erns. Actual use 
and possible fu- 
future develop 
ed or deflected 
tors influencing 
ining recreation 
the main conser- 
to only identify 
aspect to their 
ch parts of the 
r aim of conser- 
"permissive ap- 
lis approach are 
Is (Meulen 1985) 
area in Czecho- 
>aches or varia- 
One major fur- 
i respect to the 
devaluation for 
e a distinction 
, semi-detailed 
in a reconnais- 
•esources can be 
ng. Then a fur- 
rsis can be made 
*s, after which 
iry to establish 
ly selected re- 
ige approach of 
given by Dill 
Land evaluation 
gle stages with 
ire described by 
SA, and by Mac- 
River Valley, 
for recreation 
k (Gittins, in: 
the North York 
imples airphoto 
sed, but could 
landevaluation 
out for Sauer- 
naissance phase 
1 the question 
be able to at- 
3, then further 
mine where best 
what type of 
Botswana wants 
iurce, which is 
dth respect to 
ern Europe and 
tion from East 
s combined with 
icentrations of 
are relatively 
it may be ex- 
ad or even de- 
This approach 
Led in at this 
solved, the re 
interpretation 
coverage only, 
ige. For semi- 
ind sequential 
more informa- 
:t on the envi- 
squire special 
:ial behaviour 
land evaluation 
for recreation 
recreation 
approach 
tourism 
approach 
r 
> 
’ 
T 
reconnais- 
conservation 
reconnais- 
sance 
approach 
sance 
i 
semi- 
1 ' ' 
semi- 
4 
semi- 
detailed 
1 
detailed 
1 
detailed 
1 
detailed 
< > 
Y 
detailed 
« > 
Y 
detailed 
ACCESSIBILITY 
Physical suitability of a piece of land for one or 
another type of recreation alone is not sufficient. 
Accessibility is another important factor, that wil 
determine in what degree recreational use can actu 
ally be made (Defert 1954: 113). 
With respect to accessibility distinction should be 
made between the "external accessibility", that is 
the long distance accessibility to the outside 
world, linking a recreation or tourist area with 
the main population centres, and the "internal ac 
cessibility" , that makes it possible for the recrea 
tionists to move into and around in the recreation 
area (Zee 1983: 275; see also Defert 1966: 106). 
Modern transportation, of course, makes the whole 
world accessible if one has enough time and, above 
all, money. For most recreationists however the 
potential zones for day, weekend, and vacation re 
creation are restricted (Zee 1982: 362). These zones 
do not have absolute limits but are more like ranges 
within which major parts of the recreationists or 
tourists will stay, and that only will be passed by 
small percentages. 
Thus, in the recreation approach of landevaluation 
one may start defining the range to which one might 
restrict the procedure, in the tourism approach one 
first has to establish whether the resource concer 
ned falls within the ranges of certain major sources 
of tourists and whether there are no competing "in 
tervening opportunities". 
Location and distance, measured in time and effort 
of travel rather than in mere kilometers, are impor 
tant factors determining the external accessibility, 
but have always to be considered in relation to the 
available means of transport. 
The type and lay-out of the internal accessibility 
of a recreation area may strongly determine the 
actual spatial behaviour pattern of the recreation 
ists and the resulting impact on the environment. 
Manipulating accessibility can be an important in 
strument in the management of a recreation area. 
GENERAL ATTRACTIVITY OF THE LANDSCAPE 
Not only the physical suitability and accessibility 
are important to determine whether a potential re 
creational resource will be used or not. Almost as 
important is the overall attractivity of the area, 
that is, the aesthetic qualities of the environ 
ment, the landscape, in which the recreational 
activities take place. 
The area to be evaluated for this general attrac 
tivity cannot be restricted to the site of actual 
recreational use. Large parts of the landscape that 
are the scene of little activity are nevertheless 
highly valuable and sometimes indispensable to the 
heavily used areas by serving as a bufferzone or 
merely as the background against which an activity 
takes place. A campground on a city block would 
never provide the same experience as a campground 
in the forest even though the sites were physically 
identical and the user never left the small site in 
the forest (Clawson 1966: 155). 
The analysis of this general attractivity is the 
subject of "landscape evaluation". 
Preferences for specific types of scenery or 
landscapes are largely subjective, even though most 
people would agree that some areas are inherently 
more attractive and outstanding than others 
(Clawson 1966: 38). Therefore it is very difficult 
to define the features or characteristics that 
determine such preferences and with which the qual 
ity of the landscape can be assessed. It is even 
more difficult to express this in quantitative 
terms to make comparison between areas possible. 
Still, analysis of the spatial behaviour of re 
creationists may reveal which elements in the land 
scape apparently are more attractive than others, 
for example, the borderzones. Especially in Germany 
methods for the evaluation of the landscape for 
recreation have been developed, in which the over 
all attractivity is related to the visual structure 
of the landscape, expressed, amongst others, in 
terms of the length of borderzones per unit of area 
(Kiemstedt 1967, 1972, 1975). Although the values 
are commonly expressed as values per map grid- 
square, for the inventory of borderzones and other 
landscape structuring elements airphoto interpreta 
tion can be a very useful tool. 
With respect to the analysis of the visual struc 
ture of the landscape several Dutch approaches can 
be mentioned (Ham 1971; Werkgroep Helmond 1974; 
Grontmij 1975), in which, especially in the last 
one, the interpretation of airphotos plays an 
important role. For more hilly or mountainous areas 
the Dutch method of landscape analysis is not the 
most appropriate one, but in other countries other 
methods have been developed, for example the 
"viewshed" method (Aguilo 1981), and the method 
applied by Baumgartner(1981). 
For each region a method has to be developed that 
is tailored to the specific type of landscape. But 
where some of the methods originally are based on 
the analysis of topographic maps and fieldobserva- 
tions, an increase in efficiency can be obtained if 
airphoto interpretation is used. 
CONCLUSIONS 
Land(scape)evaluation procedures can be very useful 
in providing the necessary information for proper 
planning and management of recreational resources. 
These procedures can, in general, be made much more 
efficient when airphoto interpretation can be used 
in the inventory and analysis phase. Since each 
recreation area has its own specific characteris 
tics the landevaluation procedure has to be tailor- 
made for that area within the framework of general 
ly accepted principles of landevaluation. 
REFERENCES 
Aguilo, M. & A. Ramos 1981. Viewshed and Landscape 
Morphology. In: Proceedings of the International 
Morphology. In: Proceedings of the International 
Congress of the Netherlands Society for Landscape 
Ecology, Veldhoven, the Netherlands, p.310-311. 
Pudoc, Wageningen. 
Baumgartner, R. 1981. Inventory and Evaluation from 
the Visual/Aesthetic Perspective. In: Proceedings 
of the International Congress of the Netherlands 
Society for Landscape Ecology, Veldhoven, the 
Netherlands, p.318-319. Pudoc, Wageningen. 
Büchli, H. 1962. Zur Terminologie des Fremdenver 
kehrs und der Fremdenverkehrswerbung. Zeitschrift 
für Fremdenverkehr, no 1: 23-28. 
CD&PW (Cultuurtechnische Dienst & Provinciale 
Waterstaat Friesland) 1970. Luchtfototeilingen 
op een aantal Friese meren. Leeuwarden.