1

This is a revised personal version of the article published in Transport Policy. Please cite as: Regnerus, H.D.; Beunen, R.; Jaarsma, C.F. (2007) Recreational traffic management: the relations between research and implementation. Transport Policy: 14(3): 258-267..

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.02.002

Recreational traffic management: the relations between research and implementation Hielke Regnerus, Raoul Beunena and Rinus Jaarsma

a Strategic Communication Group , Wageningen University, PO Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen , The Netherlands

ABSTRACT

Traffic management in National Parks is necessary in order to avoid the negative effects of car traffic. Implementing traffic management measures can be difficult, due to public resistance or other problems. A research project in the Veluwezoom National Park in The Netherlands shows that there are two important reasons for problematic implementation. The first reason is a lack of knowledge about the recreational use of the area. The second reason is the interdependence of actors involved. Both aspects need to be considered and related to each other in order to make more realistic traffic management plans. Keywords: Visitor monitoring, Car park, National Parks, Measures, Planning, Tourism.

INTRODUCTION

The countryside and natural areas (and in particular

National Parks) are important tourism destinations.

Many people visit these areas, especially on Sundays

and during holidays. The large number of visitors

however, has some negative effects. Natural and

recreational values become threatened by increasing

traffic congestion and parking problems. Traffic

management can prevent and limit these problems

(see e.g. Steiner & Bristow, 2000; Cullinane et al.,

1996). Possible ‘stick measures’ include road charges

and access restrictions. Measures which tempt people

to ‘good’ behaviour, like the provision of public

transport and footpaths, can reduce traffic problems

as well, and are often referred to as ‘carrot measures’

(see e.g. Cullinane, 1997).

There is a lot of discussion about how to implement

traffic management measures without affecting public

access and visitors’ enjoyment of the area. Access

restriction, for example, can trigger a lot of public

resistance (Holding, 2001). Both the selection and the

implementation of measures frequently cause

problems (see e.g. Holding & Kreutner, 1998). It is

therefore important to gain insight into the causes of

problematic implementation of measures.

The aim of this paper is to explain the problematic

implementation of traffic management measures in

natural areas and to show how research can generate

the insight and knowledge required for more realistic

traffic management plans. This paper draws on the

results of a study in the Dutch Veluwezoom National

Park. Section 2 describes the characteristics of the

National Park and gives an overview of the decision-

making processes in the area. In Section 3, the

methodology used for this research is outlined. In

Section 4 the results are presented and Section 5 puts

2

the results in a broader perspective. Lastly, Section 6

gives the conclusions.

Figure 1 Veluwezoom National Park

2. VELUWEZOOM NATIONAL PARK

The Veluwezoom National Park is a nature area close

to the city of Arnhem in the centre of The Netherlands

(Figure 1). The National Park covers about 5,000

hectares. The south-eastern part of the national park

is a popular destination for leisure activities. There

are many footpaths and bicycle paths and the area has

a visitor centre, several restaurants, and playgrounds.

Most of these facilities are situated along the border of

the National Park, but one restaurant is situated in the

centre of the area. The visitor centre is close to the

village of Rheden and easily reachable by public

transport (train and busses). There is no public

transport within the area. Every year about 1 million

people visit this part of the National Park by car.

The Veluwezoom National Park has three access

roads, all leading to the centre of the Park, the

Posbank (Figure 1). The main car parks are situated at

each entrance and in the centre. The car parks at

Beekhuizen (western entrance) and Lappendeken

(eastern entrance) are laid out in such a way that

drivers have to cross the car parks before continuing

along the road towards the centre. The car park at

Heuven (the southern entrance) is accessible via a left

turn off the road to the centre of the area. Besides

these main car parks, there are several smaller ones

throughout the area.

About 500 000 cars drive to the National Park every

year, and most of them drive through the area

(Beunen and Jaarsma, 2004). The manager of the site,

the NGO Natuurmonumenten, and the province of

Gelderland want to preserve the natural value of the

National Park, and therefore see the heavy traffic flow

and the large number of parked cars throughout the

area as a major problem. Since the early 1990s several

management measures have been implemented to

reduce the number of cars in the centre of the

Veluwezoom National Park. Most of these measures

can be regarded as ‘stick’ measures. In the early 1990s

two roads have been closed to motorised traffic

(Figure 1). In 1997 a speed limit of 50 km/h was

introduced. At the same time speed humps have been

constructed and the entrance roads at the Beekhuizen

and De Steeg entrances have been reconstructed in

such way that visitors have to cross the car park in

order to continue on the road through the area. The

purpose of this reconstruction was to tempt more

visitors to park their car near the entrance of the area.

A year later several small car parks within the area

have been removed. In 1999 the signposting towards

the area has been changed in such way that visitors

are guided to the Heuven entrance. In 2000 a new car

park was built at the Beekhuizen entrance. Further

measures, like prohibiting motorized traffic on all

roads, are regularly proposed, but most of these

measures face too much opposition and are therefore

always rejected. The opposition against measures

made the manager change their strategy. Instead of

using “stick” measures to discourage people to drive

through the area they tried to tempt more visitors to

park their car near the entrance of the area. New

plans included the improvement of the visitor centre,

the expansion of the car park at the Heuven location,

and the reconstruction of the entrance road in such

way that visitors are more likely to drive to the visitor

centre. The latter measure has been taken in 2005.

The first two measures are planned for the coming

years, but also face opposition from people who are

afraid the new visitor centre will attract even more

people and cars to the area.

3

Over the years, the traffic management project at the

Veluwezoom National Park has become more and

more complex. Different actors with conflicting

interests have become involved in the process, leading

to growing opposition to any measures. A historical

overview of the decision-making processes in the area

shows that the implementation of both ‘stick’ and

‘carrot’ measures has been, and still is, very

problematic. Especially people that live nearby and

visit the area very often are against measures. They

have organised themselves in an organisation called

OCP in order to gain more influence on local politics

and decision-making about the area. So far, they have

been successful. These implementation problems

prompted the study of the objectives, the opinions,

and the role of different actors.

3. METHODOLOGY

The research project at the Veluwezoom National

Park was commissioned by the Province of

Gelderland. They needed more information about the

number of cars and the distribution over the area. The

project comprised several components, outlined in

this paper. The research took place between 2002 and

2005. The project started with a traffic counting

programme and was followed by a visitor survey

among car-borne visitors. Meanwhile a literature

study and discussions and interviews with the actors

involved, were conducted to gain more information

about the actors’ backgrounds.

3.1 TRAFFIC COUNTS

Although some actors were convinced that there were

too many cars driving through the area, nobody knew

the exact number of cars. This is no surprise, as

management actions, policies, and plans are often

based on assumptions about recreation participation

and about recreation damage (Curry & Pack, 1993;

Curry, 1994). Due to the lack of information about the

number of cars, the question of the necessity of traffic

management measures in the Veluwezoom National

Park was being discussed by actors with completely

different ideas about the traffic load in the area. A

logical first step, therefore, was to collect more

detailed information about the number of cars driving

to and through the area.

A traffic-counting programme in the period between

November 2002 and October 2003 was used to

determine the number of cars in the Veluwezoom

National Park, and their fluctuation over time and

distribution over the area. During this period, six

mechanical traffic counters registered the daily

number of cars. Beunen et al. (2004) give a detailed

overview of the traffic counting methodology that was

used. The traffic counters were placed at the three

entrances of the National Park (Figure 1). At each

entrance, a traffic counter was located at both ends of

the car park, in order to separate the number of cars

driving through the area from the number parked at

the borders of the National Park. On 12 days visual

counts were conducted in addition to the mechanical

counts. This visual sampling is used to calibrate the

data from the mechanical traffic counters and to

collect extra information about vehicle occupancy and

the direction in which vehicles were travelling. The

mechanical traffic counters use tubes to detect

passing cars and cannot determine the direction of the

cars. Visual counts can be used to collect information

about incoming and outgoing traffic per hour, which

can then be used to determine the number of cars

within the area at a specific time of day.

In October 2004, concurrent with the visitor survey,

the cars parked at the three main car parks (Figure 1)

were counted hourly. This was done on 5 days, 2

Sundays, a Saturday, a normal Thursday and a

Thursday during the Autumn holiday. The counts

provide a good impression of the number of cars at

the car parks during the day.

3.2 VISITOR SURVEY

The traffic counting programme gives a lot of

information about car traffic in the area, but it also

raises some important questions. Why do visitors

decide to drive through the area or to park their car at

a specific place? An answer to these questions is

necessary in order to link management measures with

the wishes of the visitors. Such link can be used to

attract visitors to places at the border of the area.

4

Information about the wishes and needs of visitors,

and the aim, frequency and appreciation of a visit to

the Veluwezoom National Park is important, to be

able to make such links (see e.g. Regnerus, 2005;

Beunen & Jaarsma, 2004).

A visitor survey among car-borne visitors was

conducted on 5 days in October 2004 in order to

collect the required information. These days were

selected because the traffic counting programme

showed that Sundays in Autumn are among the most

crowded days. During these days visitors at 3

locations in the area were approached for this survey:

at the car parks at the Heuven and Lappendeken

entrances, and at the car park in the centre of the park

(Figure 1). The traffic counting programme showed

that these are the busiest car parks in the National

Park. The counting programme also showed that the

car park at the western entrance (Beekhuizen) is

hardly used, so this location was left out of the visitor

survey.

The visitor survey was conducted according the ‘next-

to-pass’principle (see Veal, 1997). Each time a visitor

had answered all the questions in the survey, the next

visitor to arrive was approached. In total, 854 visitors

were approached; 756 visitors filled in the survey.

Only 11% of the approached visitors refused to co-

operate.

3.3 ACTOR ANALYSIS

Different actors are involved in the decision-making

process about the Veluwezoom National Park.

Natuurmonumenten is the manager of the

Veluwezoom National Park. Natuurmonumenten is a

large nature conservation organisation that manages

330 nature areas in the Netherlands. The main

objective of this organisation is nature conservation.

Visitor management is also very important because

most of Natuurmonumenten’s areas are open to

public and the organisation actively stimulates people

to explore these areas and to learn about their natural

beauty. Natuurmonumenten owns the visitor centre

and the restaurant at the Posbank, both located at the

Veluwezoom National Park. Besides

Natuurmonumenten, the province of Gelderland, the

municipality of Rheden, and several NGOs like the

Dutch Association for Motorists and Tourism (ANWB),

the OCP, inhabitants and local environmentalists are

involved in the planning and decision making about

the area. Conflicts about traffic measures in the past

were the main reason for the governmental

organisations and Natuurmonumenten to

communicate more often with the other actors. In

recent years the different organisations have met on

regular and irregular basis to discuss about visitor

management in the National Park. The visitor

monitoring project was also presented and discussed

during several of these meetings. These discussions

gave a good impression about the different actors and

their ideas.

All these actors have their own objectives and their

own ideas about the area and the way natural and

recreational values should be combined. The opinion

of the visitors was researched by means of the

surveys, but the opinions of other actors required a

different approach. Participation in the discussions

about the area gave us an impression of the actors

involved and their different opinions. Semi-structured

interviews with these actors were held to gain further

insights in their views upon the area and the planning

process, as well as in their opinions, objectives, and

backgrounds. Additional a review of several policy

documents, reports and newspaper articles was held.

The combination of these actions made it possible to

identify the different actors and their ideas about

traffic management at the Veluwezoom National Park.

Between-method triangulation makes it possible to

combine and compare the results of the different

research components, and to study the relations

between the different actors. Triangulation also adds

a sense of richness and complexity to an inquiry

(Bryman, 2004).

4. RESULTS

4.1 RESULTS OF THE TRAFFIC COUNTS

The traffic counting programme was used to

determine the number of cars in the Veluwezoom

National Park. The number of cars shows large

fluctuations between the days of the week, the months

5

and the seasons (Figure 2), with a daily average of

1,300 cars. The average number of cars on weekdays

is 900, and 1,500 on Saturdays. Sundays are the

busiest days, with an average of almost 2,800 cars.

Spring, Summer and Autumn are the most crowded

periods. The National Park is less crowded in the

winter. Traffic related problems occur on peak days

and a main objective of the counting programme was

to identify these peak days. During the summer

months the traffic is more spread in time. The busiest

days of the year are therefore found on Sundays in

Spring and Autumn. The busiest single day was a

Sunday in October when 5,180 cars were counted.

The traffic counting programme showed that on 10

days per year the number of cars in the Veluwezoom

National Park was above 4,000, on 25 days it was

3,000 or higher, and on 50 days it was more than

2,000.

Figure 2 Daily number of cars in the Veluwezoom National Park in

the period November 2002 – October 2003.

The traffic-counting programme was also used to

study the distribution of cars over the area. The

majority of the cars drive to the centre of the National

Park: on average 64%. On Sundays this is even higher,

with an average of 74%, and extremes of 81% during

Sundays in Spring.

Both the traffic counting programme and the counts

of parked cars show that the busiest moment of the

day is around 3 p.m. However, on the busiest days, the

car park at the southern entrance is already full by the

end of the morning. This makes more visitors drive to

the centre of the Veluwezoom National Park.

Especially on Sundays, the car park in the centre is the

most crowded place of the park.

4.2 RESULTS OF THE VISITOR SURVEY

The visitor survey gives insight into the

characteristics of the visitors of the Veluwezoom

National Park. The survey shows that on average 50%

of the visitors are over 40 years old; on weekdays this

percentage is even higher. Table 1 shows that 33% of

the visitors are accompanied by their partner; almost

46% visit the National Park with their family. During

holidays the proportion of young families with

children is a bit higher (32%) than on regular Sundays

(26%).

Most of the visitors (80%) come to the Veluwezoom

National Park directly from their home. Table 2 shows

that almost 70% of the visitors drive 30 minutes or

less to get to the park. Particularly on Sundays, the

area is mainly visited by regional residents. During

holiday periods, travelling time is longer and more

visitors arrive from hotels, campsites, or holiday

parks.

The visitors were asked about the frequency of their

visits to the Veluwezoom National Park and on which

day of the week they normally come. More than 60%

of the visitors visit the National Park several times per

year; 25% visit even several times per month (Table

3). For only 10% of the visitors was it their first trip to

the Veluwezoom National Park. As reflected in the

traffic counting programme, most of the visitors visit

the area at weekends. On Sundays 44% of the visitors

answered that they only visit the area on a Sunday.

Almost 90% of the Sunday visitors only visit the area

at weekends.

For many visitors (75%) the main reason to visit the

Veluwezoom National Park is to ‘enjoy nature’. Other

reasons for a visit include sport activities and walking

the dog. Walking is the most popular activity. About

85% of the visitors take a walk during their visit; 70%

of these visitors walk a marked route. One-third of the

total number of visitors goes to a restaurant during

their visit. On average, 43% of the visitors spend

about one or two hours in the Veluwezoom National

Park; on Sundays more than 50% of the visitors leave

within 2 hours. Most visitors (85%) visit only one

6

place within the National Park and spend their time in

the vicinity of the car park.

The results of the visitor survey can be used to

determine why visitors park their cars at a particular

place. Visitors have different reasons for visiting the

Veluwezoom National Park and hence for parking

their cars at a particular parking place. Table 4 shows

that more than 40% of the visitors park their car at a

specific car park because of the presence of facilities

such as restaurants and short trails. The restaurant in

the centre of the National Park, for instance, attracts

many visitors to the centre. About 25% of the visitors

call this restaurant the main reason for parking their

car at this place. People who visit the Veluwezoom

National Park frequently know the area very well, and

know, for example, that they have to cross the car

parks at the western and eastern entrance to enter

the park. These visitors still drive to the centre

because they know this car park gives access to the

most beautiful part of the National Park (20%). Their

parking behaviour is not influenced by the design of

the car parks at the western and eastern entrances.

An interesting result of the visitor survey is that 40%

of the visitors do not know when entering the area

which locations in the Veluwezoom National Park

they will visit. Moreover Table 4 shows that almost

20% of all visitors, did not choose a car park

intentionally. Table 5 shows that this holds especially

for people visiting the National Park for the first time,

or visiting infrequently. This can be explained by the

fact that the car park at the main (southern) entrance

is not sited along the road to the centre of the National

Park, but can only be reached by turning off the road

and going to the visitor centre. If visitors miss the exit

they automatically end up in the centre of the area.

This indicates that the signposting is not very clear.

4.3 RESULTS OF THE ACTOR ANALYSIS

The actors involved in the discussion about traffic

management in the National Park are

Natuurmonumenten, the province of Gelderland, the

municipality of Rheden, the Dutch Association for

Motorists and Tourism (ANWB), the OCP, inhabitants

and local environmentalists.

The main objective of Natuurmonumenten, the

manager of the site, is to protect the natural value of

the area. Visitor management is very important for

Natuurmonumenten because they need to balance the

visitors’ needs with protection of the area. The

province of Gelderland is an important partner for

Natuurmonumenten. The province deals with issues

of nature conservation, traffic and tourism at a larger

scale. The focus of the province of Gelderland is on the

whole Veluwe area, of which the Veluwezoom

National Park is only the eastern part. For them the

Veluwezoom is one of the more popular parts of the

Veluwe with tourists, and they therefore tend to focus

more on leisure activities than on nature in this

particular area. The municipality of Rheden manages

the public roads in the area and is the formal

authority that needs to approve most (traffic)

management measures. Several NGOs participate in

the discussion about the Veluwezoom National Park.

The Dutch Association for Motorists and Tourism

(ANWB) represents the tourists, local

environmentalists pursue the goal of nature

conservation, and local residents emphasise that they

do not want too many cars driving around and

parking in their streets. A particularly interesting NGO

is the OCP, which was founded by worried residents.

They are afraid that traffic management measures will

limit their options for visiting the area by car, which is

something they consider very important, especially

for the elderly. The OCP is supported by many people

who live in the neighbourhood of the National Park

and they have a strong influence on local politics in

the municipality of Rheden.

Natuurmonumenten and the province of Gelderland

both aim to reduce the number of cars within the

National Park. They fear that a growing number of

cars has negative impacts upon the environment and

the natural values of the park. Their ambition to

reduce traffic within the area is included in their

policies and management plans. During the nineties

several traffic management measures were taken to

reduce traffic within the area. These measures include

the closure of several roads, the introduction of speed

restrictions, the construction of speed humps, the

removal of small car parks within the area, and

7

adaptation of the signposting in and around the

National Park. Some of these measures faced a lot of

opposition from regular visitors and local inhabitants.

These people organised themselves in an organisation

called OCP. They mainly oppose further road closure

and the removal of car parks. Their main point is that

all people, and especially older people, need to be able

to visit the area by car. In 1993 this organisation

starts a lawsuit against Natuurmonumenten and the

Municipality of Rheden because the OCP disagrees

about the closures of roads. The OCP won the lawsuit

and further closure of roads is not allowed.

Although visitors to the National Park do not

constitute a formal organisation, their opinion is

important too. The visitor survey shows that opinions

on car traffic in the area differ; 44% of the visitors

state that it is busy in the National Park and 40% state

that it is quiet. Although many people agree that the

number of cars within the area is high, they do not

consider this as a negative point. The survey shows

that about 20% of visitors think that the number of

cars is too high. Moreover, this negative opinion is

often weakened by the remark that “everybody

should be enabled to enjoy nature”. To most of the

visitors of the National Park heavy traffic flows are

therefore not a problem.

The actor analysis shows that there is a lot of

discussion, not only about the measures, but also

about the problem. Both the manager of the site and

the provincial government were of the opinion that

there are too many cars in the area. Other actors

simply do not agree; even visitors to the area on the

busiest days do not consider the high number of

visitors as a problem. People who do not see a

problem do not need solutions. The different opinions

about cars within the area and the problems this

might cause have changed during the years. In the

nineties Natuurmonumenten wanted to limit the

number of cars within the area because they believed

that cars have a negative impact upon the

environment and natural values and thus should not

be allowed within a nature reserve. More recently the

main reason to manage traffic is not the fear for

negative impacts upon natural values, but to avoid

traffic problems within the park. The traffic counts

showed that there were about 15 days per year on

which the road capacity was not sufficient to handle

the number of cars. During these days traffic

congestion and parking problems occurred.

Natuurmonumenten and the province of Gelderland

are afraid that such problems will occur more often in

the future since they expect visitor numbers to grow.

All parties agree that traffic management is necessary

to keep the area accessible and enjoyable for visitors.

Also the ideas about how to deal with traffic related

problems has changed. In the nineties the main

objective was to limit car traffic within the area

through road closure and the removal of scattered car

parks. This caused a lot of opposition and made the

managers rethink their policies. After a lot of

discussion among the different actors

Natuurmonumenten and the province of Gelderland

changed towards policies that do not limit car traffic

but aim to tempt visitors to “desired” behaviour. The

main objective of these new policies was to construct

a gateway location near the border of the area that

should attract a large part of the visitors. This

gateway location was seen to be an important way to

concentrate traffic flows at the border of the park

while at the same time it offers possibilities to

improve the tourism opportunities of the

Veluwezoom National Park. This idea received much

more enthusiasm although some people, especially

local environmentalists and inhabitants, fear that the

gateway would attract even more visitors and thus

increase the traffic related problems.

The difficulties with the implementation of the

measures can largely be explained by the fact that the

problem (too many cars in the area) is not agreed

upon by the various actors. Not surprisingly, these

actors also disagree about the necessity of measures.

During the planning and decision making processes

the different actors compete with each other about

the problem as well as about the measures. The

planning and decision making processes showed that

the actors involved in the decision-making process

are highly interdependent, which means that, in order

to achieve their own objectives, they depend on other

actors. The manager of the site needs the province for

the money, the municipality for licences, and the

8

support of the visitors, who may be members of the

nature conservation organization and very important

for financial support. Paid membership is an

important source of funding for Natuurmonumenten,

as well as for other managers of natural sites in the

Netherlands. Visitor centres and other activities in

natural sites are important to satisfy members and to

gain new ones. The province can finance specific

projects, but these projects need to be co-financed by

other actors; they therefore depend on these others in

order to start these projects. The municipality in turn

depends on money from the province, but as a

political organization it cannot ignore its inhabitants’

opinions. The public opinion within the municipality

was that the area should be accessible by car. This

opinion was emphasised by the OCP, an organisation

founded by local inhabitants to prevent further road

closure at the Posbank. These interdependencies

forced the different actors to cooperate despite their

sometimes completely opposite opinions. This took

many discussions and a lot of time.

5. DISCUSSION

The profile of visitors at the Veluwezoom National

Park is similar to the ones found in other natural

areas in the Netherlands. Visitor surveys in other

natural areas in the Netherlands show that many

people visit these areas by car on Sunday to go for a

walk with their family (e.g. Beunen et al., 2006;

Beunen & Jaarsma, 2004). Outdoor recreation is very

popular in the Netherlands. National surveys show

that people regularly make a daytrip to a natural area

and that the car is a popular means of transport for

these trips (SCP, 2006; CBS, 2005; NRIT, 2003). Also

in other European countries day trips to countryside

destinations, including National Parks, are an

important and growing part of the tourism market

(Lumsdon et al., 2006; Dickenson et al, 2004; Guiver,

et al, 2006).

Many National Parks are managed by a nature

conservation organisation like, for instance,

Natuurmonumenten. Nature conservation is an

important objective for the site managers, but in many

areas it is equally important to facilitate leisure

activities. The Dutch nature conservation policy

underlines that nature should be accessible and

usable (LNV, 2000). In the Netherlands, there is a

growing awareness that issues of nature conservation,

countryside recreation, traffic management and social

and economic liveability are interrelated. This implies

that not only the manager of the site but also local and

regional authorities, inhabitants, and people from the

local hotel and catering industry get involved in the

planning and decision making processes about

recreational traffic management. All these actors have

different ideas about the area and about what should

happen in the future.

The planning process about the Veluwezoom National

Park illustrates the shift from a focus on nature

conservation toward a more integrated view. In the

beginning the problem was framed as “too many cars

within a natural areas” but during the years there

came a growing awareness that this problem cannot

be dealt with without the involvement of other actors.

The problem needs to be placed in a larger context

which include issues of social and economic

liveability. Traffic has negative impact on natural

values, but driving as well as parked cars might also

disturb visitors and local inhabitants. While it might

be necessary to reduce or relocate car traffic within

natural areas it is equally important to maintain

accessibility and to attract visitors to local restaurants

and other businesses. These somewhat paradoxical

aspects of traffic management complicate the

planning and implementation of measures. Research

projects elsewhere have shown that it is difficult to

implement measures that aim to reduce car traffic

(Cullinane and Cullinane, 1999). One of the

bottlenecks that Holding and Kreutner (1998)

describe is the fact that local politicians are strongly

influenced by local inhabitants. As long as the

inhabitants oppose measures (like road closure or

parking charges) politician considers the

implementation of such measures as political suicide.

As long as accessibility and the income of local

business are linked with car access it is hard (or even

impossible) to implement measures that limit car use

within the area. Current policies in the Netherlands

9

seem to accept that the car will remain the most

important means of access to National Parks and

other natural areas. The aim of this policies is no

longer to reduce the number of cars but to

concentrate car traffic, for example by construction

gateway locations as is done at the Veluwezoom

National Park.

The research project at the Veluwezoom National

Park showed that many measures, like road closure,

speed restrictions, and the removal of car parks, were

suggested and implemented without detailed

knowledge about the recreational use of the area.

Lacking knowledge about the number of visitors and

their perceptions and motives, and about the number

of cars and their distribution in place and time,

managers tend to base their planning on

presumptions. Curry & Pack (1993) show that these

presumptions explain the restrictive nature of

strategic policies for countryside recreation. Measures

based on these presumptions often lack empirical

evidence. In the Veluwezoom National Park this led to

a discussion among the actors involved about the

number of cars in the area, about their negative

effects and about the necessity for measures. The

traffic-counting programme showed that high

numbers of cars are only found on a few peak days.

This knowledge focused the discussion on peak days.

People could agree that on peak days there was

indeed a high number of cars, but that most of the

time there is no reason to take specific action to

reduce the number of cars. This made the actors look

for measures that would focus on the peak day,

instead of measures that would affect all visitors, like

road closure. The experiences at the Posbank show

that traffic monitoring is very useful to get insight in

the problem as well as to convince other actors of this

problem. Measures can only be implemented if the

public is convinced that traffic-related problems do

exist (c.f. Cullinane & Cullinane, 1999).

The case of the Veluwezoom National Park showed

that the implementation of ‘stick’ measures can be

very hard if the actors involved do not see the

necessity of traffic management measures. The

responsible authorities therefore choose for a focus

on ‘carrot’ measures. In order to implement such

measures insight is needed into the relationship

between the measures and the wishes and needs of

the visitors (Pigram & Jenkins, 1999; Eaton & Holding,

1996). Such insight was sought by conducting the

visitor survey. This showed that most visitors do not

consider the high number of cars as a problem, either.

But the survey also showed that traffic concentrations

in the area are often linked to specific leisure facilities.

41% of the visitors currently park their cars at a

certain car park because of the presence of facilities.

Relocation of facilities, or the development of new

facilities, would therefore seem to be an effective way

of tempting visitors to park their car at a particular

place. The restaurants and the visitor centre are the

most frequently mentioned reasons for parking at a

particular location. Placing these provisions at the

border of the National Park will influence a significant

number of visitors to park their cars there. Other

measures that can be used are improved signposting

and road design. Many visitors, especially first time

visitors, drove to the centre of the area because there

were no specific signs at the main entrance at Heuven

directing them to the car park near the border, and

because the logical route led to the centre of the area.

The junction at the main entrance was recently

changed so that drivers have to turn in order to drive

to the centre of the area; the more obvious route now

leads to the car park near the visitor centre at Heuven.

The effect of this subtle change in the road design was

that on the first Sunday after the reconstruction the

number of cars in the car park near the visitor centre

(Heuven) was so high that there was a traffic jam.

The information collected by means of the traffic

counts and the visitor survey proved very valuable for

finding such small-scale solutions. It must be noted,

however, that only some of the traffic flow can be

influenced by such measures. The behaviour of

regular visitors who know the area and know where

they want to go is much harder to change. If one really

wants to achieve such change, “stick” measures are

unavoidable. Knowledge about traffic and visitors (the

demand side of recreation) makes it possible to find

suitable measures for influencing visitors’ behaviour

and, with it, traffic flows in the area (c.f. Curry, 1994).

Visitor monitoring (including both traffic counts and

10

visitor surveys) is therefore very important for the

management of National Parks (Cope et al., 2000;

Loomis, 2000).

Besides a lack of knowledge the interdependence

between actors involved is an important reason for

the problematic implementation. It is important to

understand that even with detailed knowledge, not all

problems are solvable. In many cases there are

several different actors involved in the

implementation of traffic management measures in

National Parks, e.g. road administrators, nature

conservation organisations, local and regional

governments, inhabitants, and the owners of

restaurants and shops. The difficulties with the

implementation of the measures can largely be

explained by the fact that the problem (in this case too

many cars in the area) is not agreed upon by the

different actors. They all have different objectives and

perceive different problems (c.f. Dickenson &

Dickenson, 2006; Guiver et al., 2006). Nature

conservationists might consider large numbers of cars

as a threat to nature values, regular visitor require the

whole area to be accessible by car, restaurant owners

need visitors to run their business, and local

inhabitants are afraid that a new visitor centre will

generate more traffic to the area. The authorities

responsible for the management of the National Park

need to deal with these different ideas about car

traffic and they need to balance the different goals and

ambitions. Actors depend on each other in order to

achieve their own objectives. This interdependence

(see Alexander, 2001 for a detailed elaboration)

encourages actors to co-operate. In our case

Natuurmonumenten needs the province for the

money, the municipality for licences, and the support

of the visitors, who may be members of the nature

conservation organization and are important for

financial support. The province can finance specific

projects, but these projects need to be co-financed by

other actors, on whom they therefore depend in order

to start these projects. The municipality in turn

depends on money from the province, but as a

political organization it cannot ignore its inhabitants’

opinions. And these opinions are strongly influenced

by the OCP. Due to these interdependencies, decision-

making is more than ever a negotiation process

between different actors (De Roo, 1999).

The Veluwezoom National Park case shows that traffic

management requires knowledge about the

recreational use of the area as well as about the

different actors involved, their goals and their

perceptions. These aspects are interrelated and can

not be considered separately. This is not always

recognised, however. Park managers and

governmental organisations often define their own

problems and their own measures and proceed to try

to collect support for these measures. But if other

actors do not agree with the problem definitions, they

are unlikely to agree on the measures. Site managers

are forced to place their plans in a wider perspective.

This explains why management plans and policies,

even those of nature conservation organisations like

Natuurmonumenten, can no longer limited

themselves to “the supremacy of conservation”

(Harrison, 1991), but also have to focus on the

demand side of recreation. Plans and policies that

take this demand side of recreation into account are

likely to gain more support and thus be more effective

in the long run (Curry 1994). Involving actors in the

decision-making processes can help to generate

knowledge, and provide the necessary resources and

legitimacy for the plans (Hajer & Zonneveld, 2000).

6. CONCLUSIONS

There are two important reasons for the problematic

implementation of traffic management measures in

the Veluwezoom National Park. The first reason is a

lack of knowledge about the recreational use of the

area. The second reason is the interdependence of

actors involved in the planning and decision making

processes.

Detailed knowledge about the recreational use of a

certain area is required in order to identify measures

that need to be implemented to solve congestion and

parking problems caused by recreational traffic.

Insight is needed into both the number of cars (and

visitors) and their fluctuation over time, and the

wishes and needs of the visitors. With this specific

11

knowledge, it is possible to use “carrot” measures

more effectively and to tempt some of the visitors to

different parking behaviour.

But information about the recreational use of an area

is not enough to identify measures and to implement

them. Many different actors are usually involved in

the decision-making processes about traffic

management. These actors are often largely

interdependent. Actors, including the managers of the

area, need each other in order to achieve their own

objectives. Traffic management in a National Park is

therefore not just a technical problem that can be

solved with information about traffic flows and

visitors’ needs. Because co-operation between

different actors is so essential, attention must also be

paid to the procedural aspects of decision-making.

To analyse traffic management, the area, its users, the

involved actors, the different objectives, and possible

measures need to be studied in relation to each other.

Insight into these relations makes it possible to

determine more realistic traffic management

measures: more realistic because they are more likely

to influence visitor behaviour and more realistic

because they will gain more support among the actors

involved in the decision-making processes.

REFERENCES

Alexander, 2001. The Planner-Prince: Interdependence, Rationalities and Post-communicative Practise. Planning Theory & Practise 2 (3), pp. 311-324.

Beunen, R., & Jaarsma, C.F., 2004. Verkeersmonitoring Posbank gebied; Analyse van het recreatieverkeer en het autobezoek in de periode november 2002 – oktober 2003. Wageningen Universiteit en Research Centrum, nota Vakgroep Ruimtelijke Planvorming 97, Wageningen.

Beunen, R. & C.F. Jaarsma, 2004. Het recreatief gebruik van het Veluwetransferium in Nunspeet. Wageningen studies in planning, analyse en ontwerp, deel 1. Leerstoelgroep landgebruiksplanning, Wageningen Universiteit, Wageningen.

Beunen, R., Jaarsma, C.F., & Kramer, R.N.A., 2004. Counting of visitors in the Meijendel dunes, The Netherlands. Journal of Coastal Conservations 10, pp. 109-118.

Beunen, R., Webster, M. & Jaarsma, C.F 2006. Monitoringsonderzoek Recreatie duingebied Meijendel. Deel XVII – Gebruik & waardering in 2005. Wageningen studies in planning, analyse en ontwerp, nr. 7. Leerstoelgroep Landgebruiksplanning, Wageningen Universiteit, Wageningen.

Bryman, A., 2004. Social research methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

CBS, 2005. Toerisme en recreatie in cijfers. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Den Haag.

Cope, A., Doxford, D., & Millar, G., 1999. Counting users of informal recreation facilities. Managing Leisure 4, pp. 229-244.

Cullinane, S.L., 1997. Traffic Management in Britain’s national parks. Transport Reviews 17 (3), pp. 267-279.

Cullinane, S.L., & Cullinane K.P.B., 1999. Attitudes towards traffic problems and public transport in the Dartmoor and Lake District National Parks. Journal of Transport Geography 7, pp. 79-87.

Cullinane, S.L., Cullinane, K.P.B., Fewings, J., & Southwell, J., 1996. Rural traffic management. The Burrator Reservoir experiment. Transport Policy 3, pp. 213-224.

Curry, N.R., & Pack, C., 1993. Planning on presumption: Strategic planning for countryside recreation in England and Wales, in: Land Use Policy 10 (2), pp. 140-150.

Curry, N.R. (1994) Countryside Recreation, Access and Land Use Planning. E&FN Spon, London.

De Roo, G., 2003.Environmental Planning in the Netherlands: Too Good to be True. From Command-and-Control Planning to Shared Governance. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Hampshire.

Dickinson, J.E., Calver, S. Watters, K. & Wilkes, K. (2004) Journeys to heritage attractions in the UK: a case study National Trust property visitors in the south west. Journal of Transport Geography 12 (2) 103–113.

Dickinson, J.E. & Dickenson J.A., 2006. Local Transport and Social Representations: Challenging the Assumptions for Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14 (2) 192-208.

Eaton, B., & Holding, D.M., 1996. The evaluation of public transport alternatives to the car in British National Parks. Journal of Transport Geography 4, pp. 55-65.

Goverde, H., Van Tatenhove, J., 2000. Power and Policy Networks. In: H. Goverde, P. Cerny, M. Haugaard, H.H. Lentner (eds.), Power and Contemporary Politics, Sage, Londen, pp. 96-111.

Guiver, J., Lumsdon, L. & Weston, R. (2006) Visitor attractions, sustainable transport and travel plans – Hadrian's Wall: a case study. Managing Leisure 11 (4)217-230.

Hajer, M., Zonneveld, W., 2000. Planning in the Network Society – Rethinking the Principles of Planning in the Netherlands. European Planning Studies, 8 (3), pp. 337-355.

Harrison, C. (1991) Countryside Recreation in a Changing Society. TMS Partnership LTD, London.

Holding, D.M., 2001. The Sanfte Mobilitaet project: achieving reduced car-dependence in European resort areas. Tourism Management 22, pp. 411-417.

Holding, D.M., & Kreutner, M., 1998. Achieving a balance between ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’ for traffic in National Parks: the Bayerischer Wald project. Transport Policy 5, pp. 175-183.

LNV (2000) Nature for People, People for Nature. Policy document for nature, forest and landscape in the 21st century. Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Food Quality, The Hague.

Lumsdon, L., Downward, P. & Rhoden, S. (2006) Transport for Tourism: Can Public Transport Encourage a Modal Shift in the Day Visitor Market? Journal of Sustainable Toursim 14 (2) 139-156.

NRIT, 2003. Dagrecreatie in Nederland 2002/2003, Nederlands Research Instituut voor Recreatie en Toerisme, Breda.

Pigram, J.J., & Jenkins, J.M., 1999. Outdoor recreation management. London: Routledge.

Regnerus, H.D., 2005. Gemotoriseerd recreatieverkeer in het Posbank-gebied: onderzoek naar kansrijke

12

sturingsmaatregelen voor het gemotoriseerde recreatieverkeer in Nationaal Park Veluwezoom. Wageningen Universiteit, Leerstoelgroep Landgebruiksplanning, Wageningen Studies in planning, analyse en ontwerp nr. 2, Wageningen.

SCP, 2006. Op weg in de vrije tijd. Context, kenmerken en dynamiek van vrijetijdsmobiliteit. Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau, Den Haag.

Steiner, T.J., & Bristow, A.L., 2000. Road pricing in National Parks: a case study in the Yorkshire Dales National Park. Transport Policy 7, pp. 93-103.

Veal, A.J., 1997. Research methods for leisure and tourism: a practical guide. Pitman Publishing, London.