How does the Rothiemurchus Concordat stand in terms of being seen a model for Cairngorms National Park?
BW: It’s really quite alarming [if this is the way forward for national parks] because it means that anybody who doesn’t happen to live within the Cairngorms area – whatever that means – is likely, as a member of the public, to be excluded. It’s not inclusive, it’s exclusive. And the key thing to remember about the Cairn- gorms is that they’re world famous as an area of mountains. Surely the people who come to visit those mountains on a regular and frequent basis – and frankly are more often on the tops than are those people who live in the valleys – should be stake- holders. As stakeholders, they are being excluded. TAC: So much of the whole funicular argument is geared around bringing money into the area where “the area” is perceived as nothing more than the surrounding villages… BW: And it’s a very limited area; it’s being painted as jobs versus con- servation but it’s much more complicated than that. The Cairngorms and the people who go walking in them bring in a huge amount of m
Related Questions
- Hampton says the Presidio model is potentially controversial among national park purists, as it risks turning national treasures into high-profile development communities. Is this a concern?
- What are the definitions of some of the terms and acronyms you use? What is the difference between a National Park, a National Monument, a National Memorial, a National Historical Park, etc?
- Is designated wilderness necessary in a national park?
