Why I am no longer talking about behaviour.
On access to the outdoors as an unconditional right
But if we let more people into natural spaces they won't know how to behave
How often have I heard this in meetings from gatekeepers around physical access to National Parks, AONBs and other blue and green spaces. It always gets to a variation on this. They will litter. They will swamp sites. They will drive. They will ruin paths. They will let their dogs kill and mutilate sheep*. It comes up every time we talk about more people getting into these places. It becomes turbo charged when we talk about more and different people having access. Indeed - there seems to be a direct correlation between the more people are 'different' to the gatekeepers and the strength of the focus on behaviours.
NB - lest anyone assumes who I am talking about when I talk about gatekeepers - in truth most of us who work in this area hold some form of gatekeeping. I include myself in that with my day job; with where I live and because of the power I hold. To split people into either gatekeepers or those who are denied access is a falsehood. While clearly some hold more power to deny access than others gatekeeping occurs at many levels.
And this focus on behaviour spills into other forms of access. They aren't skilled enough for jobs. They require the bar to be lowered to be involved in governance. They don't know the rules of power.
No more. I am not discussing behaviour as part of work on access again.
And here are 5 reasons why not:
It places a conditionality; these discussions are usually led by the gatekeepers/those with some power. And they place a conditionality on access that isn't real. This conditionality can include access being granted if people only do the things we value (20 mile yomp rather than a bimble in jeans and flip flops); obeying ‘our’ social codes; living locally; looking like us; following rules like the Countryside Code.
I hear the collective intake of breath on that last one. But yes. Access is not reliant on following Countryside Code. People can litter, leave gates open etc. and still be as entitled to be there as somebody who does not. Access is not conditional. These are public assets.
It others. It always starts with what ‘they’ should do. How ‘they’ should behave. Their one trip a year to walk the hills will ruin paths – my 300 days a year fell runs do not. Their sitting down in the river at Dovedale ruins the look of the landscape - our 50 strong walking group in bright yellow jackets look great (yes someone actually wrote both those things in the same discussion.) Their dogs pass poo. My dogs pass environmentally friendly biodegradable poo that can be left in the grass. They don’t say hello when they walk past. We scowl at their very presence.
And this passes on the responsibility to ‘them’ not ‘us’. It is their behaviours that are damaging places and space. Not ours.
There is a case that 'they' is one of most dangerous words in English language
It is a deficit model. It assumes people will do bad things. That is the starting point. The Access section in the government response to the Glover Review listed more potential new rules and laws to protect against a few people than it did solutions to getting more people outside. It runs contra to all the evidence that people want to - and usually do - take care of these places and spaces.
Trigger warning; racist and disablist language
It supports bigotry. Is every person worried about behaviour a bigot? Of course not. Does every bigot hide behind behaviour concerns to hide prejudices? Come on. We know that they do.
At best this is tied up in stereotypes and at worst clear bigotry. Many resort to tropes that have no evidence - honestly the urban myth that urban dwellers have no respect for countryside bores. Young people have more care and concern for environment than the generations above them. And NIMBYism is alive and kicking.
But to pretend that something bleaker doesn't underpin 'behaviour' comments on access is to condone a set of prejudices that have no place in society. That 50 members of the National Trust thought it okay to use the words 'deplorable' and 'not becoming' in terms of opening up NT green and blue spaces to more gay people; that Richard Leaf’s attempt to open up the Lake District led to tweets on ‘not wanting their mosques here’; from mealy mouth ‘culturally diverse’ are ruining our posh lands through to outright racism comments not even hiding behind euphemism; to rolled eyes when someone asks for a changing place toilet so that people can go to toilet with dignity.
When we make access to public resources conditional. When we centre it in ‘they’. When we assume people will do bad. This aids this bigotry - it makes life easier for the haters.
And I am not doing it any more.
It distracts us from bigger issues. So do I care about the coke can left behind? Of course. Do I care that coke and other big producers are wrecking the environment? Yes slightly bigger concern. Do I care about the noisy incomers who let their dogs mutilate and kill sheep? Yep. Do I care as much about the local setting up a drone display from their home during lambing season? Of course.
Do I care about wild camping in ‘wrong place’. Yep. A bit. Maybe. Actually, to be fair not so much. In fact I do think that alongside public rights of way we also need public rights of stay where people can stop, sit and sleep. Heck. What about more sex in National Parks and AONBs (don't 'at' me - it isn't generally illegal unless you intend to be seen and where better to hide than a massive open space. Obviously avoid the gorse).
Ashdown Forest gorse - quite sharp!
Sorry that was rambling side note.
Do I care that many young people cannot live in their blue/green space because of AirBnB/rural housing? Does that worry me slightly more than a tent? Yes.
Do I care that farming is becoming harder and harder? That rural businesses increasingly struggle? Very much.
Do I care about how we manage honeypot sites in a way that considers the needs of businesses and consumers, locals and visitors? Yes.
Do I care that we protect nature and these precious spaces? Of course. It is part of my life's work.
But when we centre debates that claim to be about increasing and diversifying access on behaviour we weaken both the access agenda AND the work to create solutions to protect nature and our green/blue spaces and landscapes. And I am not doing that any more.
Access is an entitlement. It is not conditional.
Behaviour belongs to us all. Managing honey pot sites. Teaching all the countryside code. Owning our personal responsibilities. Engaging in respectful debate. Developing creative solutions to connect people and place working with all people. Challenging the bigots. Never needed more.
And if we want the fight against the attacks on nature to be more than just (very nice) white male leaders in the media and writing letters to the government then these solutions have to be inclusive. Our access work shouldn't be centre on behaviour. Rather our work on protecting nature and these spaces should
assume unconditional access for all
include a focus on our personal behaviours
acknowledge that people want to do the right things
challenge bigotry
develop an inclusive protection plan
share power
I am doing that.
* I changed this from 'worrying sheep' to this more explicit description of the issue in response to request from a farmer. Shows the importance of language and of defining the right issue. Farmer was clear he didn't care whether local or visitor. Rather that he has lost 3 sheep recently. So perhaps a good example of where this is not an access issue - rather a behaviour one that we have to tackle together.
With thanks those at AONB Conference, South Downs Partnership Board, Outdoor Connection, Ashdown Forest and all my networks that have helped shaped this thinking and who are working hard to open access to blue and green public assets for all. I am sure it will be an evolving position.
Very well said! Agreed! To all!
On the one hand, I understand the fear of "others"—when I joined the police after spending most of my life in science and academia, I was terrified of everyone. Quickly, I realised how deeply ingrained my unconscious biases were. I was, frankly, disgusted with myself.
The funny thing is, I was now perceived as different - my education level, interests, hobbies, language - everything was different. Good to become a minority to understand. But then, I became the minor minority - I was autistic with ADHD and had to mask as I was no longer surrounded by boffins. The police force was also very poor in terms of diversity. In academia, your nationality did not matter; here, in the police, it did. And I am of mixed heritage...
Needless to say, I was bullied. I then became physically disabled and realised how marginalised are people like me.
What I have learnt in life is humility and that we are all human beings with the same rights and dignity, and we are all lovable.
Human Rights are inalienable no matter where you are from and who you are. Full stop.
So, I guess people who are afraid need to change their perceptions, as these are dangerous—not only to others but also to themselves.
You don't have to like it, but you have to respect it.
Secondly, just as you said, and what I am now collating to remove stiles from Welsh paths (I just moved here from Sussex last year), the behaviour is here already and has nothing to do with the level of access to nature.
I spent almost 10 years in the police, and what I learnt was that public bodies and statutory partners DO NOT use common sense and DO NOT listen. I also learnt that "target hardening' for anti-social behaviours like removing benches does not provide loitering - it only isolates elderly people who no longer can walk as there is nowhere to stop for them to rest. The youth move somewhere else doing the nasty deeds. It's like putting a plaster on catastrophic exsanguination and ticking the box; there, we did what we could. The same is true for stiles in Wales. I guess to prevent offroad bikes - guess what - did not stop them, but now we have damaged banks because they are off-road and thus can ride around the stile... but disabled people cannot use forestry routes - the only routes that are extant - have you ever tried using OS maps for hiking in south wales? dont. Footpaths are gone. But I digress.
Not allowing people to use green and blue spaces is inherently wrong.
It is our right. And it is in the public interest.
People who are a risk to the countryside and forestry are ALREADY doing it, and whether it is permitted or not, they don't care as they are people like this. Whereas peole who care, will not use those spaces.
We need access to land - this year, I gave a speech on the healing of walking and nature based on my professional and personal experience. Or, we can bulldozer all green urban spaces, add a pinch of concrete here and there, prevent access to the green/blue spaces and watch NHS crumbling even more. We are in the XXI Century, and yet we still don't look at well-being holistically, not only in terms of body, mind and spirit, a nota bene concept from thousands of years before Christ and still working for Eastern cultures, but also as a system - want to prevent ASB? don't take benches away. Go to the source. Expensive? Long? Yes, of course, it is - everything that works is...