|
Summary
1.
The Northern Snowdonia Study1 highlights ways to reduce
tourist dependency on the private motor car by request of the consortium
group2. It was not a
conclusion made by the study.
2.
The implication made by the consortium group, that tourists will reduce environmental damage by being ‘less dependant on the
private motor car ’ is incorrect.
3.
On average there must be 30+ passengers on a rural park-and-ride
bus otherwise a car is greener. The
figure of 30+ is almost impossible to achieve.
4.
The strategy must change radically to concentrate on sustainable
rural development rather than the consortium’s flawed transport system.
5.
Developments should not
be imposed on the local communities.
Sustainable rural development implies that communities will reach
decisions about developments based on knowledge and advice they gain on
important economic, social and environmental issues concerned.
6.
The second study by Newidiem3 does not conclude whether
the, ‘Snowdonia Green Key’ scheme will improve local economic growth
but merely shows how it could impact on the local
communities if it were successful.
7.
The burning of fossil fuels causes environmental damage e.g. Petrol
& Diesel. There are alternative fuels that could be promoted in
Snowdonia to help reduce environmental damage e.g. Bio-diesel. Why have
these not been considered by the consortium group or the study?
8.
There has not been a peer evaluation of either consultation
document to support their validity.
Sustainable
Development
The first sentence in the strategy4 holds the key to
the schemes intention, ‘achieving sustainable rural development.’ Sustainable rural development
relies on a balance between economic,
social and environmental issues. Although
the consortium group may feel they have met a balance with this strategy,
in reality it falls short on each issue. Please note that consideration of communities, the economy
and the environment are all
equally important for sustainable development.
Economic
Although it
is difficult to assess the economic impact of the strategy, the two
studies1&3 suggest its success ‘will depend on the
quality of the experience’ and if ‘an exciting new visitor experience
is created within the park’. Both statements emphasise the important fact that we must
meet the needs of the tourists in order to achieve economic success. This will depend on the quality of
their visit through improved facilities & services, the freedom to
choose where to visit, how long to stay and on what products to spend
their money.
Social
Social
inclusion and social acceptance are important for the strategy to be
successful. Society must feel part of the scheme and
understand the scheme. It is
the role of the consortium group to explain the implications of policy
change5 to the local communities giving them the chance to make
calculated decisions. Sustainability
means communities must have an
active role in the decision making process.
Environmental
It is false
to say that a car damages the environment more than a bus. A car travelling with 3 passengers
damages the environment much less than a bus travelling with 3 passengers
due to its smaller size and lower fuel consumption. A diesel bus will pollute the
local environment, through particulate matter, 6 times more than a diesel
car and 62 times more than a petrol car6. Fuel consumption, hence CO2 of a bus is
considerably higher than a diesel car affecting global warming 5 times
more7. The
conclusion is that in order for the bus to help reduce environmental
damage it requires at least 20 passengers; but only if travelling on a
flat road. A bus climbing up
hills, fully laden causes increased environmental damage. In addition, we must
consider the fact that each time the tourist car travels it will almost
always contain all its passengers while the park and ride bus will travel
much of its journeys empty or with only a few passengers. A much more realistic number of
passengers required for the bus is 30+.
While we
try to protect the global environment it is easy to overlook the local
environment. Large
car parks damage the local environment and create an eyesore. With careful design and location,
smaller car parks can minimise the damage and meet the needs of tourists
and locals. The need for easy
and environmentally friendly access to Snowdonia can be achieved through
the promotion of alternative fuels, well situated car parks near to points
of mountain access, green transport alternatives and green facilities.
Conclusion
I conclude
with the Newidiem statement that ‘the project must be developed and
planned from the outset as a sustainable rural development scheme
integrating improved visitor experience, services and facilities in such a
way as to maximise the economic development potential of communities
covered by the scheme.’
The
strategy statement as it stands is based on a park and ride scheme that is
more damaging to the environment than the private motor car. The way the strategy has been
introduced shows little understanding of the tourist industry,
sustainability or local communities.
The strategy does not show serious consideration of the real
issues at stake in Snowdonia or supply worthwhile solutions to achieve
sustainability. Sustainability
does not mean imposing restrictions and rules but giving options to the
tourist that maintains a balance between social, economic and
environmental issues.
References
1.
Dr K. Bishop et al. (1998), Northern Snowdonia Study: Developing
Local Economic Opportunities through the management of Visitor Traffic,
Cardiff University
2.
Consortium Group: Conwy
County Borough Council, Countryside Council for Wales, Gwynedd Council,
Institute of Welsh Affairs, National Trust, North Wales Police, Welsh
Development Agency,
Wales Tourist Board, Welsh Office Highways led by the Snowdonia National
Park Authority.
3.
Mr B. Morgan et al. (2000), Economic Impact Analysis of The
Northern Snowdonia Study – Final Report, Newidiem
4.
Snowdonia Green Key Strategy Statement – Consultation Draft –
August 2001, Planning & Economic Development Department, Gwynedd
Council.
5.
Snowdonia Green Key Strategy Statement, Section 1.4, Page 1
6.
Compare Euro III PM
, http://www.roads.detr.gov.uk/cvtf/impact/3.htm
7.
L. Pelkmans et al. (2000), Emissions and fuel consumption of
natural gas powered buses versus diesel buses, Belgium.
|