some factors affecting the incidence and distribution of week‐end recreation motoring trips

This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 08 October 2014, At: 02:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Oxford Agrarian StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cods19

Some factors affecting the incidence and distributionof week‐end recreation motoring tripsMartin J. Elson aa Senior Lecturer, Department of Town Planning , Oxford PolytechnicPublished online: 26 Nov 2007.

To cite this article: Martin J. Elson (1973) Some factors affecting the incidence and distribution of week‐end recreationmotoring trips, Oxford Agrarian Studies, 2:2, 161-178 , DOI: 10.1080/13600817308423809

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600817308423809

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not beliable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out ofthe use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cods19

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13600817308423809

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600817308423809

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

161

Some Factors Affecting the Incidenceand Distribution of Week-endRecreation Motoring Trips1

Martin J. ElsonRecreation and Leisure

Leisure can be seen as time available to the individual when work, sleepand other basic needs have been met. It is time over which the individualcan exercise choice. Some activities chosen may require little space andno movement away from home. However, leisure time is increasinglybeing used in a space extensive way, involving the individual in travel fromhome to participate in sports and pastimes or merely to drive to thecountryside or coast. Recreation activity for the purposes of this paper isdefined as any kind of pleasure trip: a trip to watch or take part in sportand games or to make a social call beyond the built-up area which iscompleted within one day.

This form of spatial activity is having an increasing impact on thecountryside and coast over large parts of Great Britain. A recent surveyin the Northern Region (19, p. 42), based on data collected in 1967,estimated that on an average summer Sunday 187,000 persons made tripsto the coast and 129,000 to the countryside from places within the regionalone. This form of recreation activity is numerically the fastest growing,the same survey predicting a 42-3 per cent increase by 1980 for trips to thecountry alone. In 1963 the Peak District National Park had 4 millionvisitors who travelled to the area in 1-3 million motor cars. Present dayestimates are 8 million visitors and 3 million cars. These extensive move-ments of people for recreation create conflict not merely between thosewhose livelihood is made from the countryside and the visitors, butbetween the recreation trip makers themselves.

Planners at all levels, from local to national, have become increasinglyconcerned with the creation and implementation of policies designed tobalance these competing demands for space. As recently as October oflast year Waterhouse stated, ' There is an obvious need for policy, notonly in the West Midlands but in all regions, to be based on a clearer ideaof the total recreation situation from both demand and supply angles . . . '(27, p. 39). We are aware that the major peak of demand is at the weekendbut until relatively recently evidence on weekend recreation motoring wassparse (15) and even at present knowledge may be said to be in an earlyinductive phase. The first need was for information on the amount andnature of leisure time and the extent of the range of recreation activities.This led to inventory surveys at the national level (22,25), backed up by a

1 This paper is based on the author's work for the degree of D.Phil, at the University of Sussex.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

1 6 2 DISTRIBUTION OF WEEKEND RECREATION MOTORING TRIPS

number of regional surveys (19,21,23), recently completed or in progress.

Acknowledging that theoretical explanation is not necessary for pre-diction a more recent thrust of investigation has been to build econometricmodels at the aggregate level in order to estimate the amount of recreationtravel between urban and countryside or coastal areas. Thus Mansfield(16) explained 99 per cent of the variation in motor trip numbers to theLake District with a model of the form:

Y—=a+[c+t] f (X)+tM+gWP

where: Y = number of person trips from zone i to the Lake DistrictP = population of zone iX = distance from zone i to the Lake DistrictM = a dummy variable measuring motorway accessW= car ownership in zone ia, c, t, g = constants

Colenutt (8, 9) built a conceptually similar model which explains 96 percent of the variation in recreation day trips made to the Forest of Dean.Such trip generation models, however, cannot explain the variations intrip making behaviour at the individual and household level. It wouldclearly be advantageous if such aggregate models could reflect explanationsat the individual level. Some writers, for example Hagerstrand, go further:* . . . nothing truly can be said about aggregate regularities until it has beenmade clear how far they remain invariant with organisational differencesat the micro-level' (13, p. 8).

Even in recent work at the disaggregated level the variable car ownershiphas remained mixed with other independent variables, and, when includedin a multiple linear regression, has assumed major importance. Patmoreand Rodgers (21, p. 185-7) report that using such a model with 19 inde-pendent variables representing the characteristics of individuals (excludingincome) possession of a driving license was the most important singleinfluence on the probability of making a day trip for recreation. Vickermaninvestigating the demand for non-work travel and using a cross-tabulationanalysis comments ' it is . . . difficult to determine whether differences intrip making between two different income groups or socio-economicgroups are due to the income or socio-economic factor or to the inter-mediate effect of their different levels of car ownership' (26, p. 192). Dueto the rapid spread of car ownership through the population it becomesimportant to look for differences in recreation trip activity within thisgroup of the population. The aim of this paper is, therefore, to investigateif there are any significant differences in recreation trip activity betweencar owners with varying personal characteristics.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

DISTRIBUTION OF WEEKEND RECREATION MOTORING TRIPS 163

A Rationale for Recreation Spatial Behaviour

What characteristics of an individual can be postulated as of importancein explaining patterns of recreation activity? Before this question can beproperly discussed a brief consideration of the rationale underlying thevariables chosen is appropriate. This can be subsumed under a frameworkwhich has become known as human activity systems. The main proponentof this perspective, Chapin (4, 5, 6 and 7), defines human activity systemsas ' behaviour patterns of individuals, families, institutions, and firmswhich occur in spatial patterns that have meaning in planning for landuse' (4, p. 224). In the case of individuals and households choice is seenas converting human motivations into human activity in space with thesocial system mediating or constraining the range of such choice.

FIGURE 1. THE PROCESS OF ACTIVITY CHOICEmotivation > choice > activity

opportunities < social system

Thus the type of recreation behaviour of an individual reflects the valuesheld by him and his need to find satisfaction from some form of recreationexperience.

Choice is the process by which the individual examines the alternativeactions available to meet his needs and selects from them specific activities,and thus locations. The results of these choices in terms of trips forrecreation are fed back through the social system to affect what oppor-tunities are offered to individuals at a future time. There is therefore aprocess of mutual adjustment taking place between the recreation be-haviour of individuals and the spatial structure or distribution ofrecreation opportunities available.

The choice mechanism can only truly be modelled in terms of anindividual's perception (or personal mental construct) of the structure ofopportunities known to him which acts as a data source when decidingupon trips to be made. However, inherent problems of measurement inthis approach mean that research based on the determinants of individualbehaviour using such factors as personality, motivation and perception,must remain largely unsubstantiated (28).

Therefore, the approach chosen here is to make use of the notion ofconstraints (18,20) on choice and thus trip activity developing the conceptsof capability constraints and coupling constraints (13). The former arerepresented by a number of socio-economic variables acting as proxies forwhat are clearly the underlying behavioural dispositions. For example, itcan be assumed that the variable ' age ', representing the biological andpsychological process of ageing, will ceteris paribus produce conservatism,a low level of motivation towards recreation travel and thus low tripfrequencies and a simpler trip pattern. On the other hand, higher incomeand social class, a longer period of education, and a large-sized household

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


are seen as attributes which allow the individual to free himself fromconstraints on trip making.

Coupling constraints are seen as the effects on recreation trips resultingfrom trips of an obligatory nature. For example, a trip to work at theweekend will reduce the leisure time available and may cause the individualto return home in order to collect other members of the household (whoconstitute a different trip party) for the recreation trip.

In terms of research strategy two necessary steps are involved inbringing this general rationale into empirical focus. First, a descriptivephase, followed by a phase focussing on explanation and finally onprediction. In the descriptive phase the concern is at first with investi-gating the kinds of recreation activity individuals engage in over a periodof time and an area of space. This is followed by classifying individualsinto groups according to observed similarities in the occurrence of typesof activity undertaken by them. This classification should minimise withingroup variation but show variation between groups at levels of statisticaland substantive significance sufficient to draw inferences concerning therecreation activity patterns of these groups—or arch types—in thepopulation.

Thus the factors investigated were as follows:(a) Trip frequency during the summer peak and throughout the year.(b) Trip characteristics such as the number of stops, duration and

distance.(c) Trip destination, whether coastal or inland and the grade of deter-

minatedness of that destination.(d) Trip party composition and its relationship to the household group.

The investigation was restricted to Sundays due to the different effect ofconstraints on different days of the week. As planners usually aim in theirwork to provide for conditions of the average summer peak (11, p. 6), datawere accordingly collected pertaining to four Sundays during late Juneand early July 1970.

The questions which the study tried to answer are those which are ofmajor importance for practical planning decisions:

(i) Are there significantly different trip frequencies for certain groupswithin the car owning population?

(ii) Do certain groups of car owners make more adventurous tripsinvolving longer duration, distance and more stops than others?

(Hi) Are different types of people attracted to coastal as opposed toinland destinations?

The Survey and the SampleA random sample of car owners was questioned in Lewes, the county

town of East Sussex, a town of 14,000 inhabitants situated on the edge ofthe South Downs between Brighton and the coast and the Ashdown andWorth Forests (12).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


Lewes was considered particularly suitable as it (1) allowed a randomsample to be obtained which yielded sufficient data for the analysis en-visaged and (2) is located near to a varied and attractive countryside andcoast, thus giving reason to assume a high motivation for such trips.

The Electoral Register was used as a sampling frame and heads ofhousehold in the sample were asked if they were car owners or had accessto a car before they were invited to complete a questionnaire related totheir leisure habits and personal characteristics. 2,054 heads of householdwere approached during the month of July 1970. Of these 41 per cent hadno access to a car. Of the 1,061 car owners approached 10-4 per centrefused to accept the questionnaire and a further 24-0 per cent were notcollected. A total of 696 valid responses were used for the analysis andthese represent a response rate of 65-5 per cent. This compares favourablywith response rates reported by Burton (3).

Although no significant non-response bias was detected by an analysisat Enumeration District level the car owning heads of household in thesample represent a particular group within the town and an understandingof the characteristics of this group is essential to the interpretation of theresults. The sample is relatively more affluent and older than the totalresident population. Comparing the sample with the 1966 Sample Censusthe concentration of car owning heads of household in the middle andolder age groups becomes apparent. 80-3 per cent of the sample were inthe 30 to 65 years age range compared to only 46-6 per cent for the residentpopulation as a whole. 46-2 per cent of the sample were in social classes1 and 2 compared to 21 -5 per cent in the total resident population. Car-owning retired persons, the bulk of social class 6 constituted 12-2 per centof the sample compared to 8-7 per cent in the Sample Census.

The survey also revealed that 23-4 per cent of the sample had a grossweekly income (1970) of £48 per week or over and 28-6 per cent had anincome of under £24 per week. Nearly half the total sample (49-3 per cent)had been in full-time education beyond the age of 16 and 20-4 per cent hadundertaken further education, that is beyond 19 years of age. High ter-minal education age, membership of social class 1 and income over £48per week were all highly positively related in the preliminary correlationmatrix extracted from the data. The retired group, constituting 24-6 percent of the total respondents, was particularly affluent with earnings over£48 per week, thus reflecting the general south coast retirement situation.The sample is predominantly male (93-2 per cent), in 2 person (27*2 percent) and 4 person (29-1 per cent) households. 9'1 per cent of householdsowned two cars. This sample clearly, represents an affluent middle classwith individuals hypothetically having every possibility of surmountingthe constraints upon recreation activity that apply to many other sectorsof the population. - In this sense it constitutes an interesting contrast withthe samples of the Pilot National (22), Northern Region (19), andNorth-West Region (21) surveys.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


FIGURE 2. LOCATION OF SURVEY AREA

ASHDOWN

FOREST

SOUTHXDOWNS

SOUTff\ DOWNS

BEACHY HEAD

0 1 2 3 4 miles• ' ' • '

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


The Results1

(a) Trip Frequency. 72-5 per cent of the heads of household sampledhad undertaken at least one recreation trip on the four Sundays in question.This figure is well in excess of the 44 per cent of car owners who had usedtheir cars for a pleasure outing at any time in the month prior to the PilotNational Survey (22, p. 81).

In Lewes, those most active in the average summer peak were also mostactive on Sundays throughout the year. 41-8 per cent of the total sampleclaimed to make at least one trip every fortnight throughout the year andthis group corresponds to those with the highest probability of making atrip during the average summer peak as Figure 3 indicates.

FIGURE 3. RELATIONSHIP OF FREQUENCY OF SUNDAY SUMMER PEAK TRIPS TOFREQUENCY OF TRIPS ON SUNDAYS DURING THE REST OF THE YEAR*

I O O - T -

7 5 -percentmakingtripon4 surveySundays

2 5 _

99.1

88.8n=IT4

81.5n=l76

48.On=35 42.9

n = 6O

every I in 2 ' I in 4 ' I in 8 ' lesssunday often

yearly sunday trip frequency'The Intervals within the yearly Sunday trip frequency variable are those contained In the questionasked.

1 The results of no two social surveys are directly comparable, nevertheless general comments aremade relating the Lewes results to other recent systematically designed surveys of a similar scale.Those referred to are the Pilot National Survey (22), the Lanarkshire Survey (19) and theNorth West Survey (21).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

168 DISTRIBUTION OF WEEKEND RECREATION MOTORING TRIPS

Within the yearly trip frequency categories there appears a wide divisionbetween a highly active group of recreation motorists (61 per cent makingtrips at least once a month) and a largely inactive group, a substantialminority of which make less than six trips a year. This latter group appearsto correspond to the' constant tenth' found inactive in the Pilot NationalSurvey (22, p. 81).

(b) Trip Complexity and Extent. An extremely complex and diffuseactivity pattern was revealed. 146 different destinations were recorded forthe 570 trips, and only 1*6 per cent of the total trip makers made no stopsof over 10 minutes duration. However, 31 per cent of all trips included atleast two stops (that is, one additional stop to that at the destination) andof this group 41-5 per cent made two stops apart from that at the desti-nation.

The trips also occupied a large portion of the individual's Sunday timeas the figures in Table 1 indicate. The majority of trip makers stay awayfrom home for over 3 hours and only very few trips are under one hour intotal duration. Trip durations from Lewes were shorter than for theLanarkshire survey (44 per cent over 6 hours) (10, p. 96), and the North-West Survey (58 per cent over 5 hours) (21, p. 73). This reflects the shortdistance to an attractive coast and countryside from Lewes.

TABLE 1. TRIP DURATION

Hours

Under halfHalf-oneOne-twoTwo-threeThree-flveOverflve

Per centof sample

_3-6

15-224-427-82 9 0

Taking the shortest distance road routes between all stopping placesmentioned in the questionnaires the distances travelled reflect an interestingsituation. It might be expected that there would be a constant fall-off oftrips with distance reflecting the disutility associated with the expenditureof increasing time and cost. However Figure 4 illustrates a completelydifferent picture which can only be explained by the fact that attractivenessof the destination is of more importance than distance travelled and timeused provided the journey is less than 40 miles. In the case of the tripsfrom Lewes even this does not apply as the draw of London overcomesthe other considerations.

(c) Trip Destination. 94 per cent of the sample claimed to have had aspecific destination in mind when departing from home. Of these 42-7 percent were coastal destinations but the remainder were entirely inland trips.This information corresponds with the findings of the Pilot NationalSurvey (22, p. 87), where the figure for determinatedness of destination

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

DISTRIBUTION OF WEEKEND RECREATION MOTORING TRIPS 1 6 9

FIGURE 4. TRIP DISTANCE PROFILES

15.

IO.percentof all

journeys

5 .

Lewes Survey

n

2O 4O 6O 8O IOOdistance travelled - miles

Lanarkshire Survey

2O 4O 6O 8O IOOdistance travelled — miles

a. Source: (10, p. 105).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


was 89 per cent and of the Lanarkshire Study (10, p. 116), where interviewsat sites yielded figures varying from 59 to 84 per cent.

(d) Trip Party Composition. Trip party sizes have been well documentedin recent recreation surveys (15). The Lewes data revealed an averagevehicle occupancy of 3-6 persons, slightly above the 3-2 revealed by theLanarkshire Survey (10, p. 93). More importantly, interest was focussedon the extent to which the trip party corresponded to the household group.Informal recreation activity including recreation motoring has been seenas a household based activity (24), and Bott (2, p. 287) has suggested thathow leisure is spent may be one of the best indicators of mutuality inhouseholds. There was evidence to suggest that recreation motoring actsto unite extended families in that the majority of car owning heads ofhousehold took relatives (often parents) on a trip if additional personswere invited. The collecting and delivering of such persons to addressesoutside Lewes may in some measure account for the large number ofstops made. On the other hand, it was certainly not a rule that the personsin the trip party corresponded entirely to that of the household. In only43-7 per cent of the trips recorded was the trip party identical with thehousehold. Of the total trips made 35-0 per cent contained at least oneperson from outside the household; and one third of these contained atleast one child from outside.

(a)-(d) The trip pattern which emerges is one of extensive spatialimpact on the countryside. Trips had a mean distance of over 30 miles,and a mean duration of 4 to 5 hours. The distance persons are willing totravel clearly varies according to the particular regional spatial distributionof recreation opportunities. Two stops were more common than one, andthe average number of persons per vehicle was between 3 and 4. Over 20per cent of car owning heads of household made such a trip every Sundaythroughout the year. The uneven distance decay function found, combinedwith the number of locations visited on any trip, are important factorswhich should be taken into account in attempts to model the spatialimpact of recreation trip activity.

Personal Characteristics and Recreation Trip Activity

In order to answer the questions posed previously (see p. 164) fourcharacteristics of heads of household: age, income, social class, terminaleducation age, and size of household were cross-tabulated with thevariables: trip made or not made on a Sunday during the summer peak,trip duration, and coastal or inland destination under the null hypothesisof no difference using a chi-square test.

Variations in trip frequency are associated with different characteristicsof the trip makers as in each case the null hypothesis could be rejected atthe 95 per cent level (Table 2). However, with regard to trip duration andtrip destination these characteristics are of much less importance.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 2. SIGNIFICANCE OF PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICSAND SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD IN RELATION TO RECREATION TRIP ACHVHY

UNDER NULL HYPOTHESIS

Independent variablesAleIncomeSocial classTerminal education ageSize of household

Trlplno trip•001•05•001•001•05

Trip duration_

•10

—

Coast 1Inland destination

•05

—

Looking more closely at the direction of associations in the case of tripfrequency the effect of constraints appears (Figure 5). Trip frequencydeclines steadily with the constraint of age and is particularly low in theretired group. This group, also represented by the low-figure for socialclass 6, is just that group which has the largest amount of leisure timewithin the whole sample. Trip frequency is also low in one person house-holds. There appears, similarly, to be some constraint due to low incomeas evidenced by the trip frequency recorded for those earning less than£24 gross per week. The concept of constraints (see p. 163) thus gainssome support from these relationships.

However, more significant is the finding that heads of household in thehighest income group (£48 gross weekly income and above), those insocial class groups 1 and 2 and those educated beyond 16 years, whoaccording to a priori reasoning and the results of other surveys shouldappear the most active, had significantly lower trip frequencies than othergroups in the population. The reason for this does not appear to beattributable to increasing age; despite the fact that retired persons didhave relatively high incomes (see p. 165) they contributed a numericallysmall group (n=34) in the sample.

When the relationship between social class and trip duration was furtherinvestigated there also appeared a tendency for the same groups to makeshorter trips (Table 3). 50-0 per cent of the trips made by social class 1and 2 were under three hours as compared with an average of 39-0 percent for classes 3 and 4, and 19-5 per cent for class 5. For trips of' over5 hours' duration this relationship was reversed.

TABLE 3. DURATION OF SUNDAY TRIPS BY SOCIAL CLASS OFHEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

DurationUp to 3 hours3 to 5 hoursS hours and over

2

50-428-62 1 0

2

49-623-926-5

(n-113)

Social Class3 4

Fer cent38-0 40-030-2 21-531-8 38-5

. fo-130) (n-65)

5

19-541-638-9

(n-36)

6

45-515-938-6

<n-44)

Terminal education age also appeared to be important, the majordivision being between those educated only up to 14 years and the rest

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


FIGURE 5. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUMMER PEAK SUNDAY

RECREATION TRIP MAKERS IN RELATION TO TRIP FREQUENCY

Percentage making at least one trip on the 4 Sundays

25 5O 75Oi

IOOi

Age

Up to 44yrs

4 5 - 64yrs

65 and over

Income*up to £24

£ 2 4 - £35

£36 - £ 4 8

over £48

Social Class

I

2

3

4

5

6

XXX

XX

Gross weekly income of head of household

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


FIGURE 5 (cont.)

Percentage making at least one trip on the 4 Sundays

O 25 5O 75 IOOl j I i i

TerminalEducation Age

14 yrs

15 - under 16

16 -under 19

19 yrs and over

Persons perHousehold

I

2

3

4

5

6 or more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


(Table 4). While these figures are marginally non-significant at the 95 percent level, they do complement the finding for the previously discussedrelationship.

TABLE 4. DURATION OF SUNDAY TRIPS BY TERMINAL EDUCATION AGEOF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

DurationUp to 3 hours3 to 5 hours5 hours and over

14 years

35-029-335-7

<n=157)

Terminal education ateIS years

46-930-422-7

(n-128)

16-18years

Per cent45-524-130-4

Cn-145)

19 yearsand over

48-425-825-8

(n-89)

There was no significant difference between the personal characteristicsof those visiting coastal or inland destinations despite an a priori expecta-tion that those in the higher social classes would give preference to inlandlocations.

The pattern of recreation activity revealed by this analysis may thereforebe said to fall into three main types:

1. Highly active, with a high probability of making trips of over 5 hours'duration. A member of this group would be a skilled or semi-skilledmanual or supervisory manual grade worker, within the 25 to 44years age group, most likely earning £24-£33 per week, having leftschool at age 14 or 15 and having one or more children.

2. Less active, with a lower probability of making trips of over 5 hours'duration. A member of this group would be in social class 1 or 2,have an income of over £36 per week, some sort of further educationand would most probably be aged 45 years or over.

3. Least active, this group, numerically small in Lewes, is over 65 yearsof age, inactive or retired, and likely to be living alone or with oneother person.1

These findings contrast with those of the Pilot National Survey where itwas found that among the car-owning sub-sample ' social variables' hadlittle or no independent effect on trip rates. Using slightly coarser cate-gories than the present survey, and commenting on the percentage of thecar-owning sample making no day or half-day trips during the monthprior to interview, Rodgers (22, p. 83) states:' The proportion reportingno such trips decreases only slightly from 48 % at the £650-£849 range(1965 figures) to 44% at the 'over £1,950' level; from 42% among' manual' workers to 38% among ' executives' and from 46% amongthose without any form of higher education to 41 % among graduates..."Looking at their total sample the North-West survey found the aboveaverage participant to be in the younger age groups, in households of

1 These findings were similar for yearly trip making frequency categories within the sample.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


between 3 and 5 persons but of above average educational attainment and,if at work, in the higher social classes (21, p. 50).

The main types therefore do not correspond to the a priori model.Apart from age, none of the other personal characteristics had beenexpected to be constraints, particularly the higher income, social class andterminal education age categories.

It therefore appeared necessary to widen the scope of the investigationand to look at alternative explanations for the occurrence of these 3 maintypes, particularly for the less active group.

The Sunday Time-Space DiaryIn order to elucidate possible reasons a time-space diary, providing data

on coupling constraints, was obtained from the heads of household.There are few examples of such an exercise in Britain but the problems ofthe collection, classification and analysis of such data have recently beendiscussed by a number of authors (1, 3, 17 and 18). At this stage of thestudy the particular concern was with how individuals budgeted their timebetween what they considered to be obligatory and what discretionaryactivities in and out of the home.1

It was noted earlier that trip frequencies of heads of household of socialclass 1 and 2 were significantly lower than for other social classes (seep. 171). One possible explanation was that such difference was due todiffering home or home related time constraints represented by suchactivities as gardening and house maintenance. In order to answer thisquestion a new variable ' type of accommodation' was introduced andthe time-space diary of those in rented accommodation and owner-occupied dwellings compared. Owner-occupiers reported only a marginallygreater proportion of time (26-5 per cent) spent on at-home obligatoryactivities compared to those in rented accommodation (24-9 per cent).

The major difference reported by the two groups was in discretionarytime spent at home. Those who were home owners spent a significantlylarger proportion of their Sunday time reading or pursuing arts andhobbies at home than their counterparts in rented accommodation. Thispicture was made still clearer by evidence of time-space use by terminaleducation age of the heads of household. Those who had full-time educa-tion to 19 years or beyond spent over double the amount of Sunday timeat home on pursuits under the heading of arts and hobbies (14-4 per cent)than their counterparts educated to 15 years only (9-5 per cent).

As those in different terminal education age groups spent similar pro-portions of their total Sunday time on at-home obligatory activities it

1 The classification used was as follows. At home discretionary activities: with the family, sociali-sing, relaxation, a r ; and hobbies, reading, watching television and listening to radio. At homeobligatory activiti 3: preparing meals, repairs and maintenance of the home. Out of homediscretionary: recreation trip, social trip, or annual holiday. Out of home obligatory: work,shopping trip or any other necessary activity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


appears that there were few coupling constraints on the recreation triprates of those in social classes 1 and 2. On the contrary, such individualspreferred to spend their free time in or around the home, keeping off theroads during the busy summer peak.

Implications of the FindingsThe pattern of recreation trips of the Lewes sample indicates a more

extensive use of the countryside than even that revealed by the PilotNational Recreation Survey. If the pattern found here, with its indifferenceto distance under 40 miles, obtains also in other urban centres, in theabsence of planning controls large areas of lowland Britain are likely to besubject to extensive physical and ecological damage.

There is little solace in the rinding that social classes 1 and 2 are lessactive recreation motorists than those in other classes. It seems that themajority of heads of household who acquire cars in the future will bethose whose characteristics conform to the ' highly active * group. Afollow-up survey in the Lewes area in the summer of 1971 revealed thatnearly 75 per cent of heads of household who had acquired cars in the last10 years were in social classes 3 to 5 inclusive. The clear indication is,therefore, that the number of recreation trips made by car will go up at afaster rate than merely the growth of car ownership, as what was once anelitist activity spreads further through larger sections of the population.

At the present time the only effective control of car penetration in manycountryside areas is the capacity of rural road networks. As the generaltrend is towards increased accessibility to areas of natural beauty, with thegrowth of the motorway system, the result is likely to be increasing damageto natural habitats.

Such a situation is a challenge to a number of land use interests in thecountryside. A comprehensive management policy must take account, forexample, of forestry and agricultural interests as well as of those of theoccupants of the ubiquitous motor car. Are the interests of the farmercompatible with the use of farmland for recreation? Is it reasonable, asthe Ramblers Association argues, that some large tracts of countrysideshould only be accessible by public transport? Can controls or bans onprivate cars at beauty spots be avoided? What are the costs of suchavoidance?

The local planning authorities are uniquely placed to take the lead in thearea of comprehensive countryside planning policies, weighing andbalancing such questions as have been posed.

References(1) Anderson, J., 'Space-Time Budgets and Activity Studies in Urban

Geography and Planning', Environment and Planning, Vol. 3 No. 4, 1971.(2) Bott, E., 'Family and Social Network: roles, norms and external relation-

ships in ordinary urban families', Tavistock, London, 2nd edition, 1971.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


(3) Burton, T. L., 'Experiments in Recreation Research', Allen and Unwin,London, 1971.

(4) Chapin, F. S., Jr., 'Urban Land Use Planning', Univ. of Illinois Press,Urbana, 1965.

(5) Chapin, F. S., Jr., 'Activity Systems and Urban Structure: A WorkingSchema', Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 34 No. 1,1968.

(6) Chapin, F. S., Jr. and Hightower, H. C., 'Household Activity Systems—apilot investigation', University of North Carolina Monograph, ChapelHill, 1966.

(7) Chapin, F. S., Jr. and Brail, R. K.,' Human Activity Systems ', Environmentand Behaviour, Vol. 1 No. 1, 1969.

(8) Colenutt, R. J., 'Modelling Travel Patterns of Day Visitors to the Country-side ', Area, Vol. 1 No. 2, 1969.

(9) Colenutt, R. J., 'Factors Affecting the Pattern of Trip Generation andRoute Choice of Day Visitors to the Countryside', Ph.D. Thesis, Depart-ment of Geography, University of Bristol, 1970.

(10) Coppock, J. T. (editor), 'Lejsure+Countryside=?; A Geographical Ap-praisal of Countryside Recreation in Lanarkshire ', University of Edinburgh,Department of Geography, 1970.

(11) Davidson, J., 'Outdoor Recreation Surveys: The Design and Use ofQuestionnaires for Site Surveys', The Countryside Commission, London,1970.

(12) East Sussex County Council, 'Survey of Unorganised Recreation in EastSussex', Lewes, 1969 (mimeograph).

(13) Hagerstrand, T., 'What about people in Regional Science?', Papers of theRegional Science Association, Vol. 24, 1970.

(14) Hemmens, G. C., 'Analysis and Simulation of Urban Activity Patterns',Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 1, 1970.

(15) Houghton-Evans, W. and Miles, J. C., 'Weekend Recreational Motoringin the Countryside', Journal of the Town Planning Institute, Vol. 56 No. 9,1970.

(16) Mansfield, N. W., 'Recreational Trip Generation: A Cross-SectionAnalysis of Weekend Pleasure Trips to the Lake District', Journal ofTransport Economics and Policy, Vol. 3 No. 2, 1969.

(17) Maw, R., 'Construction of a Leisure Model', Official Architecture andPlanning, Vol. 32 No. 8, 1969.

(18) Maw, R. (et. al.), 'Analysing Demand for Leisure Facilities', BuiltEnvironment, Vol. 1 No. 8, 1972.

(19) North Regional Planning Committee, 'Outdoor Leisure Activities in TheNorthern Region ', North Regional Planning Committee, Newcastle, 1969.

(20) Pahl, R., 'Spatial Structure and Social Structure', CES WP 10, Centre forEnvironmental Studies, London, 1968.

(21) Patmore, J. A. and Rodgers, H. B. (editors),' Leisure in the North West ',North West Sports Council, Manchester, 1972.

(22) Rodgers, H. B., 'The Pilot National Recreation Survey—Report No. 1, 'British Travel and Holiday Association and University of Keele, London,1967.

(23) Rodgers, H. B., 'The Pilot National Recreation Survey—Report No. 2,Regional Analysis', British Travel and Holiday Association and Universityof Keele, London, 1969.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


(24) Rodgers, H. B., 'Leisure and Recreation', Urban Studies, Vol. 6 No. 3,1969.

(25) Sillitoe, K. K., ' Planning for Leisure'; Government Social Survey, SS 388,H.M.S.O., London, 1969.

(26) Vickerman, R., 'The Demand for Non-Work Travel', Journal of TransportEconomics and Policy, Vol. 6 No. 2, 1972.

(27) Waterhouse, S., 'Country Parks and the West Midlands', ResearchMemorandum No. 17, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, TheUniversity of Birmingham, 1972.

(28) Wolpert, J., 'Micro-Urban Research: Priorities and Hazards', Paperdelivered at Joint R.G.S.-I.B.G. Meeting, London, September 1971,S.S.R.C. Geography Committee, London, 1972 (mimeograph).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

02:

53 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

some factors affecting the incidence and distribution of week‐end recreation motoring trips

Documents