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.