs in England and Wales
Natural Environment
Tangible Social Value
Non-Tangible Social Value
• Infrastructure
• Spirituality
• Marketing and
promotion
• Research,
education and
interpretation
Interpretation
• Access
• Activities
• Communityinvolvement
Management Control
11
Conclusions
Managing social value
It has been established that social values, in particular the non-tangible values, are hard to communicate to
decision makers who tend to be driven by economics, primarily because of their generally un-quantifiable
nature. The research demonstrated the need for innovative project management practice that directly links the
management of social value with community participation. Community participation can be used as a strong
communication tool by MCPA practitioners. It can also provide the local community with a sense of
ownership of the MCPA and can provide a cheap labour force who, in turn are repaid with the benefits of
giving something back to the area, whilst enjoying and learning about the location and meeting like-minded
people. Community engagement (and thus enhanced social value) can also be achieved through education and
this is an area that all MCPAs were concerned with, particularly in respect to school visits. Thus through
public engagement with the MCPA, promotion of the designation can take place and will achieve mutual
benefits if successful.
Capacity control and maintaining a healthy balance between visitors to the area and protection of a valuable
MCPA, are fundamentally important to social value and the success of these areas. Low key promotion and
marketing strategies were shown to be preferable within MCPAs. Social value was promoted through aiming
to improve the quality of the visitor experience, rather than the quantity of visitors. This was achieved by
local promotion through information about the site, rather than advertising the area to the wider public. The
same can be applied to infrastructure where key access points can be used as a mechanism to effectively
control visitor numbers. Understanding visitor numbers is an important aspect of controlling site capacity and
this can most effectively be achieved through the use of pressure counters placed at key access points. The
research highlighted a lack of ethnic minority and disabled groups visiting MCPAs. On further investigation
this proved to be an issue common to all the research MCPAs despite the fact that National Parks in particular
have high priorities to increase social inclusion of all minority groups. Widening social inclusion of minority
groups is important to MCPAs so that the social value of the area can be enjoyed and ultimately understood
by all groups of people.
Social value was seen to be increased in certain cases where designation(s) overlap, particularly where one of
the designations had a core budget and more than one member of staff managed the area. However, there
needs be much greater clarity in respect to whom is ultimately making decisions where overlaps exist, to
avoid practitioner and public confusion. A need for an integrated approach to be applied to management
practices was demonstrated by the research, particularly in the area of enforcement. Community approaches
are one method of producing a united approach to management through community driven benefits to all
concerned. When people are involved with the MCPA, they will be in communication regarding it, and this is
an essential channel to enable effective management and integration. Integration is particularly important at
the coastal administrative boundaries of a MCPA as there is a current lack of clarity between the enforcement
bodies concerned, especially when more than one authority has to become involved with an issue.
Given the inevitable coastal changes that will take place in MCPAs due the impacts of climate change,
particularly sea level rise, it is important for MCPA managers to understand the future dynamics and changing
coastal boundaries within their sites. This is likely to help the management of longer term impacts on social
value in terms of recreation, access and safety of the site. Base-line data and information needs at all levels
were considered useful in terms of being able to forecast future events and deliver effect management
responses and the provision of this kind of data is highlighted in the normative statement. Furthermore, it was
recognised that some aspects of climate change may enhance social value.
The need for longer term funding and/or reasonable core budgets for MCPAs was emphasised by the
practitioner interviews in order to establish a consistent, sustainable approach to management that will
increase public awareness of the site over time and the quality of the visitor experience. The research also
proved that better funded MCPAs had more control over their designations than those lacking in funds and
were able to invest in technologies. Therefore social value, through the tangible criteria of MCPAs, was
12
increased by resources especially staff and funds, but had little direct bearing on the non-tangible criteria of
these protected areas.
The research has shown that social value within MCPAs is a set of tangible, intangible and intrinsic values
that can be viewed collectively as a wide range of services offered by the eco-system. Social value in respect
to MCPAs has been shown to be the sensory and emotional connection made with nature which the research
identified under the intangible theme of spirituality, which includes criteria such as place attachment, a sense
of freedom associated with access and tranquillity. It is also made up of tangible themes such as
infrastructure, marketing and promotion, research and education, and some that fit both the tangible and
intangible categories including interpretation, access, activities and community involvement, as represented in
the conceptual model of social value. Social value is also a strong component of sustainability and needs to be
considered on an equal footing alongside the economic and conservation objectives of an MCPA.
References
BBC, 2005. Beachy Head – Suicide Spot [online.] Available:
www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southeast/series3/beachy_head_suicide_eastbourne.shtml
[accessed 17th May, 2010]
Bushell, R., R. Staiff and P. Eagles, eds. 2007. Tourism and Protected Areas:Benefits Beyond Boundaries. In:
R. Bushell, and P. Eagles, eds. 2007. Tourism And Protected Areas: Benefits Beyond Boundaries.
Switzerland, Gland, IUCN. pp. 1 – 11
Christ, C., O. Hillel, S. Matus and J. Sweeting, 2003. Tourism and Biodiversity: Mapping Tourism’s Global
Footprint. Washington, DC. United Nations Environmental Program and Conservation International
Connelly, J., and G. Smith, 2003. Politics and the Environment: From theory to practice, 2nd ed. London:
Routledge. pp.26-28
Department for Environmental Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 2009 [online] Available:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/legislation/index.htm [accessed 28th December 2009]
Fabbri, F., ed. 1990. Recreational Uses of Coastal Areas. USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Gillham, B., 2000. The Research Interview. London: Continuum. pp. 11, 43, 86
Halpenny, E, 2000.Tourism in Marine Protected Areas. In P. Eagles and S McCool, 2000. Tourism in
National Parks and Protected Areas. Wallinford, UK: CABI Publishing p.213
Harmon, D., and A. Putney, 2003. The Full Value of Parks: From Economics to the Intangible. Oxford:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. pp. 13-24
International Union for the Conservation for Nature (IUCN) World Commission on Protected Areas
(WCPA), 2008. Establishing Resilient Marine Protected Area Networks – Making It Happen. Washington
DC. IUCN-WCPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Nature Conservancy. pp. 3 –
15
Jackson, S., D. Fuller, H. Dunsford, R.Mowbray, R. MacFarlane, and C., Haggett, 2008. Tranquility
Mapping: Developing a Robust Methodology for Planning Support, Report to the Campaign to Protect Rural
England (CPRE), Centre for Environmental and Spatial Analysis, Northumbria University, Bluespace
Environments and the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. pp. 1,4
Kothari, A., 2008. Protected areas and people: the future of the past. Parks 17 (2) DURBAN+5. pp.24 – 25
13
Lockwood, M., 2006. Values and Benefits. In: Lockwood, M., G. Worboys and A. Kothari (eds). Managing
Protected Areas, A Global Guide. UK: Earthscan. pp.101-115
Mason, J., 2002. Qualitative Researching. 2nd ed. London: Sage. pp.62- 65, 180
Mastny, L., 2001. Travelling Light: New paths for international tourism. WorldWatch Paper 159,
Washington, USA. WorldWatch Institute
Ministry of Defense (MOD), 2006. The Defense Estate Strategy 2006: In Trust and On Trust. Ministry of
Defense. pp. 24 - 27
Mosaic, 2010. Building links between Ethnic Communities and National Parks [online]. Available:
www.mosaicnationalparks.org [accessed 19th May 2010]
Mose, I. and N. Weixlbaumer. 2007. A New Paradigm for Protected Areas in Europe? In: Mose, I, ed. 2007.
Protected Areas and Regional Development in Europe: Towards a New Model for the 21 st Century. Great
Britain: MPG Books Ltd.
Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, 2010. Social Inclusion and Outreach – Report on ‘Flexible Programme’
2009/10. Performance Review Committee: Report No. 07/10. Pembrokeshire Coast National Park
Pomeroy, R., J. Parks, and L. Watson. 2003. How is Your MPA Doing? A Guidebook of Natural and Social
Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Cambridge, UK: IUCN, The
International Union for the Conservation of Nature. pp.113 -117
Pike, K., D. Johnson, S. Fletcher, P. Wright and B. Lee, 2010. Social value of marine and coastal protected
areas in England and Wales. Coastal Management. 38:4, 412 – 432
Putney, A., ed. 2000. Non Material Values of Protected Areas. PARKS IUCN – International Union for the
Conservation of Nature. 10 (2). p.1
Putney, A., 2003. Perspectives on the Values of Protected Areas. p. 3. In: D. Harmon and A. Putney, 2003.
The Full Value of Parks: From Economics to the Intangible. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers
Reichelt, R., 2008. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority member’s report on activities to International
Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) [online]. Available:
www.icriforum.org/secretariat/gmdc/pdf/GM_DC_MR_Australia.pdf [Accessed 4th June 2008]. p.4
Riley, G., 2006. Positive and Normative Statements. [online] Available: www.tutor2u.net/economics/revisionnotes/as-markets-positive-normative.html [Accessed 7th August 2009]
Roberts, C., S. Andelman, G. Branch, R. Bustamante, J. Castilla, J. Dugan, B. Halpern, K. Lafferty, H. Leslie,
J. Laubchenco, D. McArdle, H. Possingham, M. Ruckelshaus and R. Warner, 2003. Application of Ecological
Criteria in Selecting Marine Reserves and Developing Reserve Networks. Ecological Applications, 13(1)
Supplement, pp. 215 - 228
Rose, C., 2008. Qualitative and quantitative research into public engagement with the undersea landscape in
England. Natural England Research Information Note RIN019
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin, 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing
Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. London: Sage. pp. 10, 43 - 44, 136
14
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques. London: Sage
Stern, N., 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. UK, Cambridge: University Press
Transport for Quality of Life (TQL), 2008. Traffic Noise in Rural Areas: personal experiences of people
affected. A report from TQL to the Noise Assoication. p.9
Verschuuren, B., 2006. Sociocultural Importance of Wetlands in Northern Australia. In: UNESCO-MAB,
2006. Conserving Cultural and Biological Diversity: The Role of Sacred Natural Sites and Cultural
Landscapes. Proceedings of International Symposium, Tokyo, Japan. 30 th May – 2nd June 2005
Pendergast, S., 2004. Social Inclusion Involving People from Ethnic Minorities in the Peak District National
Park, England. Open Space: People Space Conference. 29th October 2004. Edinburgh, Scotland
15