350
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
stages. In effect, this means working from the specific to the general, guiding
awareness and understanding through familiar channels to less familiar
subjects.
The use for interpretive purposes offilling stations,refreshment facilities,local
shops and other outlets used in rural areas by passing visitors is still minimaland
yet, if one wants to get over a message, the places to do it are where the audience
are. In Iceland, for example, supermarket and post office employees provide
visitor information and orientation. The same is true in other countries and,
indeed, in parts of rural UK where, perforce, local people and retail outlets
become at least informal tourist information points.
Another consideration is the use of mobile interpretive facilities such as an
informationcaravanor trailer. This approach has some advantages – it allows its
sponsors to take interpretation to the audience – but a mobile facility can only
ever be in one place at a time and, for the day or short-break visitor, is no more or
less convenient than a fixed centre. The exception is the use of mobile facilities at
major events when there is a concentrated audience.
There are other considerations, not least those concerned with financial
aspects, when considering a single new centre against an improved network of
centres and we have therefore set out an extended ‘swot’ analysis of the strengths
and weaknesses, opportunities and threats attributable to each of the two
options.
SWOT analysis
The following SWOT analysis has been constructed to provide a brief
summary of views on the two options after consultation with representatives
from key organisations and interested parties. The consultation took the form
of informal unstructured interviews. Thirty-nine people were consulted
including representatives from LocalGovernment, the Regional TouristBoard,
site and policy representatives from relevant Agencies (such as English Nature,
English Heritage, Environment Agency, Forest Enterprise, Countryside
Commission (as it was then) and the RSPB), Wildlife Trusts, local visitor attrac-
tions and various national organisations (such as National Farmers’ Union,
Country Landowners’ Association and the National Trails Office). The SWOT
analysis does not necessarily represent the views of individual organisations
but the entries in the analysis represent the ‘culled’ and collective views of
those consulted.
In addition to these interviews, relevant documentation was reviewed,
including for example, economic impact studies, visitor surveys and local and
regional heritage and tourism strategies. Consultation with the marketplace was
outside the remit for this project, however, an analysis of the marketplace did
take place and four visitor groups were identified as potential markets for the
‘Brecks’. There groups were; ‘empty nesters’, young couples (the so called ‘din-
kies’ – dual income no kids), families and enthusiasts. In order to gauge visitor
reaction to the dispersal option it was recommended that these visitor groups be
consulted as a second stage to the project. More importantly, it was recom-
mended that community consultation should also form part of this second stage
in order to seek local support. (See Table 1.)