You have arrived at an Earthchild webpage. Author: Choon Ming Tan.

Visitor Impact Management - Application to Urban Tourism

http://members.lycos.co.uk/earthchild77/yr3_tour_vim.htm

Last updated 9th Jun 2002

Impacts of Tourism

Case Study: Exploring the Use of Visitor Impact Management Methodology in Evaluating Environmental Impacts at the Castlefield Urban Heritage Park

Applied Environmental and Resource Science
Final Year

Choon Ming Tan
16^th Dec 2001

Contents

Introduction to Castlefield
Objective: Why Study Visitor Impacts?
Baseline and Significant Environmental Component
- Spaciousness
- Local Residents
The Use of Perceptions as Standards
Indicators Inferred from Other Urban-Based Tourism Studies
- Difficulties in Urban Tourism Assessments
- Analogies
Impacts and Causes
- Tourist Numbers
- Noise
- Litter and Cleanliness
- Impacts on Semi-Natural Environment
- Vandalism and Crime
- Road Traffic
- Economic Returns
- Residents' Quality of Life
- Heritage Loss Indicator
- Interactions - Total Indicator
Conclusion
References

Introduction to Castlefield

Castlefield Urban Heritage Park is located to the southwest of Manchester City. It is declared in 1982 as Britain's first Urban Heritage Park (Law et al., 1986). Previously in a dilapidated state, the area was redeveloped to "breathe new life" (CMC, 2001) and "tourism (used) as a tool to regenerate (the) urban and industrial environments" (Macdonald, 2000). Presently, the park is managed by the Castlefield Management Company Limited (CMC). It aims to "develop leisure and tourism activities to compliment (Castlefield's) industrial heritage; to continue to encourage development of land for commercial and residential uses" (CMC, 2001). More details on Castlefield is available on its Internet website (CMC, 2001).

Figure 1: Map of Castlefield Urban Heritage Park. The spatial scope (study area) is confined to inside the unshaded area. Click here for a larger version of the map. (Source: OS, 1999.)

Figure 2: Detailed map of study area. Important cultural features are highlighted. Notice that most of the pubs and bars are found in the south, hotels to the northwest and mass participation event facilities located close to the main road (Liverpool Road). Key: GS - Green spaces and reconstructions of Roman artefacts; P/B - Pub or bar. Click here for a larger version of the map. (Source: OS, 2000 a and b.)

Objective: Why Study Visitor Impacts?

Castlefield is a tourist attraction because it contains "visible, identifiable services and facilities which have a predominant tourist orientation" (Pearce, 1999). Markers in the forms of pamphlets and websites (CMC 2001; CMC, not dated a and b) exist to promote the processed urban tourism resource (Hinch, 1998). Studying visitor impacts at Castlefield is useful because given the scale and concentration of tourism, the "sheer numbers of people" could result in "overkill of the area" (Clark et al., 1997) or what Macdonald (2000) portrayed as an "inundation". Thus, having qualified Castlefield as a tourist destination, the use of Visitor Impact Management (VIM) (Wight, 1998) as a study tool is appropriate. The temporal scope of the study is the present. The spatial scope is confined to the part of Castlefield south of Liverpool Road around the Canal Basin Trail (CMC, not dated b). The reason for this is because the park's Significant Environmental Components (SEC) are found almost entirely within here.

Baseline and Significant Environmental Component

The SEC of Castlefield are to be identified so that impact indicators selected can consistently be used to refer back to an area of primary concern.

Spaciousness

Urban tourist attractions such as cities share a common characteristic. A quality of the urban landscape highlighted by Pearce (2001) was the "high physical densities of structures, people and functions... compact, interesting and attractive environment". Pearce (1999) reiterated this same value as "the agglomerative nature of the components". The unique quality of the spatial element is unmistakable in Jim (2000) when he described the tourism resource as a "tightly-packed urban fabric".

Therefore, at Castlefield, the SEC that makes the park special amongst the urban landscape is its spaciousness. One is greeted by this spaciousness when he looks down from Liverpool Road into the open basin of Bridgewater Canal and the Outdoor Events Arena. The serene spaciousness is easily threatened by tourist numbers, noise, developments, etc.

Local Residents

The second SEC comprises the local residents. A principle for sustainable tourism is, regardless of location, to "seek harmony between the needs of the visitor, the place and the host community" (ETB, 1991). Clark et al. (1997) saw urban tourism as a "community industry". There are 4 factors that have to be taken into account in sustainable tourism planning: resource integrity, resident support, visitor satisfaction and investment returns (Hinch, 1998). Clearly, local residents are a pivotal SEC. At Castlefield, a new generation of host community is gradually developing; the population was 678 in 1998 (CMC, 2001). While their presence is required to sustain the Heritage Park (see section on Economic Returns), the effects of tourism impact them most. Almost any tourism impact indicators will invariably be linked to the local resident.

The Use of Perceptions as Standards

The "social construction of reality" (Chadwick et al., 1999) is critical in impact assessment because ultimately it is the person who judge whether an environmental effect is a significant impact. "What a person perceives to be the situation determines how that person responds to the situation and cannot be ignored" (Glasson, 1994). An inherent risk of subjectivity overwhelming objectivity exists. But as Wight (1998) argued, "The problem is one of debating... and cannot be avoided". This salient point is reiterated in the next section. Ideally, local residents (as well as other stakeholders such as boat operators) would be the appropriate persons to set standards for the impact indicators. A survey should be conducted to seek their perceptions to evaluate the impact significance of the current state of tourism at Castlefield. In this exploratory exercise, opinions from 4 persons who either tour or work at Castlefield were sought. Site visits were made on 26^th Nov, 1^st and 3^rd Dec. The author also applied his own understanding to evaluate the impacts.

Indicators Inferred from Other Urban-Based Tourism Studies

Difficulties in Urban Tourism Assessments

The author could not locate many literature that studied the environmental impacts of urban tourism. This problem was similarly echoed by Clark et al. (1997). Impacts, if any, on urban environments are hardly distinguishable (Jim, 2000). Clark et al. (1997) has succinctly summarised, "Tourist activities are wholly integrated into other urban behavioural, functional and physical patterns; rarely exclusive or easily definable as they would be in more rural areas". It seems that tourism impact studies would be more productive if conducted in rural environments. Compared to urban environments, the countryside is more sensitive to human impacts; the former is more "durable" (Clark et al., 1997) or as Pearce (2001) would describe the "remarkable permanence of the attractiveness of cities".

Out of the two U.K. studies reviewed that studied urban tourism impacts, one was conducted on Oxford (Glasson, 1994) and the other was a comparative impact study of two cities - Canterbury and Guildford (Clark et al., 1997). The primary element that attracts tourists to Oxford and Canterbury is the cities' historical heritage. Clark et al. (1997) and Glasson (1994) relied solely on survey information feedback from local residents (and tourists as in the case of Glasson (1994)) to assess the magnitude of tourism impact on these cities. The value of subjective perceptions is fully utilised; the use of valued judgment is appropriate in tourism impact studies.

Analogies

The two above-mentioned case studies would be useful in assessing tourism impacts at Castlefield. Impacts on a locality attributable to tourism are numerous (France, 1997 and Tan, 2001). In turn, the number of indicators that could be derived to gauge the magnitude of the impacts would be equally numerous. Because the selection of indicators is based on valued judgment, the above-mentioned validated case studies would serve to identify the significant urban tourism impacts, from which indicators can be derived.

Table 1: Table of indicators, which are linked to significant urban tourism impacts. The noise factor is only highlighted by Glasson (1994). (Factors are derived from Clark et al. (1997) and Glasson (1994).)

Factors (or indicators) covered by both Clark et al. (1997) and Glasson (1994) in their studies are summarised in the above table. In the next section, the indicators are discussed in the context of Castlefield, whether the indicators show that tourism is a problem at Castlefield. Problems occur when the condition of the indicator deteriorates beyond perceived acceptable standards (Glasson, 1994). The author then attempts to explain the causes of these impacts.

Impacts and Causes

Tourist Numbers

Overcrowding affects tourist experience satisfaction as well as the quality of life of local residents. And yet taking into account the nature of the physical resources at Castlefield, it may not be considered a significant impact. The GBP 1 million Arena (CMC, 2001) is designed to accommodate large numbers of people and to withstand wear and tear. The concrete and rock surfaces make for easy maintenance.

Tourism promotional media (CMC, 2001 and CMC, not dated a) sells carnivals, festivals, concerts, etc to tourists. Already, numerous mass participation events have been held at the open space including International Arts Festivals and Music Concerts (CMC, 2001 and CMC, not dated a). Event participants presumably expect and anticipate crowdedness. Mass participation may even be the factor that attracts tourists.

Graham Sandham (2001) disagreed that Castlefield has any specific carrying capacity. He estimated that Castlefield receives 50,000 - 60,000 tourists per weekend in summer. Numbers peak when large-scale events are organised. Sandham (2001) explained that the crowd is a moving one as compared to a stagnant crowd. Tourists move through the Arena onto other event attractions spread around Castlefield. Effective planning of leisure programmes disperses tourists rather than concentrate tourist activities in one location within Castlefield. CMC also directs organisers of events that are expected to draw massive crowds to other locations such as Heaton Park.

Sandham (2001) however admitted that overcrowding might pose an impact on safety. The risk of falling into the canal is not reduced by the fact that there are neither railings nor a chain barrier. Direct intervention with temporary barriers and restricting tourists from entering the Arena helps to maintain a level of safety (Sandham, 2001). There have been cases of people falling into the canal, 2 metres at the deepest point, and one drowned last year (Gall, 2001).

The seasonality of tourism, between April and September, is one primary cause of tourist concentration. Tourism promotion of Castlefield encourages large-scale events, which is in line with CMC's management objectives, i.e. facilitate leisure, recreational and entertainment use of the park (CMC, 2001 and Sandham, 2001).

Castlefield is clearly designed and managed for crowds. Moreover, the higher the number of tourists, the stronger is the justification that Castlefield is economically viable urban land use. However, perceptions and preferences vary amongst individuals. Sandham (2001) promotes tourism. Peter Brine (2001), a New Zealander, owns a family narrowboat on the canal. A tourist himself, he described enthusiastically how the Arena was "jumping" with people in June. Local residents staying in the nearby housing estate at Slate Wharf are unlikely to share Brine's (2001) lively account of carnivals on the Arena.

Noise

The waterfront locality would make Slate Wharf an up market housing estate. The author assumes that residents are young urbanites working in Manchester City. Slate Wharf is easily accessible from the Arena via the modern Merchants' Bridge. Visually, it is partly obscured by the railway viaducts. It is located to the south of Castlefield, in the proximity of where most of Castlefield's pubs and bars are found.

Sandham (2001) was not exceedingly concerned about residents' complaints of crowdedness and of the noise generated by tourist activities. With regards to residents, he echoed a similar opinion as Eamon Gall (2001), who operates a "City Centre Cruises" narrowboat on the canal. Local residents moved in only after Castlefield has been established as an urban tourist attraction. They should have been aware of the hustle and bustle that tourism may create (Gall, 2001). They had probably mistaken Castlefield Urban Heritage Park for a serene pocket within the city (Sandham, 2001). Brine (2001) explained that noise is not a source of impact because noise coming from the mass participation events would naturally become background noise or "white noise" as he called it. He is not a permanent resident.

The author had no opportunity to interview a resident. But he noticed that 2 flats had put up notices for sale and on one occasion he chanced upon a property agent. These could possibly indicate the negative impacts that tourism has on local residents; noise nuisance would certainly be one of the causes.

Noise generated by tourism is seasonal. Background noise nuisances that need to be differentiated from tourism sources are the rumbling of trains overhead and also that caused by locals (and tourists) drinking at the pubs and bars in the evenings.

Nevertheless, more residential land uses have been designated within Castlefield. Apartments developed by "Gleeson Homes" are up for sale in a block along Liverpool Road beside the Castlefield Visitor Centre. "Bellway Homes" is developing a residential project on a plot southwest of Slate Wharf. From the beginning, there have been plans for residential developments inside Castlefield; it is one of CMC's management objectives (CMC, 2001). Although land use conflicts will persist, there is probably an economic imperative for residential developments. This point will be elaborated on in a later section.

Litter and Cleanliness

The association between tourism and litter is not difficult to establish. The visual impact that litter cause is plain to see; it has led to what Madan (2000) described as "presenting an appalling sight" or more vividly, an Anonymous (2000) wrote, "Like dogs' poop on city pavements..." Litter created by tourist activities threatens the very resource on which tourism depends on; it not only impacts aesthetics but hygiene, smell, ambience, visitor satisfaction and residents' attitudes towards the tourist trade as well. Litter is a good indicator of tourism impact.

How much is too much? As so far as the author is concerned, out of the few site visits he had made, Castlefield inside the Canal Basin Trail (CMC, not dated b) appeared impressively spick and span. This was except for a public litterbin placed outside the "Barca" bar in Catalan Square. It was full and the contents did not seem to have changed on the author's second inspection (1^st Dec) compared to his first visit 5 days earlier (26^th Nov).

The time of the year affects the magnitude of the litter problem. It may pose a significant problem during the tourist season. 6 large wheeled garbage containers parked by the side of the Arena should indicate the quantity of rubbish one might expect. Because Castlefield grounds are mostly hard and flat surfaces, maintenance should be relatively easy even if tourist activities generated a lot of litter. More maintenance crew are probably employed over summer.

Impacts on Semi-Natural Environment

Together with the Arena, the canal system forms the heart of Castlefield. The water body attracts attention because it contrasts strongly with the surrounding solid grounds. It is also an easy receptacle for pollution. Litter such as plastic bottles, bags and wrappers as well as leaf litter tend to collect at the end of canal arms. Sometimes, an oil film covering a small area was also observed. The oil is an indirect impact of tourism, resulting most probably from boat maintenance work and or minor operation discharges. The nature of water pollution, as a tourism impact indicator, behaves like that of litter mentioned in the previous section: it is seasonal, may be acute but short-term, dispersed and fairly easy to mitigate.

The most prominent green spaces in Castlefield are located at the sites of the Roman artefact reconstructions, i.e. the Northgate between Liverpool Road and Beaufort Street and at the Granary behind the Arena. Damage to the grassy areas could serve as an indicator of tourism impact. They are more impact sensitive compared to the hard grounds found in most other parts of Castlefield. The grass patches were lush; they appeared well maintained. However, potholes and tracks had been made onto the inside slopes of the "defensive ditches".

It is doubtful whether impacts on the green spaces are representative of the total tourism impact on Castlefield as a whole. Unlike the canals, the green spaces form only a small part of Castlefield. Also, whether or not tourists use (and appreciate) them is another factor to consider. School groups have been observed to use these spaces for educational tours. Other users may not be as keenly interested in the historical value of Castlefield. Moreover, judging from the promotional pamphlets (CMC, not dated a and b) it appears that the central selling point of Castlefield is the large Arena, the canals, and the leisure cum entertainment facilities built around it. The green spaces are not even included as part of the Canal Basin Trail (CMC, not dated b). Or from a management point-of-view, could this be a deliberate attempt to reduce tourism impacts on the green spaces and Roman artefact reconstructions?

Vandalism and Crime

Sandham (2001) denied that vandalism is a problem in Castlefield: the area is mostly open space and people are almost always present. There are few opportunities spatially and temporally to commit vandalism except in the early morning hours between 2 - 5 a.m.

An information panel outside the Castlefield Visitor Centre had paint sprayed on it. A wall at the top of the flight of steps leading from the Arena up to Duke Place as well as another panel found beside the reconstructed Grocers' Warehouse too were spray-painted. Graffiti had been etched off the reconstructed Roman Bench. Graffiti was also found on the wall mural depicting an entourage of Roman legionnaires below the Metrolink along Beaufort Street. A plaque located at the Granary reconstruction was vandalised too.

It may not be effective to employ vandalism level as an impact indicator. The above examples were confined to fairly secluded spots in Castlefield. The area around the Roman artefact reconstructions offers tempting opportunities for vandalism. It is also expected that a "background" level of vandalism will always be present (Sandham, 2001). The perpetrators could be locals, possibly the 11 - 15 years old teenagers described with undisguised dislike by Brine (2001). More importantly, it is not known when the vandalism acts described above were committed. Could they have accumulated over time? Or it could be that maintenance of these parts of Castlefield is not a management priority.

Lastly, Gall (2001) complained about how drunkards from the nearby bars would come down to the wharf at night and kick at boat windows. The incidences occurred after "Barca" started business a few years back. The problem was serious enough to compel boat operators to install metal screens. Pubs and bars are sustainable (year round) avenues of tourist revenue in Castlefield. Revenue is a potential tourism impact indicator: the higher the revenue the lower the impact (see later section on Economic Returns). However as is observed in this situation, it conflicts with the well-being of cruise boat operations and reflects unfavourably on the vandalism indicator.

Road Traffic

Congested road traffic would indicate a greater tourism impact on the local environment producing knock-on effects such as air pollution, noise nuisance and increased accident risks. However, the traffic indicator needs to be complemented with information regarding tourists' mode of transport. More may come by public transport, chartered buses and by foot. Assuming then again that more arrive via car, the innumerable car-parking facilities in and around Castlefield should adequately accommodate peak weekend crowds of 50,000 - 60,000 in the summer. Moreover, taken up by city workers during weekdays, these car parks would be empty in the weekends. In the following, a short list of car park locations is given:

- Along Water Street
- Along Potato Wharf Road
- Junction of Lower Byrom Street and Quay Street
- End of Duke Street
- End of Castle Street
- Area around the former Congregational Chapel
- Between Deansgate and Watson Street

On Bank Holiday Mondays when the Street Market is organised, Liverpool Road is sealed off to increase Castlefield's capacity for tourist activities (Sandham, 2001). As in other potential impacts, planning and design of facilities have been demonstrated to alleviate anticipated tourism impacts.

Economic Returns

In order that urban tourism is sustainable, there has to have an "economic return on investment" (Hinch, 1998). Basically, it means that the attraction needs to be economically viable. This is important more so given that the leisure resource occupies prime city land. The economic performance of Castlefield, in terms of gross annual revenue generated from the varied businesses, could be an indicator of tourism impact. Castlefield is promoted as a tourist attraction. If it could not attract tourists, in this case measured in terms of revenue, there may be no justification for its conservation (if assuming that Castlefield's heritage alone does not warrant its perpetuation).

The tourism trade is seasonal: it is a problem (Sandham, 2001). This fluctuation is unlikely to affect local residents, as these new generation urbanites probably do not work within Castlefield. It will have impacts on the management i.e. CMC itself, boat operators, hoteliers and the pubs and bars. The author interviewed Gall (2001) when the latter was passing time maintaining his narrowboat. The cruises are busiest in summer. In winter, business drops to almost nil except for ferries to and fro Manchester United Stadium. The boats cannot run when the canals are frozen. A restaurant boat however operates throughout the year hosting parties and functions. Regardless, business had in recent years declined and "City Centre Cruises" for which company Gall (2001) is working for, is contemplating pulling its business out of Bridgewater Canal.

Tourists (excluding educational visits by school groups) are encouraged to visit and use Castlefield's facilities through a multitude of promotional media and mass participation events. Taking into account that tourism is a positional good, the demand for Castlefield will vary (possibly decline) if it does not continuously remake itself to sell to tourists. Tourism impacts the Urban Heritage Park most when the park loses its tourism value and tourists no longer come.

For these reasons, the author would postulate thus why numerous pubs, bars and residential apartments are included within the development of Castlefield. The author counted at least 6 pubs/bars (most prominently are "Barca", "Dukes 92" and "Jacksons Wharf") and 3 residential developments on the fringes of the Canal Basin Trail (CMC, not dated b). The pubs and bars are opened for business all year round, though understandably sales would not be as high outside than during the tourist season. Local resident population increased from 250 to 678 over the years 1992 - 1998 (CMC, 2001). Allocating residential land use inside Castlefield is another means of sustaining economic returns through winter though it inevitable implies conflicts with the summer tourist trade. If not for the pubs, bars and residents, Castlefield is under utilised in winter.

In appears that the management authorities are addressing tourism impact on Castlefield's economy. Tourist numbers for Castlefield and Manchester City dropped in the last season according to Sandham (2001). Norman Smith (2001) works as a car park attendant at Castlefield. His opinion on tourist numbers sums up the need for sustained tourism suitably, "Tourists are not a nuisance, the more the better it is: they bring revenue into Castlefield".

Residents' Quality of Life

Local residents probably do not benefit from tourism revenue but by paying rents on their apartments they contribute to Castlefield's economy. Although they are composed of a new generation of city workers who possess no heritage cultural roots in Castlefield (as the author had postulated previously, see earlier section on Noise), local residents are, nonetheless, a Significant Environmental Component of the urban park (Clark et al., 1997; CMC, 2001; ETB, 1991, Hinch, 1998 and see section on Baseline and SEC). Apart from the seasonal influx of tourists, they form the permanent human or cultural identity of a redeveloped Castlefield. Residents, by their presence, may determine Castlefield's sustainability both as an urban park and as a tourism resource. Their perceptions on tourist activities is a required indicator in tourism impact assessment.

Residents' reaction to tourism can be gauged by Shaw et al.'s (1997) "Irritation Index", which ranges from euphoria, apathy, annoyance and finally to antagonism. From surveys that sought residents' feedback to questions pertained to quality of life aspects, Clark et al. (1997) suggested that the Irritation Index of residents in Canterbury city lay between apathy and annoyance. Such a survey may similarly be conducted for Castlefield and residents' acceptance to the current state of tourism evaluated.

Heritage Loss Indicator

If Castlefield is strategically marketed for its leisure and entertainment attractions, will that marketing strategy lead to an erosion of its heritage values?

An information panel tucked away in a far end of Castlefield below a sandstone river cliff proudly exclaims "Bridgewater Canal heralds the start of the Canal Age in Britain". The sandstone cliff, visible through openings in the brick facade, was cut back to construct the Bridgewater Canal terminus. How many tourists care to notice the sandstone? How many of the annual 2.5 million tourists to Castlefield are aware of the place's historical and educational value?

As noted earlier, the green spaces where reconstructions of the city's Roman heritage stood appeared neglected by management and apparently are a target of vandals. As the author understands, the "Heritage" in "Urban Heritage Park" has merely been used as a marketing tool, and to attract funding (Sandham, 2001). Directed by the invisible hands of market forces, Castlefield's developments seem to be dominated by leisure and entertainment facilities catering specifically to modern demands; this is evident in the numerous bars and waterfront apartments. Gall (2001) was disappointed that the number of family groups visiting Castlefield had declined compared to the park's heydays.

The author was informed that the shut down of Castlefield Management Company has been delayed (Gall, 2001). Who will then act to promote the location's historical and educational importance? Will Castlefield eventually become homogenised not unlike its surrounding urban landscape? Perhaps one could take heed from the management of Fort Edmonton Park (Alberta, Canada). The management there believes that the urban attraction's competitive advantage lies in its unique heritage value and that no place else "can copy this sense of place" (Hinch, 1998).

Explained above is a less definable form of impact caused by tourist led economy. Nevertheless, its significance cannot be understated as the very essence of the Castlefield Urban Heritage Park is at stake. Heritage loss is a potential impact indicator. It is measurable by visitors' awareness of the place's historical values.

Interactions - Total Indicator

Figure 3: Network diagram showing the concept of a total indicator. Impact indicators function interdependently. (Figure produced by the author.)

A problem encountered when drawing up the list of impact indicators was that each indicator is not wholly exclusive to itself. Indicators interact amongst themselves; interactions may be conflicting or reinforcing. For example, while high economic returns indicate positive tourism impact, other indicators such as heritage loss, vandalism, litter and noise may however indicate the contrary. Reinforcing interactions could be demonstrated by the close relationship between tourist numbers and noise.

Each indicator by itself may not be a true representation of the total tourism impact on Castlefield as a whole. Some indicators are relevant to and are more sensitive in certain parts of the park. An example would be the indicator that measures the condition of the few patches of green space in Castlefield. Castlefield offers many tourism opportunities with its numerous facilities; the nature and characteristics of each resource varies in their response and capacity to absorb impacts.

Tourist characteristics vary widely (Cater, 1993 and Glasson, 1994). Their consumption pattern differs from individual to individual. Their purpose of visit is equally variable. Tom may arrive by bus (reduces traffic volume) but carelessly deposits his litter around the park (adds to pollution). Harry instead drives to Castlefield (increases traffic and pollutes the air), strolls through the park (is not a noise nuisance) and purchases dinner at a local cafe (contributes to the park's revenue). Relying on any one single impact indicator would prove inadequate and perhaps erroneous.

The aim of the network diagram (Figure 3) is to demonstrate interactions between impact indicators, and the need for a total indicator i.e. to examine the results of all the indicators across the board to evaluate the whole picture. It should then be able to account for variations in resource impact susceptibility, tourist consumption, and individual's perception and preference. Tourists are ultimately the cause of impacts and local residents are ultimately the end receivers of impacts. The satisfaction levels of these 2 groups serve as primary indicators. Then there are the intermediate indicators (not all the linkages between them are shown in the diagram). They are underlain by Castlefield's Significant Environmental Components, spaciousness and local residents, which are identified at the start of this exploratory exercise. Planning, design and management of Castlefield have strong influence over almost all but one indicator: residents' opinions.

Another problem that surfaced is the temporal dependence of the indicators (Glasson, 1994). Baseline changes. Perceptions change with societal trends. Demand changes. Supply changes: the resources at Castlefield and management policies governing the park may alter a few years from now. The author insists that the development direction of Castlefield Urban Heritage Park will have powerful effects on impacts, and its sustainability, whether Castlefield retains a strong link with its past or neglect it to cater to modern tourist's demands for leisure and entertainment, or strive for a continual balance between both.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that high tourist numbers have no significant negative impacts on Castlefield. The tourism resource is designed primarily to absorb big crowds for leisure and entertainment uses. The benefit to the park is its sustainability as a tourist attraction. The costs are inevitably borne by local residents. Instead of overcrowding and the effects that this creates, a more chronic impact is posed by the decline in tourist arrivals. Already, this problem is manifesting itself: the closing down of Castlefield Management Company and a boat operator's intentions to move his business out of Castlefield.

VIM guides the approach into assessing, evaluating and managing impacts at a tourist destination. It is flexible (Wight, 1998). The user determines how the different steps in VIM are to be carried out. It is important to set out the environmental baseline and/ or management objectives of the tourist destination. The user should be aware of the spatial scale and temporal period at which VIM is applied. Also, the nature and characteristics of resources (facilities) must be put into site-specific context, taken into account and explained. The user needs to consider the interactions between indicators as well.

References

ANONYMOUS, (2000), Rubbish dumps, Bangkok Post, 18^th Dec 2000.

BRINE P, (2001), Per. Comm. on 1^st Dec 2001, Proprietor of the narrowboat "New Zealand Water".

CATER E, (1993), Ecotourism in the Third World: problems for sustainable tourism development, Tourism Management, v14 no2, Apr 1993, pp85-90.

CHADWICK A, Glasson J and Therivel R, (1999), Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment (2ed), UCL Press Limited, London.

CLARK M and Gilbert D, (1997), An exploratory examination of urban tourism impact, with reference to residents attitudes, in the cities of Canterbury and Guildford, Cities, v14 no 6, pp343-352.

CMC (Castlefield Management Company Limited), (2001), Castlefield Urban Heritage Park Homepage, CMC, Manchester. Website at www.castlefield.org.uk (accessed Nov 2001).

CMC (Castlefield Management Company Limited), (not dated a), Castlefield Urban Heritage Park: Amazing Days in Manchester (pamphlet), CMC, Manchester.

CMC (Castlefield Management Company Limited), (not dated b), Castlefield: The Canal Basin Trail (phamplet), CMC, Manchester.

ETB (English Tourist Board, Countryside Commission and Rural Development Commission), (1991), The Green Light: A Guide to Sustainable Tourism, ETB, London.

FRANCE L (ed), (1997), The Earthscan Reader in: Sustainable Tourism, Earthscan, London.

GALL E, (2001), Per. Comm. on 26^th Nov 2001, Operator onboard a narrowboat owned by the "City Centre Cruises". Website at www.citycentrecruises.co.uk (accessed Nov 2001).

GLASSON J, (1994), Oxford: a heritage city under pressure, Tourism Management, v15 no2, pp137-144.

HINCH TD, (1998), Sustainable urban tourist attractions: The case of Fort Edmonton Park, in Hall CM and Lew AA (ed), (1998), Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective, Longman, Harlow.

JIM CY, (2000), Environmental changes associated with mass urban tourism and nature tourism development in Hong Kong, The Environmentalist, v20 no3, Sep 2000, pp233-247.

LAW CM and Tuppen JN, (1986), Tourism and Greater Manchester: The Final Report of the Urban Tourism Research Project, The University of Salford (Department of Geography), Salford.

MACDONALD R, (2000), Urban tourism: An inventory of ideas and issues, Built Environment, v26 no2, pp90-98.

MADAN S and Rawat L, (2000), The impacts of tourism on the environment of Mussoorie Garhwal Himalaya, India, The Environmentalist, v20, pp249-255.

OS (Ordnance Survey), (1999), Landplan SJ89NW, scale: 1:10,000, J Smith and Son, Glasgow.

OS (Ordnance Survey), (2000a), Superplan SJ8397NW, scale 1:1,250, Waterstones, Manchester.

OS (Ordnance Survey), (2000b), Superplan SJ8397SW, scale 1:1,250, Waterstones, Manchester.

PEARCE DG, (1999), Tourism in Paris: Studies at the Microscale, Annals of Tourism Research, v26 no1, Jan 1999, pp77-97.

PEARCE DG, (2001), An integrative framework for urban tourism research, Annals of Tourism Research, v28 no4, pp926-946.

SANDHAM G, (2001), Per. Comm. on 26^th Nov 2001, Personnel at Castlefield Visitor Centre, Castlefield Management Company Limited.

SHAW G and Williams AM, (1997), Individual consumption of tourism, in France L (ed), (1997), The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism, Earthscan, London.

SMITH N, (2001), Per Comm. on 3^rd Dec 2001, Car park attendant of car park located along Potato Wharf Road within the Canal Basin Trail.

TAN CM, (2001), Undergraduate Essay: Impacts of the Tourism Industry, School of Environment and Life Sciences, The University of Salford. Website at http://members.lycos.co.uk/earthchild77/yr3_tourism_impact.doc (accessed Dec 2001).

WIGHT P, (1998), Tools for sustainability analysis in planning and managing tourism and recreation in the destination, in Hall CM and Lew AA (ed), (1998), Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective, Longman, Harlow.