Countryside recreation provision in England: exploring a demand-led approach

Curry, Nigel; Ravenscroft, Neil

doi:10.1016/s0264-8377(01)00022-9

Cited by 31 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although it can be argued that agriculture in Europe still retains a disproportionately favourable policy regime in comparison with other industries, the previous freedoms enjoyed by land managers are being gradually curtailed in favour of greater regulated control of many aspects of the farming enterprise (Dwyer and Hodge, 2001). Outside of reforms at the European level, increasing recreational access to rural land is another example of a further demand being placed on UK land managers by sections of wider society and receiving support from government (Curry and Ravenscroft, 2001). …”

Section: -Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK

Davies¹,

Hodge

2007

Ecological Economics

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: -Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK

Davies¹,

Hodge

2007

Ecological Economics

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Successive law and government policy has found in favour of the status quo (see Foster, 1985; House of Commons Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, 2001), suggesting in the process that the correct procedure for paddlers and others who wish to gain access to land and water is that they -like anglers -make specific, often market-related, agreements with the incumbent rights holders (and parties to the prevailing gift relationship) (Curry and Ravenscroft, 2001;Parker and Ravenscroft, 2001;Ravenscroft and Curry, 2004;Church, et al, 2007).…”

Section: Deploying the Gift: The Regulation Of Paddling On Inland Watersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Property Ownership, Resource Use, and the ‘Gift of Nature’

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Through a theoretical and empirical consideration of gift exchange, this paper argues that those with legal interests in land have constructed property relations around a claim of reciprocity with nature. This has been used to legitimate the ways in which they have deployed their property power to exclude others, thus seeking to retain their dominion over both humans and non-humans. In so doing, however, such interests have failed to understand the dynamic of gift relationships, with their inherent inculcation of subject and other, to the point where the exercise of power becomes contingent on the continued hegemony of property relations. Using the politics of recreational access to inland waters in England and Wales, the paper shows that power -over both humans and non-humans -is temporary and conditional in ways that are not fully theorised in most contemporary debates about property rights and their deployment on non-human subjects.

show abstract

“…Prior to the CROW Act, the former group were able to gain access to specific areas of land over which there were no formal rights; they simply chose spaces that were unknown to the mass, or were hard to access, and which did not have any major agricultural or commercial uses. In contrast, those without sufficient cultural capital to adopt such a strategy were 'denied' the access that they sought (although, as Curry and Ravenscroft, 2001, have suggested, there was never any evidence that there was demand from this section of the population, let alone 'denial').…”

Section: Forbidding the Unforbidden: The Maintenance Of Exclusivitymentioning

confidence: 99%