rural tourism package - gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/document.aspx?document=12045... · appendix b...

Rural Tourism Package:Monitoring and evaluation framework

Prepared for:

2

URS Infrastructure & Environment UK LimitedBridgewater House58-60 Whitworth StreetManchesterM1 6LT

Tel: +44 (0)161 237 6056Fax: +44 (0)161 907 3501

Rev Date Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by

1May

2014Final monitoring and evaluation framework

Gareth Brown,Senior Consultant

Claire Lawless,Technical Director

Claire Lawless,Technical Director

LimitationsURS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“URS”) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Defra (“Client”) in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed (tender reference RE0272, October 2013). No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by URS. This Report is confidential and may not be disclosed by the Client nor relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of URS.

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by URS has not been independently verified by URS, unless otherwise stated in the Report.

The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by URS in providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken between December 2013 and May 2014 and is based on the conditions encountered and the information available during the said period of time. The scope of this Report and the services are accordingly factually limited by these circumstances.

Where assessments of works or costs identified in this Report are made, such assessments are based upon the information available at the time and where appropriate are subject to further investigations or information which may become available. URS disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise any person of any change in any matter affecting the Report, which may come or be brought to URS’ attention after the date of the Report.

Certain statements made in the Report that are not historical facts may constitute estimates, projections or other forward-looking statements and even though they are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date of the Report, such forward-looking statements by their nature involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results predicted. URS specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this Report.

Copyright© This Report is the copyright of URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.

PR-13-0514

Rural Tourism Package: Monitoring and Evaluation Framework 3

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

1. GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS 52. INTRODUCTION 63. STRATEGIC DRIVERS 84. RURAL TOURISM BASELINE 135. THE RURAL TOURISM PACKAGE 266. MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 327. DELIVERY 418. LESSONS 43

APPENDIX A RURAL TOURISM PROJECT LOGIC CHAINS 45APPENDIX B PROPOSED OUTPUTS, OUTCOMES AND IMAPCTS 50APPENDIX C PROPOSED EVALUATIVE RESEARCH QUESTIONS 59APPENDIX D INTENDED AUDIENCE FOR THE RURAL TOURISM PACKAGE EVALUATION 60APPENDIX E TOURISM DEFINITION – SIC2007 FOOTPRINT 62APPENDIX F SWOT ANALYSIS OF RURAL TOURISM 63

4

TA B L E O F F I G U R E S

FIGURE 1: NATIONAL POLICY DRIVERS FOR RURAL TOURISM PACKAGE 9FIGURE 2: TOTAL EXPENDITURE FROM DOMESTIC OVERNIGHT TRIPS TO RURAL AREAS 2006-12 16FIGURE 3: TOURISM EMPLOYMENT IN RURAL AND URBAN AREAS 21FIGURE 4: TOURISM BUSINESSES IN RURAL AND URBAN AREAS, 2009-2013 22FIGURE 5: % OF BUSINESSES AND EMPLOYMENT WITHIN AONBS AND NATIONAL PARKS 23FIGURE 6: METHOD FOR MEASURING NET IMPACT 36FIGURE 7: RTP THEORY OF CHANGE 37FIGURE 8: NET IMPACT FORMULA 39

TA B L E O F TA B L E S

TABLE 1: DATA SOURCES AND DEFINITIONS 14 TABLE 2: DOMESTIC RURAL TOURISM TRIPS AND ASSOCIATED SPENDING, 2011 14TABLE 3: ESTIMATED NUMBER OF INTERNATIONAL VISITS, NIGHTS AND SPEND IN RURAL ENGLAND, 2010 14TABLE 4: DOMESTIC URBAN TOURISM TRIPS AND ASSOCIATED SPENDING 2011 15TABLE 5: TREND IN DOMESTIC OVERNIGHT TRIPS TO RURAL ENGLAND 15TABLE 6: TOTAL NIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH OVERNIGHT TRIPS TO RURAL AREAS 16TABLE 7: TOURISM DAY TRIPS, 3+ HOUR LEISURE TRIPS TO RURAL AREAS 17TABLE 8: THE MAIN LOCATION OF TRIPS (‘000’S) RECORDED BY MENE, 2011-2012 17TABLE 9: THE MAIN LOCATION OF TRIPS RECORDED BY MENE, ‘000’S 18TABLE 10: SPENDING ASSOCIATED WITH TRIPS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE RECORDED BY MENE 18TABLE 11: TRIPS TO AONBS (‘000’S) 19TABLE 12: EXPENDITURE ASSOCIATED WITH TRIPS TO AONBS (£’000’S) 19TABLE 13: RURAL TOURISM GVA – DEMAND SIDE ASSESSMENT, 2011 20TABLE 14: RURAL TOURISM EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESSES ACTIVITY IN ENGLAND BY SUB-SECTOR, 2011 21TABLE 15: RURAL TOURISM TURNOVER ACTIVITY IN ENGLAND BY SUB-SECTOR, 2011 21TABLE 16: RURAL TOURISM EMPLOYMENT IN ENGLAND BY SUB-SECTOR AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BY SUB-SECTOR, 2009-2013 22TABLE 17: RURAL TOURISM BUSINESSES IN ENGLAND BY SUB-SECTOR AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BY SUB-SECTOR, 2009-2013 23TABLE 18: TOURISM GVA (£ MILLIONS) IN RURAL AREAS AND ENGLAND 2001-2010 24TABLE 19: SUMMARY OF RTP MEASURES 27TABLE 20: TARGET GEOGRAPHY AND BENEFICIARIES 28TABLE 21: AGREED FUNDING PROFILE 29TABLE 22: PROPOSED OUTPUTS, OUTCOMES AND IMPACT INDICATORS 31TABLE 23: METHOD OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES 32TABLE 24: EVALUATION TYPES AND METHODS 34TABLE 25: SUMMARY OF EVALUATION TYPE BY MEASURE 35TABLE 26: SUGGESTED EVALUATION METHOD 35TABLE 27: OPTIONS FOR COUNTERFACTUAL POSITIONS 37TABLE 28: DELIVERY AGENTS AND PROJECT MANAGERS 42


1. Glossary of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

BIS Department for Business Innovation and Skills

CBA Cost Benefit Analysis

CEA Cost Effectiveness Analysis

DCMS Department for Culture, Media and Sport

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DMO Destination Management Organisations

GVA Gross Value Added

MENE Monitoring Engagement with the Natural Environment

PRoW Public Right of Way

RDPE Rural Development Programme England

REG Rural Economy Grant

REGR Rural Economy Growth Review

RGF Regional Growth Fund

RTP Rural Tourism Package

SME Small to Medium Enterprise

VFR Visiting Friends and Relatives

6

2. Introduction

2.1 Background

Defra commissioned URS Infrastructure and Environment UK Ltd (URS) in November 2013 to develop a baseline and monitoring and evaluation framework to measure the impact of five rural tourism measures identified under the Rural Economy Growth Review (REGR) known as the Rural Tourism Package (RTP).

The RTP was announced in November 2011. It was designed in response to the Government’s wider Growth Review and recognising that tourism is a key sector that drives economic growth, particularly in rural areas. The RTP was designed to develop and promote rural tourism in England to stimulate growth in rural economies and help businesses reach their full potential. The RTP is part of the Government’s wider response and drive to maximise tourism’s contribution to the economy and the industry’s government backed aspiration to achieve 5% year on year growth in the value of the tourism sector up to 2020.

This baseline and monitoring and evaluation framework has been designed to inform and guide future monitoring and final impact evaluation of the RTP. It outlines the evidence required to assess the effectiveness of the RTP measures and how the results will be used to inform future policy considerations. The monitoring and evaluation framework will also inform the work of a number of partner organisations such as VisitEngland; the National Association of AONBs; and the work of both Defra and DCMS in supporting and developing tourism, particularly in rural areas.

2.2 The requirement

Defra commissioned URS to develop a baseline and monitoring and evaluation framework to measure the impact of the RTP. The objectives of this commission were to develop a practical and consistent approach to:

• Assess the delivery and progress of the RTP;• Quantify the impacts and achievements of RTP in terms of:

• Increased jobs in rural areas and an indication of the nature of those jobs; casual, part-time, permanent, apprenticeships;

• New business start-ups and expansion of SMEs in rural areas; • Number of visits to rural areas and visitor spend both during peak holiday periods and out of season;


• Multiplier effects to rural businesses and the wider national economy;• Wider community benefits in rural areas e.g. improved viability of local services, preservation/development

of heritage sites; • Key sectors which have benefited e.g. food and drink, agriculture, leisure industry, hotels and hospitality,

business/conference venues; • The on-going sustainability of any trends in visitor numbers and visitor spend, including where visitors travel

from and distance travelled; and• Environmental impacts such as reductions or increases in resource use (water, energy) that are associated

with the measures. • Generating lessons and insights on what works to encourage rural tourism and growth.

The monitoring and evaluation framework has been commissioned to develop a set of baseline indicators for the above outcomes and propose a methodology for data collection and evaluation with an assessment of possible evaluation methodologies.

2.3 Developing the monitoring and evaluation framework

The monitoring and evaluation framework was developed in line with the HM Treasury Magenta Book, considering the following eight steps in turn:

• Step 1: Defining policy objectives & intended outcomes; • Step 2: Defining the audience for the evaluation;• Step 3: Identifying evaluation objectives & research questions;• Step 4: Selecting evaluation approach;• Step 5: Identifying the data requirements; • Step 6: Identifying necessary resources and governance arrangements; • Step 7: Conducting the evaluation; and• Step 8: Using and disseminating the evaluation findings.

2.4 About this document

The remainder of this document adopts the following structure:

• Section 3 outlines the strategic drivers for the RTP;• Section 4 provides a baseline of rural tourism statistics for the RTP;• Section 5 describes the RTP in more detail;• Section 6 presents the monitoring and evaluation framework for the RTP;• Section 7 details the delivery arrangements for the RTP evaluation; and• Section 8 outlines the key lessons learnt in the development of this baseline and monitoring and evaluation

framework.

8

3. Strategic Drivers

This section of the monitoring and evaluation framework presents the strategic drivers for the Rural Tourism Package. This provides the context for the policy and explains how the RTP contributes to wider strategic objectives.

3.1 Strategic context in overview

There are several national policy drivers for the Rural Tourism Package driven by key government departments and non-departmental public bodies (e.g. VisitEngland). Figure 1 demonstrates the relationship between key organisations, polices and the Rural Tourism Package. Relevant sub-national policies have not been considered in this section, but may be explored in subsequent evaluation activity. Key policies are explained in greater detail below.

3.2 Key policies

3.2.1 The Plan for Growth, BIS, March 20111 The Plan for Growth, published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) was developed to ‘put the

UK on a path to sustainable, long term economic growth’ through the following four ambitions:

• Create the most competitive tax system in the G20;• Make the UK one of the best places in Europe to start, finance and grow a business;• Encourage investment and exports as a route to a more balanced economy; and• Create a more educated workforce that is the most flexible in Europe.

The Growth Review assessed eight key sectors in detail including tourism. The focus upon tourism is justified by it being the sixth biggest industry sector with 2,000,000 businesses employing 4.4% of the workforce and providing £52m of GDP. The Growth Review references the particular importance of tourism sector employment in rural areas.

3.2.2 The Government Tourism Policy, DCMS, 2011 The Government Tourism Policy presented ten wide ranging actions to maximise the potential of the tourism industry

and contribute towards the Plan for Growth. Key actions include:


Figure 1: National policy drivers for Rural Tourism Package

Department for Business, Innovation

and Skills

Department for Environment, Food

and Rural Affairs

Department for Culture, Media and

Sport

Plan for Growth (2011)

Rural Economy Growth Review (2011)

Rural Tourism Package (2012)-15

Rural Statement (2012)

Government’s Tourism Policy (2011)

Rural Tourism Action Plan. VisitEngland (2010-20)

Strategic Framework for Tourism in England. VisitEngland

(2010-20)

• Co-funding with the private sector a £100 million campaign aiming to attract visitors to the UK in the years following London 2012;

• Reducing regulation for businesses in the tourism industry by creating a task force of senior industry figures from across the UK, to identify opportunities to cut red tape; and

• Modifying Tourist Boards to become smaller, highly focused, industry-led partnerships between tourism firms and government.2

3.2.3 Rural Economy Growth Review, DEFRA, November 20113

On 29 November 2011, the Government, announced, as part of the Growth Review, a strong package of new measures designed to stimulate sustainable growth in the rural economy and help rural businesses to reach their full potential. The Rural Economy Growth Review identified the five following measures for stimulating growth in rural economies:

• Enabling Rural Businesses to Grow and Diversify – this thematic area includes a number of actions such as:• Supporting Rural Tourism;• Expanding our Food and Drink Sector;• Delivering Green Growth; and• Reducing Regulation on Farms.

The Rural Economy Growth Review introduced the Rural Tourism Package, allocating £25m of Government investment with the aim of generating at least £110m in new visitor expenditure, and creating 3,000 new jobs.

3.2.4 Strategic Framework for Tourism in England, 2010-20204

The Strategic Framework for Tourism in England is led by VisitEngland with the aim of maximise tourism’s contribution to the economy, employment and quality of life in England. It sets out the ways in which the industry can work together to achieve a 5% growth in value, year-on-year, over the next decade. This will lead to an additional £50bn in expenditure and the creation of 225,000 jobs. The framework has four objectives that are designed to address the opportunities and challenges of the visitor economy. These aim to:

• Increase England’s share of global visitor markets;• Offer visitors compelling destinations of distinction;• Champion a successful, thriving tourism industry; and• Facilitate greater engagement between the visitor and the experience.

Progress against the Framework is reported annually. The progress report shows that domestic and inbound visitors spent over £84bn in England in 2012. Over the two years since 2010, year-on-year growth has averaged 8.7%, against a projected target of 5%, and well ahead of performance in the wider economy.

A series of Action Plans have been developed by the industry to deliver on the Strategic Framework’s objectives.

10

These focus on the priority actions to be implemented by partners over a three year period to achieve the vision within the Strategic Framework. One of the action plans is focused upon rural tourism.

It should be noted that the Strategic Framework for Tourism will be reviewed and refreshed in 2014 to take account of the shift in the delivery and funding landscape faced by the industry. The refreshed framework will focus upon a core set of delivery programmes and growth priorities that a wide range of organisations and delivery partners will pledge to deliver. The new Framework will be launched in early 2015.

3.2.5 Rural Tourism Action Plan, VisitEngland 2010-20205

The Rural Tourism Action Plan was developed by VisitEngland and industry partners to support the delivery of the Strategic Framework for Tourism, above. The Action Plan outlines the following three objectives and actions:

The Action Plan recognises the importance of rural tourism and its growth potential to support employment; supplement income streams of businesses operating or fixed in rural locations; support the economic viability of communities; and support the conservation and enhancement of England’s natural and built environment in rural areas.

The 2013 update of the Strategic Framework for Tourism outlines the progress against the Rural Tourism Action Plan and reports that out of 21 actions, 11 are ‘in progress’ and 4 are ‘complete’. It should be noted that the 13 industry Action Plans, of which the Rural Tourism Action Plan is one, will have run their course in June 2014. The priorities for the industry and Visit England are therefore being refreshed as part of a new Strategic Framework for Tourism that will be launched in early 2015.

3.2.6 The Government’s Tourism Policy, DCMS, March 20116

The Government’s Tourism Policy was published by the Department for Media, Culture and Sport and outlines the Government’s approach to the visitor economy as a whole. The policy outlines the Government’s following goals for the tourism sector:

• Fund the most ambitious marketing campaign ever to attract visitors to the UK in the years following 2012 – a £100m campaign to attract 4 million extra visitors to Britain over the next 4 years;

• Increase the proportion of UK residents who holiday in the UK to match those who holiday abroad each year; and • Improve the sector’s productivity to become one of the top five most efficient and competitive visitor economies

in the world.

A number of actions are presented to meet these goals that are wide ranging in nature. These include:

• Repair market failure by modifying the existing, long-established Tourist Boards to become smaller, highly focused, industry-led partnerships between tourism firms and government;

• Broaden our tourism offer by creating alternative destinations which match London, the UK’s biggest and most successful single tourism destination to capture the spare tourism capacity and potential of other parts of Britain as well;

Objectives Example actions

To diversify and modernise rural tourism products to generate business opportunities suited to local environments and communities and to develop a year round visitor offer.

• Develop existing and new visitor activities and experiences that are less weather dependent and seasonal in nature.

• Develop traditional and new low impact and low carbon products and experiences in rural areas.

• Identify underutilised or redundant rural assets and support and facilitate owners to realise their tourism potential.

To increase consumer awareness, understanding and enjoyment of the products and experiences available in rural areas.

• Develop messages (through market research) that reflect the distinctive nature of England’s rural products and experiences.

• Identify target markets with a propensity to purchase rural tourism products and target them through marketing communications.

• Review and build on available sources of rural tourism performance and trends data.

To encourage rural communities and economies to benefit from the value of rural tourism by taking ownership for the development, management, protection and conservation of rural assets and locations.

• Increase local community ownership, support for and use of their rural tourism assets.

• Destinations and public transport operators to develop ‘hubs’ from which there is a concentration of car free options with car parking.

• Encourage destinations to have visitor travel plans in place.


• Consult on whether to move the first bank holiday in May;• Improve staff and management skills across the entire industry by increasing the number of apprenticeships and

other courses teaching these skills; and• Establish an industry task force, led by senior industry figures from across the UK, to cut red tape.

Links to the RTP include developing the staff and management skills within the visitor economy which is reflected in the focus of the Northern Land Project. The Government’s Tourism Policy also focused upon the role of VisitEngland, the importance of DMO’s and partnership working and the need to diversify the UK’s tourism offer to ensure other parts of the country can match London’s offer.

3.2.7 Rural Statement, Defra, 20127

Defra produced the Rural Statement in 2012 to underline its commitment to Rural England. It reflects a vision of successful rural businesses and thriving rural communities in a living, working countryside and builds upon the Rural Economy Growth Review. The Rural Statement is based around the following three key priorities for Government action in England:

• Economic Growth – ensuring rural businesses are making a sustainable contribution to national growth;• Rural Engagement – a commitment from Defra to engage directly with rural communities so that they can see

that Government is on their side; and• Quality of Life – ensuring rural people to have fair access to public services and to be actively engaged in

shaping the places in which they live.

Many of the projects introduced as part of the Rural Economy Growth Review provide the backbone of the economic growth strand of activity. As well as these specific measures the Statement also outlines how Defra have supported a number of national-level policies and initiatives, designed to promote business and deliver growth in both urban and rural areas, for example by cutting red tape, simplifying the planning system, delivering new infrastructure, improving local high streets, raising skill levels and supporting business, who make up a significant element of the rural economy.

3.3 Contribution of Rural Tourism Package to wider policies

In October 2013, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) commissioned a high-level monitoring and evaluation framework to support the Government’s Growth Review. The framework presents indicators and evaluation measures for 18 of the 22 themes making up the Growth Review.

The tourism element of the framework has a particular focus measuring the impact of marketing activity to improve perceptions of the UK; Home Office activity to increase the number of visa biometric ID centres around the world, move to online visa processing, and publish application guidance in more languages; and skills development to increase apprenticeships within the hospitality sector.

The following final outcome indicators are presented in the Framework. They are designed to measure the size and health of the tourism industry in the UK and trends in visitor numbers and perceptions of the UK:

• Perceptions of UK as a place to visit;• Value of overseas visits;• Value of domestic overnight visits;• Value of leisure day visits; and • Gross Value Added contribution of the tourism sector to the UK economy.

3.4 Summary

This section has outlined the key policy drivers and initiatives being implemented to promote rural tourism. The following common themes emerge from the policy review:

• The tourism sector is an important driver of economic growth and prosperity as reflected in the Government’s Growth Review;

• Rural tourism is a key component within the wider tourism sector (accounting for almost 20% of overnight trips and domestic spend) and is therefore vital if the sector’s growth ambitions (e.g. 5% year on year growth in the value of tourism) are to be achieved;

• Tourism is particularly important to rural economies given that it supports employment, supplements income streams of businesses operating or fixed in rural locations; supports the economic viability of communities; and supports the conservation and enhancement of England’s natural and built environment in rural areas; and

12

• Actions and priorities outlined within the Government’s Tourism Policy are reflected within the Rural Tourism Package. This includes the drive towards increasing productivity, visits, the diversity of the sector and improving the tourism marketing offer to help facilitate this growth.


4. Rural Tourism Baseline

This section presents a baseline of rural tourism in England using existing secondary data. It sets the context for the Rural Tourism Package by measuring the scale of rural tourism; the issues the sector currently faces; and comparisons between rural and urban tourism. It concludes with a SWOT analysis of the sector which has informed the development of the Rural Tourism Package.

The contribution of rural tourism to the economy can be calculated in many ways, most commonly by:

• Assessing the number of tourism visits and their associated spend, i.e. a demand side approach; and• Measuring employment or Gross Value Added (GVA) of businesses operating in the defined tourism sector, i.e. a

supply side approach.

Both approaches are accepted ways of measuring tourism but each approach has strengths and weaknesses. We have therefore used both approaches to provide detail on the nature and characteristics of rural tourism from a supply (rural tourism focused businesses and their associated employment and GVA contribution) and demand (visitor numbers and trends to rural areas) side perspective. The rural tourism baseline is presented against the following headings:

• The current visitor economy in rural England;• The existing tourism sector in rural England;• Drivers of rural tourism; and• A SWOT analysis of the rural tourism economy.

Data in this report is presented for the evaluation baseline year of 2011, reflecting the year the Rural Tourism Package initiated. Time-series trends are also presented to help the RTP evaluators assess the impact of the Rural Tourism Package over time.

4.1 The current visitor economy in rural England

This section outlines the current visitor economy in rural England, reflecting the market demand for rural tourism. The profile of rural tourism in England is first presented, followed by its key characteristics and trends, and finally the changes to rural tourism over recent years.

14

VisitEngland produces data that is particularly useful for this assessment including the number of visitors, their associated spend and demographic profile. The following data sources and definitions have been used to assess the scale of rural tourism from a demand side perspective:

Type of trip Source Definition of ‘rural’

Domestic overnight trip Great Britain Tourism Survey Trips to the Countryside / village - The survey uses a subjective assessment made by respondents selecting from one of the four following options (‘seaside’, ‘large city/large town’, ‘small town’ or ‘countryside/village’).

Day trip Great Britain Day Visits Survey

Trips to the ‘countryside’ or ‘a village’ – The survey uses a subjective assessment made by respondents selecting from the following tourist destination - ‘a city or large town’, ‘a small town’, ‘a village’, ‘countryside’, ‘a seaside resort or town’, ‘seaside coastline – a beach’ or ‘other seaside coastline’.

Trips to the natural environment - natural environment is defined as the green open spaces in and around towns and cities, as well as the wider countryside and coastline

Monitoring Engagement With the Natural Environment Survey

Trips in the countryside (including areas around towns and cities) – destinations are classified based upon the name of the place visited, as provided by the survey respondent, check against a gazetteer of 21,000 places.

Table 1: Data sources and definitions

4.1.1 Volume and value of trips to rural England Table 2 below presents the volume and value of rural domestic tourism recorded by VisitEngland. In total, domestic

rural tourism was worth £11.7bn in 2011, the vast majority of this spending (75%) was associated with domestic tourism day trips.

Domestic rural tourism accounts for approximately a fifth (19%) of all domestic overnight trips made in England in 2011 (including business trips and visits to friends and relatives). These trips generated 60m nights and nearly £3bn in spend. A larger proportion of day trips as opposed to domestic overnight trips were recorded in the countryside, accounting for 25% of all domestic tourism day trips.

Domestic tourism trips to rural England generated £11.7bn of spending in 2011 accounting for 19% of all domestic tourism spend.

Total domestic trips Domestic overnight trips8 Domestic tourism day trips9

Number (millions) Number (millions) % of all trips Number (millions) % of all trips

Trips 352 19 19 333 25

Nights 60 60 20 n/a n/a

Spend (£) 11,720 2,978 17 8,742 20

Table 3: Estimated number of international trips, nights and spend in rural England, 201011

Table 2: Domestic rural tourism trips and associated spending, 2011

Rural area visited Trips (000’s) Nights (000’s) Spend (£m)

Countryside 6,495 46,500 2,881

Villages 6,299 45,047 2,803

The number of tourism trips, nights and spend in the countryside is also boosted by international visitors, which is presented in Table 3 below. An estimated total of 6.5m International trips to England involved a visit to the countryside. These trips accounted for an estimated 46.5m nights and £2.88bn in spending in 201010. The number of visits, nights and spending in villages during this period is estimated to be comparable though slightly lower. It should be noted that the figures for trips to the countryside and villages cannot be aggregated as they are likely to include a significant amount of double counting.


Table 4 presents the volume and value of urban12 tourism in 2011. The table shows that:

• Urban tourism accounts for the vast majority of all domestic tourism trips in England. In particular, the number of urban based domestic overnight trips (67m) and nights (167m) is at least 2.8 times the number associated with rural tourism. Overnight urban trips are therefore worth £162.55 per trip, compared to £156.73 in rural areas meaning they are greater in both volume and value.

• The number of urban based domestic day trips (901m) is more than double the number of rural day trips (333m). Rural tourism day trips are worth on average £26.25 per trip whilst urban tourism day trips are worth an average of £35.58 per trip13.

Table 4: Domestic urban tourism trips and associated spending 2011

Total domestic trips Domestic overnight trips14 Domestic tourism day trips15

Number (millions) Number (millions) % of all trips Number (millions) % of all trips

Trips 1,091 67 64 901 67%

Nights 167 167 54 n/a n/a

Spend (£) 48,254 10,891 61 32,054 71%

4.1.1.1 Time-series trends in domestic rural tourism Time-series trends in rural tourism are assessed for overnight trips between 2006 and 2012 and day trips between

2010 and 2011, the periods for which data was available.

Domestic overnight trips

Table 5 below presents the trend in rural domestic overnight stays between 2006 and 2012. It should be noted that the Great Britain Tourism Survey provides data at a national level as well as for the English regions. Data is not available at the local level to test the impact of RTP funded interventions at that scale. The data does however provide a robust assessment of overall tourism trends and provides useful context for the RTP evaluation:

• Domestic overnight trips to rural areas have increased by 2% since 2006. However, the year on year trend shows some volatility and is likely to be heavily influenced by factors such as the weather. The recession is also likely to have influenced trends with a 10% increase in trips being recorded since 2008.

• Distinctive patterns have occurred for different types of domestic trips to the rural areas. For instance, there has been a 14% increase in ‘holidays’ whilst business trips have shown a decrease of almost 10%. This trend is most prevalent since 2008.

Growth is observed in the number of domestic overnight trips to rural England between 2006 and 2012. This trend, along with an increase in the average spend per trip over the period, has contributed to an increase in total visitor expenditure.

Table 5: Trend in domestic overnight trips to rural England16

Year Domestic overnight trips to rural England (million)

All trips Holiday VFR (holiday and other) Business

2006 18,551 8,913 7,654 1,464

2007 18,690 9,821 7,057 1,357

2008 17,249 8,846 6,515 1,215

2009 19,177 10,869 6,861 1,092

2010 17,238 10,027 5,865 997

2011 19,341 10,749 6,768 1,197

2012 18,915 10,099 7,062 1,095

An increase in the length of stay has been observed along with a small shift towards holiday trips and away from business trips and visits to friends and relatives.

16

Table 6 below presents the trend in terms of the length of stay and reason for trips associated with domestic overnight trips to rural England:

• The average overnight trip to rural areas lasted an average of 3.1 nights in 2011. Within this, holiday trips involved an average of 3.7 nights, 2.6 nights for visits to friends and relatives and 2.5 nights for business trips.

• The number of nights associated with rural overnight tips has increased by 3.3% since 2006 and stand at approximately 60m trips per year in 2012.

• There has been a noticeable shift in the profile of trips over the past seven years. The number of short holiday trips (lasting between one to three nights in length) have increased by 7.8% over the same time period.

Table 6: Total nights associated with overnight trips to rural areas17

Year Total nights (‘000’s) Average nights per overnight domestic trip2006 57,130 3.082007 60,391 3.232008 56,320 3.272009 62,534 3.262010 58,272 3.382011 60,405 3.122012 59,024 3.12

Figure 2 below shows the change in spend per trip from domestic overnight trips to rural areas over the same time period:

• During the seven year period there has been a noticeable increase in expenditure associated with overnight domestic trips to the rural areas in England – up by 32.6%. There has only been one annual fall in expenditure recorded since 2006. A total of £3.28m of expenditure is now associated with domestic overnight stays in England, compared to £2.47m in 2006.

• The average spend per trip has therefore increased across the seven years, up from £133.25 in 2006 to £173.25 in 2012. This may be a result of the shifting profile of trips away from business trips and towards holidays; longer duration of trips to rural areas (there has been a 32% increase in trips of eight nights or more to rural areas since 2006, compared to a 7.8% increase in trips of less than four nights), and the effect of inflation on goods and services over the seven year period.

• There is considerable variation in the spending pattern associated with different types of trips. Business trips to rural areas have an average spend of £599 per trip, compared to £234 for holiday and just £93 for trips to visit friends and relatives.

Figure 2: Total expenditure from domestic overnight trips to rural areas 2006-1219

An increase in both total spend and spend per trip is observed in domestic overnight trips to rural England between 2006 and 2012


Domestic Day trips VisitEngland produce data, via the Great Britain Day Visits Survey, that measures the number and value of domestic

day trips to the countryside. The survey was first conducted in 2011. Time-series trends prior to this are reliant upon different data sources and may not be comparable. The survey measures participation in one of fifteen defined leisure activities20 using the following definitions:

• Tourism day trips (non-regular activities, outside the place of residence); and• 3+ hour leisure trips (trips which lasted at least three hours, but did not fulfil the criteria to be classified as

tourism trips, because they were either activities undertaken regularly by the respondent, or because they happened in the respondent's place of residence).

Table 7: Tourism day trips, 3+ hour leisure trips to rural areas21

Year Tourism day trips 3+ hour leisure day trips

Number (million)

Expenditure (£m)

Spend per trip Number (million)

Expenditure (£m)

Spend per trip

2011 333 8,742 £26.25 573 16,054 £28.02

2012 364 10,062 £27.64 569 13,712 £24.09

Table 7 shows the limited trend data that is available for trips to rural England.

• There has been an increase in day trips and a decline in 3 hour+ trips between 2011 and 2012, although shorter trips still dominate.

• Average expenditure per tourism day trip is higher than for 3 hour+ trips in 2012 although this was not the case in 2011. However, the volume of 3+ hour trips means that total spending associated with these trips is higher than for day trips in both years.

• In total, trips to rural England that do not involve an overnight stay are worth a total of £13.7bn in 2012, a figure that has declined by 14.5% from the year previous.

4.1.2 Trips to the natural environment The Monitor and Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) survey is funded by Natural England with support

from Defra and the Forestry Commission. It is a key source of intelligence on how people spend their time in open spaces within both urban and rural settings in England. It differs from trip data collected by VisitEngland as it includes any time spent outdoors from a few minutes to all day whereas VisitEngland data only considers tips that are of 3+ hours in duration.

The MENE survey has been undertaken since 2009 on a rolling basis to:• Provide estimates of the number of trips to the natural environment by the adult (16 years and over) population in

England; • Measure the extent of participation in trips to the natural environment and find out the barriers and drivers that

shape participation; • Provide robust information on the characteristics of visitors and trips to the natural environment; • Measure other ways of using and enjoying the natural environment; and • Identifying patterns in use and participation for key groups within the population and at a range of spatial scales.

The data is available on a national (England), sub-regional and Local Authority basis whilst bespoke analysis can be generated to identify trips to designated areas (e.g. a National Park or AONB).

Table 8 below shows the number of trips recoded by MENE in 2011-2012, classified by where the majority of time was spent.

There has been an overall increase in the number of day trips between 2011 and 2012

Table 8: The main location of trips (‘000’s) recorded by MENE, 2011-201222

Year In a town or city

In a seaside resort or town

Other seaside coastline (including beaches and cliffs)

In the countryside (including areas around towns and cities)

Total

2011-2012 1,048,624 162,241 101,002 1,414,610 2,726,477

18

• MENE estimates that 52% of trips in 2011-12 are to the countryside. This was the second highest proportion of all trips since the survey began. The vast majority of these (81%) involved walking activity.

• The total number of 3+ hour trips to rural areas recorded by VisitEngland account for 40.5% of trips to the countryside recorded by MENE. This difference in the volume of trips is a likely consequence of the MENE survey being dominated by very short trips to the countryside.

• An estimated 146m trips were to areas designated as AONBs, accounting for 5.7% of all trips to the natural environment in 2011-12.

• In 2011, a total of £8.4bn of spending was associated with trips to the natural environment within a countryside setting. These accounts for a total spend of £5.30 per visit; much lower than the average spend per trip recorded by VisitEngland. This is a result of trips recorded by MENE primarily being closer to home and shorter in length.

4.1.2.1 Time-series trends in trips to the natural environment

Year In a town or city

In a seaside resort or town

Other seaside coastline (including beaches and cliffs)

In the countryside (including areas around towns and cities)

Total

2009-2010 1,157,932 207,101 112,820 1,379,905 2,857,758

2010-2011 923,060 172,573 88,267 1,309,938 2,493,838

2011-2012 1,048,624 162,241 101,002 1,414,610 2,726,477

2012-2013 1,218,141 185,341 98,967 1,346,632 2,849,081

Table 10 below presents the time-series trend of spending associated with trips to the countryside.

Table 9: The main location of trips recorded by MENE, ‘000’s23

Table 10: Spending associated with trips to the countryside recorded by MENE24

Year Spending (£bn) % of spend associated with trips to all areas

Spend per trips

2009-10 7.3 36% £5.73

2010-11 7.5 43% £6.41

2011-12 8.4 41% £5.30

2012-13 7.9 37% £5.42

�The�number�of�trips�to�the�natural�environment�within�a�countryside�setting�has�fluctuated�between�1.3m�and�1.4m between 2009 and 2012.

Table 9 below classifies the number of trips recoded by MENE between 2009/10 and 2012/13, classified by where the majority of time was spent.

Trips to the countryside recorded by MENE generated £8.4bn of spending in 2011-12, or £5.30 per trip.

• Spending associated with trips to the countryside has fluctuated over the last four years, (seemingly) peaking in 2011-12.

• The spending associated with trips to the countryside was generally low compared to trips to other destinations and is decreasing. Analysis of 3+ hour trips recorded by VisitEngland also reflects this trend.

• According to the MENE survey, almost three-quarters of trips involved no money being spent at all, reflecting the short and local nature of most trips. This may also include users of open spaces who are commuting or walking dogs, and therefore unlikely to spend money.

• The mean spend per trip (excluding trips where no spending occurred) was £22.88. This is slightly higher than trips to ‘towns or cities’ (£25.15), but lower than trips to a ‘seaside resort or town’ (£38.72) and trips to ‘other seaside coastline’ (£44.38).

• The largest proportion of money spent on countryside trips was used to buy food and drink (48.4% of all trips involving spend), followed by spending on fuel (17.7%) and car parking (11.9%).


4.1.2.2 Tourism within AONBs and National Parks

Table 11: Trips to AONBs (‘000’s)29

Year AONBs Non AONBs Total

2009-10 150,179 2,707,579 2,857,758

2010-11 116,533 2,377,304 2,493,838

2011-12 146,067 2,580,410 2,726,477

2012-13 154,084 2,694,997 2,849,081

In 2011-12 trips to AONBs represented 5.4% of all trips recorded by the MENE survey, and 7.0% of all visitor expenditure25

National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) are important destinations in rural England. There are 10 National Parks and 34 AONBs in England (including the Wye Valley AONB which spans the border between England and Wales)26 with AONB designations covering 15%27 of England.

The RTP aims to maximise the tourism potential of iconic and protected landscapes via the AONB Accord. The Accord is seeking to encourage joint working between VisitEngland and AONBs to develop the role of sustainable tourism within these areas.

Table 11 and Table 12 below presents the number of trips to AONBs and the associated expenditure from 2009-10 to 2012-13. They show:

• The number of trips to AONBs has remained relatively stable across the period 2009-10 to 2012-13 at approximately 150m trips, though this dropped to 116m in 2010-1128.

• This trend has remained similar over the four study years, and highlights the value of AONBs to the rural tourism economy.

• Combining data from both tables provides an average of £11.87 per trip to an AONB area in 2012-13, higher than the figure for trips to non AONB areas, £7.07. These figures are significantly lower than those generated by VisitEngland for tourism day trips and 3+ leisure trips, reflecting the large number of very short trips that are prevalent within MENE data.

Table 12: Expenditure associated with trips to AONBs (£’000’s)

Year AONBs Non AONBs Total

2009-10 2,280,193 18,458,587 20,738,780

2010-11 1,231,196 15,843,695 17,074,891

2011-12 1,424,326 18,871,003 20,295,329

2012-13 1,828,562 19,054,618 20,883,180

It should be noted that the sample size for individual AONBs is low and fluctuates over the four study years. This means the survey is not suitable for producing reliable results for individual AONBs.

Going forward it is anticipated that any more detailed data collection, particularly related to trips to AONBs will require input from organisations such as VisitEngland who have established surveys and approaches for measuring tourism across the UK.

4.1.3 Gross Value Added generated by rural tourism trips Gross Value Added can be estimated using tourism expenditure benchmarks from the Satellite Tourism Accounts

produced by the office for National Statistics and sector benchmarks developed by Deloitte and Oxford Economics30. The two following benchmarks are of particular use:• £54,000 of tourism visitor spend supports one full time equivalent job31

• GVA per employee in the tourism sector of £40,50032

20

Table 13: Rural tourism GVA – demand side assessment, 201133

Rural tourism expenditure £11,720m

Estimated Full time Equivalent (FTE) jobs 217,032

Estimated GVA34 £8,790m

Applying these benchmarks to the total expenditure associated with rural tourism provides an estimated £8,790m of GVA generated by the rural tourism sector. The headline figures can be found in Table 13 above. It should be noted that this figure is slightly below the GVA estimated from a supply side perspective of £10,667m. There are a number of reasons why these figures vary:

• The figures are estimated using the Tourism Satellite Accounts. This provides a more tourism sector specific approach by excluding economic activity within tourism sub sectors generated by non-tourism activity (e.g. taxi services).

• The figure presented above is generated based upon domestic trips to rural areas and so excludes trips made by international visitors.

4.2 The existing tourism sector in rural England

This section measures the rural tourism economy by measuring employment and GVA generated by businesses operating in the defined tourism sector, i.e. a supply side approach. Definitions of ‘rural’ and ‘tourism’ underpinning this analysis are presented below.

4.2.1� Definition�of�rural ONS, in collaboration with Defra, Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and Welsh Government

has developed a rural-urban classification system based on 2011 Census data35. It treats output areas in England and Wales as being ‘urban’ if they were allocated to a built up area with a population of 10,000 or more. The remaining ‘rural’ output areas are also grouped into three broad morphological types based on the settlement size and the population density of surrounding areas.

4.2.2� Definition�of�tourism� The Office for National Statistics (ONS) Intelligence Unit defines tourism based on internationally recognised

concepts of tourism and the visitor economy developed by the UN’s World Tourism Organisation36. Appendix E presents the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2007 footprint for the tourism sector which includes 45 five- digit SIC codes. We have grouped the 45 SIC codes into six tourism sector sub groups:

• Accommodation;• Food & drink;• Real estate & rental;• Recreation activities & facilities;• Transport; and• Travel agency & tours.

4.2.3 Rural tourism employment, businesses and turnover Using the above definitions, Table 14 below shows the distribution of rural tourism employment and business stock

across six sub-sectors in 2011. Table 15 shows the distribution of turnover across the six sub-sectors in 2011. The data presented is analyses of the Interdepartmental Business Register (IDBR) based upon ‘Local Unit Level’ and ‘Enterprise’ Level’38 data. The data uses the most recent rural urban classification system that is based upon Census 2011 data produced by the Office for National Statistics. This shows:

• Rural tourism activity accounts for 441,225 employees and 55,165 businesses in England. This is the equivalent to 18.6% of total tourism employment and 21.2% of business stock within England’s tourism sector39.

• The ‘Food and Drink’ sub-sector accounts for the largest proportion of employees and business, 44.0% and 42.6% respectively. It is also the largest sector in terms of turnover, accounting for 29.5% of turnover in the rural tourism sector. The ‘Transport’ sub-sector also accounts for over a fifth of rural tourism – 22.9% although it is relatively small in terms of employee and business numbers.

• Rural tourism businesses have an average of eight employees per business, slightly larger than the average business in England – five employees40. Businesses within the ‘Accommodation’ sub-sector have the largest number of employees on average (18) whilst the businesses within the ‘Real Estate and Rental Sector’ are the smallest.


• The rural tourism sector generates £24,943m41 in turnover, and therefore accounts for just an 11.2% share of the tourism sector’s turnover, suggesting it is of relatively low value.

Sub-sector Employment % Businesses %

Accommodation 99,285 22.5 5,630 10.2

Food & Drink 194,170 44.0 23,480 42.6

Real estate & rental 35,380 8.0 10,925 19.8

Recreation activities & facilities 72,860 16.5 10,885 19.7

Transport 32,165 7.3 3,010 5.5

Travel agency & tours 7,385 1.7 1,225 2.2

Total rural tourism 441,225 100.0 55,165 100.0

Table 15: Rural Tourism turnover activity in England by sub-sector, 201143

Sub-sector Turnover (£m) Turnover % distribution

Accommodation 3,806 15.3

Food & Drink 7,368 29.5

Real estate & rental 3,344 13.4

Recreation activities & facilities 3,586 14.4

Transport 5,724 22.9

Travel agency & tours 1,106 4.4

Total rural tourism 24,943 100.0

4.2.4 Time-series trends in the rural tourism sector

Table 14: Rural Tourism employment and businesses activity in England by sub-sector, 201142

Moderate but stable growth has been observed in the rural share of tourism employment between 2009 and 2013

Figure 3 below shows the number of people in employment and employees in tourism activities in rural and urban areas and for England as a whole between 2009 and 2013.

Figure 3: Tourism employment in rural and urban area44

22

• Within rural areas employment has increased from 445,930 (12.9% of tourism sector employment) in 2009 to 472,670 (13.3%) in 2013.

• Between 2009 and 2013, it shows an overall increase in employment in tourism activity in both rural (up 5.7%) and urban areas (up 3.7%). Rural tourism employment is therefore rising faster than average in a growing market.

• Future monitoring should consider comparing the number and proportion of tourism businesses and their employment to the total number of businesses and employment in the wider economy in rural areas. Annual local unit level analysis of IDBR data for the wider rural economy would be needed to undertake a time series comparison to the rural tourism economy which is not currently available.

Table 16: Rural tourism employment in England by sub-sector and percentage distribution by sub-sector, 2009-201345

Sub Sector 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %

Accommodation 95,375 21.4 95,525 21.8 99,285 22.5 104,690 22.8 108,680 23.0

Food & Drink 202,765 45.5 199,680 45.5 194,170 44.0 204,155 44.4 211,675 44.8

Real estate & rental

31,810 7.1 33,550 7.6 35,380 8.0 36,800 8.0 37,355 7.9

Recreation activities & facilities

69,355 15.6 70,585 16.1 72,860 16.5 74,775 16.3 76,470 16.2

Transport 38,920 8.7 32,145 7.3 32,165 7.3 31,985 7.0 31,175 6.6

Travel agency & tours

7,715 1.7 7,365 1.7 7,385 1.7 7,105 1.5 7,315 1.5

Total rural tourism 445,930 100.0 438,840 100.0 441,225 100.0 459,490 100.0 472,670 100.0

Overall, rural tourism employment has increased by 6.0% between 2009 and 2013. Its share of total tourism employment has increased slightly from 18.5% in 2009 to 18.8% in 2013; an increase in employment of nearly 27,000 people. Key changes within rural tourism sub-sectors are:

• The Real Estate & Renting sub-sector has seen a 17.4% increase in employment numbers over the same time period. In contrast, the Transport sub-sector has experienced a 19.9% decline in employment numbers.

• Food & Drink accounts for the largest proportion of employment. It has increased from 202,765 employees in 2009 to 211,675 in 2013, though its share of total rural tourism employment has decreased slightly from 45.5% to 44.8%.

• Accommodation is the second largest sub-sector and has increased both employment from 95,375 to 108,680 and its share of total rural tourism employment from 21.4% to 23.0%.

Figure 4 below shows the number of tourism businesses between 2009 and 2013 in rural and urban areas in England.

Figure 4: Tourism businesses in rural and urban areas, 2009-201346


• The number of tourism businesses in England increased by 4.2% between 2011 and 2013 (260,560 and 271,470 respectively). However, the number of rural tourism businesses remains lower than the 2009 peak (56,860 businesses).

• The proportion of tourism businesses that are in rural areas increased from 20.7% in 2009 to 20.9% in 2013. During this time the share of tourism businesses peaked at 21.2% in 2011.

Table 17 below presents the distribution of rural tourism businesses by the six sub-sector categories between 2009 and 2013. Over this five year period, the number of rural tourism businesses has decreased marginally, down 0.4%. This is in contrast to the 6% growth in employment, meaning the size of businesses within the rural tourism sector is increasing (up from an average of 7.8 people in employment per business to 8.3).

Table 17: Rural tourism businesses in England by sub-sector and percentage distribution by sub-sector, 2009-201347

Sub Sector 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

No % No % No % No % No %

Accommodation 5,650 9.9 5,650 10.1 5,630 10.2 5,815 10.3 5,840 10.3

Food & Drink 25,230 44.4 24,430 43.5 23,480 42.6 23,965 42.4 23,430 41.4

Real estate & rental 10,610 18.7 10,860 19.3 10,925 19.8 11,310 20.0 11,910 21.0

Recreation activities & facilities

10,790 19.0 10,820 19.3 10,885 19.7 11,145 19.7 11,220 19.8

Transport 3,230 5.7 3,135 5.6 3,010 5.5 2,975 5.3 2,900 5.1

Travel agency & tours

1,350 2.4 1,265 2.3 1,225 2.2 1,265 2.2 1,290 2.3

Total rural tourism 56,860 100.0 56,135 100.0 55,165 100.0 56,475 100.0 56,615 100.0

Figure 5 below outlines the percentage of businesses and employment within AONBs and National Parks.

Figure 5: % of businesses and employment within AONBs and National Parks48

24

4.2.5 Rural tourism GVA GVA data for the tourism sector is generated by a number of sources such as the National Accounts produced by the

Office for National Statistics and Defra, and the Tourism Satellite Accounts, also produced by the Office for National Statistics. Both sources vary in their methodological approach with the Tourism Satellite Account differentiating between goods and services consumed by tourists as opposed to residents. This source is used within the evaluation framework for the Growth Review to measure the tourism sector across the UK. Data for rural England is not currently available from this source.

Time-series rural and urban tourism GVA data is presented below. This is presented for contextual purposes to outline the size of the tourism sector, in GVA terms, as a whole. It is recommended that GVA for the RTP is calculated from a demand side perspective given the scale and nature of the interventions.

Table 18 below shows the level of GVA generated by the tourism sector in England in predominantly rural, significantly rural and predominantly urban areas. It should be noted that Defra typically uses the ‘predominantly rural’ area classification as the benchmark for measuring rural tourism GVA49.

Table 18: Tourism GVA (£ millions) in rural areas and England 2001-201050

Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Predominantly Rural

8,771 8,999 10,083 10,932 11,718 12,048 12,890 10,723 10,806 10,667

Significantly Rural

5,777 5,867 6,023 6,680 6,745 7,561 8,056 6,627 7,023 6,788

Predominantly Urban

41,207 42,208 44,070 48,760 49,679 49,776 56,862 48,693 47,381 50,114

England 55,755 57,074 60,176 66,372 68,142 69,385 77,808 66,043 65,210 67,569

• Tourism in predominantly rural areas contributed £10,667m in GVA to England’s economy in 2010, accounting for 15.7% of all tourism generated GVA in England.

• Between 2001 and 2010 tourism GVA in ‘predominantly rural’ areas grew by nearly a fifth or 17.8%, increasing from £8,771m to £10,667m. It also grew during the onset of the economic recession in 2009, growing by 0.8% from the previous year compared to a decrease of 2.8% in urban tourism GVA.

• Defra’s Statistical Digest for Rural England highlights the importance of the tourism sector accounting for 51% of total GVA in predominantly rural areas in 2010.

4.3 Key baseline messages

The following issues have been identified via the development of this baseline and require consideration in further evaluation activity:

• Visitor data for rural areas is well established that details the number of trips, overnight stays and expenditure within rural areas. The information does not provide the level of detail required to assess change in areas targeted by RTP funded projects;

• The available tourism data use different definitions of rural areas. For instance, Visit England and MENE surveys are largely based upon respondents subjectively assessing the destination of their tourism visit. In contrast, rural tourism data produced by the Office for National Statistics primarily focuses upon levels of employment and GVA and is based upon the rural-urban classification system. This means that supply and demand side data are not directly comparable, a factor that should be considered as part of any future evaluation.

• There are a number of data sources that provide an indication of trips to the countryside. These typically classify trips to the ‘countryside’ and ‘villages’, on a self-defined basis, which can be combined as a proxy for rural based tourism.

• Economic data for rural tourism is reliant upon bespoke runs from the IDBR using rural urban classifications. These classifications will soon change. Additional work will be needed to create accurate time-series analysis.

• Indicators of tourism GVA available for rural areas are not available from the Tourism Satellite Accounts that are used to measure targets in the Growth Review.

• Tourism GVA can be calculated from both a supply and demand perspective. The approach used within the evaluation framework will need to reflect the nature of each RTP measure. The scale and geographically dispersed nature of the RTP measures means that assessing GVA based upon tourism expenditure is the most appropriate method for assessing the GVA generated from the RTP.

• There is limited time-series data related to the impact of individual campaigns or wider campaign impacts. Data and evidence to track these trends is measured via the VisitEngland Brand, Communications and Satisfaction Tracker a continuous online survey interviewing 100 English holiday takers each week that has been delivered


since 2009 and in its current form since mid-2011.• Data and intelligence for AONBs is very limited. The Monitoring Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey

provides an indication of visits to AONBs but is not robust enough to provide data at individual AONB level. There is also a key data gap for AONBs in terms of measuring the number and value of visits to AONBs.

26

5. The Rural Tourism Package

5.1 Rationale

The rationale for the Rural Tourism Package reflects the strategic and economic drivers set out in Sections 3 and 4 of this report and observed market failures. The rationale for the RTP is also justified by both supply and demand side factors of rural tourism that are outlined within the baseline assessment for this monitoring and evaluation framework. In summary the rationale for the RTP is:

Recognition of an opportunity to unlock economic growth potential in an important and growing sector:

• The scale of the rural tourism sector is of national economic significance. It is the UK’s sixth biggest industry with 20,000 businesses nationally, employing 4.4% of the workforce51.

• A total of 352 million trips to rural England were recorded in 2011, generating an estimated £11,720m in tourism spend52.

• Countryside trips including overnight stays are more likely than other trips to be made by higher social grades (71% made by ABC1s vs. 66% of all trips), meaning there is significant spending potential among those undertaking trips to the rural countryside53.

• The nature of trips to rural areas is changing with a decrease in business trips and an increase in holiday trips. As a result, overnight stays are increasing.

• There is the potential to increase overnight trips in rural areas by encouraging day visitors to increase the length of their stay in rural areas.

Recognising�specific�challenges�to�growth�in�the�tourism�sector�in�rural�England:

• Rural tourism is seasonal in nature with over 62% of overnight trips taking place between April and September54.• There is a need to diversify and modernise rural tourism products, increase consumer awareness of these

products and encourage rural communities to benefit by taking ownership of assets and locations.• Destination marketing of rural areas lacks co-ordination and does not provide consistent messages to the

potential customer. This is primarily due to no individual enterprise having the incentive to comprehensively promote a destination as they have no way of preventing other firms from gaining greater benefits from their investment.


Recognising that the sector needs support to adapt to new trends to keep up:

• Increasing use of the internet and websites offering holiday accommodation are opening up and increasing accessibility to the rural tourism offer55.

• Tourists and customers in general expect increasing levels of customer service. Levels of customer service provided by the tourism sector as a whole are considered to be in need of improvement56.

• Levels of sustainable tourism within AONBs are considered to be under developed particularly when compared to other protected landscapes such as National Parks, and therefore provide growth potential. Partnership working between AONBs and DMOs is vital to achieve this growth potential whilst also raising visitor’s and business’s awareness of the need for continued protection of some AONBs.

5.2 Objectives

Strategic objectives for the RTP have evolved from those initially set out in the Rural Economy Growth Review in 2011. Objectives were refined to better reflect the strategic and economic drivers and intended outcomes of the RTP. The refined objectives were tested and agreed with Steering Group Members at a workshop on 27th January 2013. The five objectives are to:

1. Raise interest and awareness of the rural tourism offer in England among UK residents to capitalise on current

market trends; 2. Increase tourism visits, visit durations and additional spend in rural destinations and protected landscapes (e.g.

AONBs), contributing to the VisitEngland goal of 5% average annual growth in the value of the visitor economy; 3. Develop the rural tourism sector in a way that supports communities and individuals to access, enjoy, own and

sustain rural areas and their economies; 4. Increase growth and productivity of rural tourism businesses, by diversifying the product and raising the quality

of visitor experience; 5. Increase sustainability of rural tourism businesses by addressing seasonal and climate fluctuations, and sustain

growth across the rural economy.

5.3 Activities

The RTP is comprised of five measures which are summarised in Table 19 below. The measures had been identified and developed in isolation from each other and were subsequently grouped as the RTP during the development of the Rural Economy Growth Review. As a result the measures are not necessarily designed to operate in synergy with each other. However, the measures were all designed to either stimulate demand or increase the supply side offer with a view to increasing the scale and value of rural tourism.

Table 19: Summary of RTP measures

Measure Delivery Agent

Brief description

Growing Tourism Locally

VisitEngland Promotional activity designed to raise consumer awareness and direct interest in rural destinations.

Northern Land Defra Seven projects operating across protected landscapes in the North East. The projects are delivered under the themes of Exploring the Protected Landscape, Animating the Protected Landscapes and Experiencing the Protected Landscapes.

Paths for Communities

Natural England

Grants to rural communities for new public rights of way (PRoW), links and/or higher rights along existing PRoW (e.g. for horse riding, cycling and carriage driving).

Rural Economy Grant Defra Grants to SMEs to develop and improve tourism destinations, facilities and products.

AONB Accord Defra The Accord articulates a new partnership approach with AONBs, DMOs, VisitEngland and Defra to support sustainable tourism in these natural landscapes.

28

5.4 Targeting

Whilst the overall RTP is targeted at the tourism economy in rural England, each measure is targeted at different beneficiary types and geographies, and, in some cases, has specific processes for selecting beneficiaries. This is summarised in Table 20 below.

Table 20: Target geography and beneficiaries

Measure Beneficiary Geography Targeting approach


Targeted customers and targeted rural destinations

Rural England

A number of target audiences and locations have been prioritised. Target audiences: ‘shallow visitors’ – consumers that need to be persuaded to switch to taking a greater share of holidays in England and ‘committed holiday’ – consumers that rate England highly and are likely to already holiday here, need to be persuaded to take more breaks in England).

Target locations: 14 primary destinations and 6 thematic strands have been defined nationally on the basis of scope for market opportunity and potential for demand from key market segments. The ‘primary destinations’ include rural areas such as the Peak District, Cumbria and Northumberland as well as large urban areas such as Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle. ‘Rural escapes’ are included as one of the thematic campaigns to provide this aspect with a rural focus.

Northern Land

All customers and some sectors of rural tourism economy

North East The Northern Land Project is designed to addresses declining visitor numbers to Protected Landscapes in the North. It is designed to reposition them for an anticipated upturn in international visitors as a legacy from 2012 on the back of the Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee. The project is focused in the North East due to the decline in visitor numbers within the area - visitor numbers in the Protected Landscapes fell in Northumberland by 2% and in the Durham Dales by 9% between 2010 and 2011; the importance of rural tourism within Northumberland; and the areas potential to take advantage of types of tourism using the natural landscape – e.g. Dark Skies tourism.


Community groups

Rural England

Invitations for expressions of interest to bid for funds were promoted through various sources along with eligibility criteria. 121 applications were submitted. Applications were appraised and scored against selection criteria. 44 were invited to submit a full bid and secured funding for the project.

Rural Economy Grant

Rural tourism enterprises

Rural England

Requests for bids were advertised through key media.

AONB Accord AONB governing bodies

Rural England

The Accord is specifically targeted at AONBs reflecting the uniqueness and importance of these landscapes which are not fully exploited. Therefore all AONBs are subject to the same potential for benefit from the project.

5.5 Funding profile

A total of £25m has been allocated to the RTP from the Rural Development Programme England (RDPE) and Regional Growth Fund (RGF). Some of the measures aim to generate additional private sector match funding. The AONB Accord represents a new way of working and as such has not had any direct funding attached to it beyond in kind inputs in staff time. The agreed funding profile is presented in Table 21 below:


Table 21: Agreed funding profile

Measure RDPE RGF Match funding Total


£0 £12m £0 £12m

Northern Land £463,000 £0 £286,000 £749,000

Paths for Communities £2m £0 £057 £2m

Rural Economy Grant £10m £0 £0 £10m

AONB Accord £0 £0 £0 £0

5.6 Intended outputs, outcomes & impacts

The intended outputs, outcomes and impacts of the RTP are presented in the Table 22 below. These have been identified via a review of background documentation; consultation with stakeholders responsible for the RTP funded measures; the development of project level logic chains (see Appendix A); and URS’ judgement on appropriate indicators for measuring RTP performance.

5.6.1 Selecting output, outcome and impact indicators In developing the indicators detailed in this monitoring and evaluation framework, the following considerations were

taken into account. These criteria draw upon the principles outlined in the Government’s FABRIC Guide to selecting performance indicators58 and formed the basis through which an initial ‘long list’ of indicators was rationalised down to those presented in Table 22:

• Is the indicator appropriate and important? - Indicators should capture information that is appropriate to assessing performance against the objectives of the RTP and its main stakeholders and delivery partners, most notably Defra, VistEngland, and the National Association of AONBs. As a set, indicators should give a rounded and balanced overview of performance, focusing on collecting ‘must have’ information, rather than things that might merely be ‘nice to know’.

• Is the indicator robust and meaningful? - Indicators should provide data that will be robust and useful in assessing the impact of an intervention. An indicator should not be selected if its measurement is so subjective that the resulting data will be largely meaningless. The indicators within the monitoring and evaluation framework should be appropriate to measure the performance of the RTP whilst its indicators should be capable of being integrated into, and of adding value to, the business planning, management and project development/appraisal processes.

• Is the indicator measurable, cost-effective and replicable? - One of the key considerations in selecting an appropriate indicator is to consider how it will be measured, either through readily available monitoring or secondary data, or new primary research. Linked to this, the choice of indicators should be informed by the resource implications of collecting the data – do the benefits of obtaining the information outweigh the costs? For example, extensive survey activity within, for instance, AONBs will be expensive and may not be replicable on a regular basis.

• Definitional issues - If indicators are to be robust, it is important that they are defined accurately, particularly if a range of partners are involved in collating performance information. Data need to be collected in a consistent fashion; as such, definitions should be unambiguous and easy to understand.

5.6.2� Defining�terms

5.6.2.1 Outputs Outputs provide an indication of the direct results of an intervention in the immediate and shorter-term. They should

flow logically from the objectives and the activities undertaken to achieve those objectives. Outputs are captured through routine, on-going monitoring processes that typically record Gross outputs, representing the total number of outputs delivered before adjustments for ‘non-additionality’ – that is, the deduction of:

• Outputs that would have been achieved in any case without the intervention being in place;• Outputs that benefit people outside of any target groups or geography; and• Outputs that have simply displaced or substituted outputs previously achieved elsewhere.

5.6.2.2 Outcomes Outcomes are the wider effects or consequence of activities and outputs, and should flow logically from the outputs

achieved (for example, outputs related to AONB business plans adopting the AONB Accord should lead to outcomes such as increased partnership working between AONBs, Destination Management Organisations and VisitEngland).

30

Such outcomes could be characterised as being a step towards achieving the desired objectives of the RTP and Rural Economy Growth Review.

5.6.2.3 Impacts In turn, outcomes will impact upon the original conditions an intervention is setting out to change. For example,

increases in tourism visits to rural England will lead to increased GVA within the rural tourism sector. The grants awarded by the Growing Tourism Locally measure are designed to diversify the rural tourism sector and so should seek to diversify and reduce the seasonality and increase the resilience of the tourism sector.

Some of these impacts can be identified through changes in contextual indicators, readily available from secondary datasets (e.g. National Accounts), although issues of attribution will be particularly challenged given the relatively small financial input from the RTP as a proportion of spending within rural areas or Gross Value Added. There will therefore be a wide range of external factors at play that contribute to changes in impact indicators such as other interventions, background ‘market’ activity, and wider macroeconomic influences, and these may also contribute to any positive change identified. However, it is vital that an intervention remains focused on its ultimate goal; the improvement it can bring about in these impacts; and it is therefore important these feature in the monitoring and evaluation framework even if a more qualitative approach is required to assess the RTP’s contribution to changes in these indicators.

5.7 Intended outputs, outcomes & impacts

The intended outputs, outcomes and impacts of the RTP are presented in the Table 22 below. These have been identified via a review of background documentation the development of project level logic chains (see Appendix A); consultation with stakeholders responsible for the RTP funded measures and URS’ judgement on appropriate indicators for measuring RTP performance. Further detail regarding the definitions and proposed methodology for collecting output, outcome and impact data is presented in Appendix B.


Table 22: Proposed outputs, outcomes and impact indicators

Project Output Outcome Impact

Paths for Community

• No of PROW created/ improved

• Km of PROW created/ improved

• Number of volunteer hours recorded

• Volume of investment in PROW (£)

• Volume of match funding levered (£)

• Number of path users (including type)

• Males• Females• Walking• Cycling• Horse Riding• Jogging• With Dog• No. under 16 year olds in

party• Wheelchair user• Other walking aid• Number of trips• trips (Day)• trips (Overnight)• trips (out of season)• Visitor spend

Link

• No. residents benefiting from improved access amenity

• No. of businesses benefiting from improved access/ amenity

• Improved wellbeing• Trip profile is less seasonal• Path users type is diversified• Increase in GVA within the rural

tourism sector

Rural Economy Grant

• Number of businesses/ interventions supported

• Volume of investment (£)• Volume of match funding

levered (£)• Number of jobs created• Number of jobs

safeguarded

• Number of visits• trips (Day)• trips (Overnight)• trips (out of season)• Visitor spend

• Trip profile is less seasonal• Increase in GVA within the rural

tourism sector


• Media coverage/ reach:• PR Coverage• Social media reach• Destination newsletter• Partner media outlets• Number of visits to the VE

website• Number of visits to

partner websites• Visits to destination

websites

• Recognition of campaign (measured via disposition score)

• Number of bookings• Visitor spend

• Perception/ awareness and commitment (disposition score) to rural tourism is improved

• Trip profile is less seasonal

AONB Accord

• Number of partnerships established between DMOs and AONBs

• Number of AONB Management plans adopting AONB Accord principles.

• Number of events run by AONB partnerships to engage with tourism businesses

• Number of Tourism businesses in contact with the AONB partnership.

• Businesses adopting positive environmental practices to enhance the benefit derived from being an AONB.

• Improved partnership working between tourism partners.

• The value of AONBs is better understood and appreciated.

• Increase in trips to AONBs• Observed changes in

partnership working

Northern Land

• Number of new tourism activities supported


• Number of jobs created/ safeguarded

• Number of trips• trips (Day)• trips (Overnight)• trips (out of season)

• Trip profile is less seasonal• Increased overnight trips• Increase in GVA within the rural

tourism sector

32

6. Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

This monitoring and evaluation framework has been designed in line with HM Treasury’s Magenta Book. The following opportunities and constraints specific to the RTP have influenced method design:

Table 23: Method opportunities and challenges

Opportunities Challenges

• Existing outputs being recorded by the wider funding programmes supporting each measure (e.g. RDPE and RGF).

• An evaluation approach has already been developed and agreed for the Growing Tourism Locally project. This method has been internationally recognised and validated.

• Resources have been made available for individual evaluation of P4C.

• Wider evaluations of RDPE and RGF may provide relevant supporting information.

• Unclear rationale and objectives at the RTP level. • Limited scope to revise policy design to improve

evaluation. • Lack of baseline data (for projects).• Counterfactual position not defined at policy

development stage. • Beneficiary types and geographies vary across the five

measures. • Project implementation began before the monitoring and

evaluation framework was developed.• P4C evaluation has already begun and is supported

by greater evaluation resources compared to other measures.

• There is limited capacity, resource and time to collect new or additional data for some projects.


6.1 Evaluation objectives

The evaluation objectives for assessing the performance, effectiveness and impact of the RTP are to:

• Assess the extent that the RTP has addressed the rationale or whether the challenges still exist; • Assess performance at the programme and project level;• Determine whether the policy has achieved its intended objectives and impacts;• Identify changes to delivery and unintended effects; • Generating lessons and insights on what works to promote rural tourism and growth; and• Provide a robust assessment of Value for Money.

More detailed research questions have been defined for each evaluation objective to guide the monitoring and evaluation framework. Research questions are provided in Appendix C.

6.2 Intended audience

There are a number of partner organisations that provide the intended audience for this monitoring and evaluation framework and the outputs of RTP evaluation activity. These include:

• Defra

Other project delivery agents:

• Natural England• VisitEngland• National association for AONBs

Other funding programmes:

• Department for Culture, Media and Sport• The Leader Programme• Regional Growth Fund• Rural Development Programme for England

Other interested parties:

• Local Enterprise Partnerships• National Parks UK• Visit Britain• Visit Wales / Scotland• Local Authorities – particular those within which Rural Tourism Package funded interventions are operating.• Outdoor Industry Association• Sport and Recreation Alliance• Forestry Commission• National Lottery

Further information regarding the link between the organisations listed above and the RTP and their role in its evaluation are outlined in Appendix D.

6.3 Evaluation approach

There are many types of evaluation methods and combinations of method designs that can be used. The Magenta Book has helpfully summarised evaluation types and associated techniques (Table 24 below59) although it is recognised that many combinations of evaluation type and technique can be used.

34

Table 24: Evaluation types and methods60

Evaluation Type Associated techniques

Process evaluation

• Action learning sets• Theory of change• Qualitative/ quantitative techniques, e.g. performance monitoring data, survey, focus groups,

interviews, case studies, observation

Empirical impact evaluation

• Experimental design:• Randomised controlled trials • Quasi-experimental design:• Regression analysis • Propensity score matching• Time series analysis

Economic evaluation

• Cost benefit analysis• Cost effectiveness analysis

Theory based evaluation

• Logic models • Qualitative/ quantitative techniques, e.g. performance monitoring data, survey, focus groups,

interviews, case studies, observation

Meta evaluation/ meta-analysis

• Systematic review• Rapid evidence assessment

Simulation modelling

• Logic models • Qualitative/ quantitative techniques, e.g. performance monitoring data, survey, focus groups,

interviews, case studies, observation• Logically constructed counterfactual

The following factors have been taken into consideration when selecting the evaluation type and method:

• Evaluation objectives and research questions; • Beneficiary types and approaches for selecting beneficiaries; • Availability of data and evidence;• Scale of intervention & scope for impact Vs. ‘noise’;• Time and resource implications for project staff collecting monitoring data;• Time and resource available to deliver evaluation; and• Wider guiding principles of:

• The principle of proportionality• Consistency of approach across projects and at RTP level • Make best use of mandatory performance data

Having reviewed the evaluation types and techniques against the RTP and the factors above we draw the following conclusions:

• A process evaluation is an appropriate and essential evaluation across all measures (and particularly important for the AONB Accord). The process evaluation should inform how further subsequent rounds of RTP may be delivered to maximise synergy, impact and value;

• The scale of the project and geographical distribution of projects versus ‘noise’ makes an empirical impact evaluation less feasible, particularly for some measures (e.g. AONB accord, P4C and REG). Whilst it may be more feasible for Growing Tourism Locally and Northern Land, the approach might bring resource implications beyond the means of the project;

• An economic evaluation is appropriate to all measures with the exception of the AONB Accord due to the nature of this measure;

• A theory based evaluation would be possible across all measures, although there is considered to be sufficient data, evidence and resource to allow for more robust and qualitative analyses to be undertaken and answer research questions more fully;

• Meta evaluation would be possible and appropriate across the five measures. However, based on a light-touch review there is a limited supply of existing available evidence to support a meta evaluation for some of the five measures (e.g. AONB Accord, Northern Land and Grow Local); and

• Simulation modelling is a commonly used evaluation approach and could be used consistently across the measures (with the exception of the AONB accord). Based on a light-touch review, there is sufficient existing evidence to support the development of a logically constructed counterfactual.

The overall review is summarised in Table 25 below:


Table 25: Summary of evaluation type by measure

Evaluation type Northern Land

P4C REG AONB Accord


Overall

Process evaluation High High High High High High

Empirical impact evaluation High Low Low Low High Moderate

Economic evaluation High High High Low High High

Theory based evaluation High High Moderate Moderate High Moderate

Meta evaluation Moderate Moderate High Low Moderate Moderate

Simulation modelling High High High Moderate High High

6.3.1 Proposed evaluation types Based on the analysis so far, it has been concluded that the following evaluations should be undertaken and a more

detailed method is provided below:

Table 26: Suggested evaluation method

Evaluation type Northern Land

P4C REG AONB Accord


Overall

Process evaluation

Simulation modelling n/a

Economic evaluation n/a

6.3.2 Process evaluation method design The process evaluation is required to establish how the policy was delivered, using theory of change to test the logic

model upon which the policy was based, identify and explore any variances from intended delivery and any lessons learned to improve quality, impact or value of future policy. It includes assessing appropriateness and success of targeting and selection approaches, partnership arrangements, and wider factors such as communications, management, systems and processes, partnership, synergy, leverage and strategic contribution to wider relevant agendas (see Section 3). It also includes assessing wider external factors that have impacted on delivery, (positively or negatively).

In addition to understanding the delivery, a process evaluation can also begin to measure and observe effects (both intended and unintended), by testing and qualifying performance data collected by each measure and also collecting evidence of impact from project participants.

The process evaluation is not intended to test whether the policy worked, but will be starting to build the evidence and basis for making assumptions and judgements under the impact evaluation – in this case using simulation modelling.

Key tasks of the process evaluation will include, for each measure:

• Review relevant strategic and economic context to understand the extent to which these factors have helped or hindered success of the RTP;

• Review key project documentation;• Review the logic model upon which the RTP and measures is based;• Review of performance monitoring data collected for each measure;• Assess output profile and progress against output and outcome targets;• Assess progress against milestone targets; • Assess spend profile and progress against spend targets; • Semi-structured interviews with project delivery staff and key stakeholders; and • Qualitative/ quantitative research (or a mixture) with project beneficiaries. Options might include interviews,

observations, focus groups, surveys, case studies).

Qualitative and quantitative research approaches should be considered in line with the timescales and budget available for the evaluation, as well as accepted standards and guidance in conducting qualitative and quantitative research. Selection bias requires consideration within this evaluation and this should be considered when developing more specific methodologies for research with beneficiaries and partners. Action research has been excluded as a potential mechanism for this evaluation since project delivery is well underway at time of preparing the monitoring

36

and evaluation framework. 6.3.3 Method for impact evaluation: Simulation modelling The impact evaluation will test the impact of the five measures on overall objectives of the RTP. The preferred

indicator for measuring overall impact of the RTP is GVA of the rural tourism sector, which incorporates visit numbers, visit spend, new sales, employment created and productivity. The driver for this is that the RTP was developed as part of the Rural Economy Growth Review with an overriding objective of boosting economic performance in the rural tourism economy. However, that said the impact evaluation should also take into account:

• Changes to suggested method due to change in programme delivery; and • Wider impacts and benefits that may have occurred and may need to be captured through additional research or

sources.

The RTP baseline above provides an assessment of the rural tourism GVA, prior to the implementation of the policy. However, (and as noted above) there are too many confounding factors and noise in the impact pathway to show a direct link between the RTP and rural tourism GVA. For example, there are wider social and economic trends which are likely to have a greater impact on the rural tourism economy than the RTP itself (such as the UK’s ageing population, the economic downturn and the continuing increase in cost of living. The latter two factors have a particular effect upon consumer confidence, disposable income and choices regarding the holiday destination and duration). The scale of the RTP, a £25m policy over three years, distributed nationally across the sector worth £106bn per annum61 is unlikely to show a result, because of the wider ‘noise’ for example other policies, regulations and macroeconomic factors which may have a greater impact than the policy itself.

Therefore a simulation model is proposed which proposed a shorter set of links in the logic chain to derive a more robust analysis (see Figure 6: Method for measuring net impact). It involves estimating gross outcomes from output data; developing a logically constructed counterfactual position and subtracting the counterfactual position from the gross impact position to derive net additional impact, illustrated below. This approach is advocated in wider technical guidance used in other policy areas.62 and 63

Figure 6: Method for measuring net impact

As noted earlier the counterfactual position for this evaluation is the ‘do nothing or business as usual scenario’. This is to be constructed by applying appropriate leakage, deadweight, displacement, substitution and multiplier effects to gross outcomes to derive the counterfactual. This will then be subtracted from the gross effect to derive net additional effect.

6.3.3.1� Step�1:�Define�counterfactual�position Potential alternative counterfactual positions have been considered. The options are presented below with

commentary on each option:


Table 27: Options for counterfactual positions

Option Considerations for evaluation Feasibility

Do nothing/ Business as usual

• This position should be considered against actual impact position to derive what would have happened anyway / net impact.

• The method for measuring this is considered below.

High

Implementation on a greater/ lesser scale

• The merit here is to test whether the cumulative effects of policy are greater than the sum of its parts by increasing or decreasing the scale of intervention. However the five measures are designed in isolation and there is little direct synergy between delivery in practice. So this approach may not provide new insights.

• Therefore increasing or decreasing scale is likely to generate a proportionately larger or lesser result which may not add value to the evaluation.

• However, there are specific opportunities or limitations to do this for each measure: e.g. increasing activity and intervention related to AONB Accord/ Paths for Communities would be useful.

Moderate - low

Alternative policy design/ delivery

• As noted above, the five measures were developed in isolation. There are opportunities to consider what the impact might have been if measures were targeted in alternative ways, for example, more consistently focussed in targeted geographical areas.

• There is however, limited evidence to support this analysis and a theory based approach would be required.

Moderate

Implementation of alternative policy solutions

• Alternative policy proposals considered at policy development stage could provide a counterfactual.

• No evidence of alternatives has been identified.• A comparison of performance of other polices aiming to meet

similar outcomes could be made through a Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) instead.

Moderate - low

Options for counterfactual positions have been discussed with stakeholders and delivery partners. Based on the considerations above, it has been agreed that the do nothing/ business as usual option is the most feasible counterfactual position and the evaluation method has been designed to measure impact against this counterfactual position. However, the evaluation approach is not overly prescriptive in defining which counterfactual position should be used. Therefore other options may also be considered in addition to the do nothing/ business as usual scenario (including those suggested above or others that may arise during delivery) if they add value.

6.3.3.2 Step 2: Estimate gross outcome Project logic chains in Appendix A are synthesised and summarised below to demonstrate the theory of change,

Figure 7. Activities and outputs will be monitored in order to derive gross outcomes and gross impacts.

Figure 7: RTP theory of change

Impacts OutcomesOutputsActivities

RTP measure

Improves supply of infrastrcuture Attracts visitors Visitors spend

money Creates tourism employment

Rural toursim GVA

Enables SMEs to diversify/ boost productivity

SMEs secure new business

Creates tourism employment

Rural tourism GVA

Stimulates demand Attracts visitors Visitors spend

moneyCreates tourism employment

Rural tourism GVA

38

Each of the Measures (except the AONB Accord) is required to collect performance data on their activities and outputs. (See Table 22: Proposed outputs, outcomes and impact indicators). Project evaluators will be required to derive the following outcomes and impacts from output data, and suggested method and illustrative worked examples are presented below.

6.3.3.2.1 Visitor spend Projects will collect data on the gross number of visits generated by each measure. The profile of visits will also be

collected including day visits, overnight visits and seasons. This information can be used to derive visit spend by applying an average ‘spend per visit’ to the number of visits, taken from existing reliable sources, such as the Great Britain Tourism Survey and the Great Britain Day Visits Survey. An average spend per visit can be used where more project specific or locally specific data is not available. A worked example is provided below:

Estimate visitor spend from visit numbers: Worked example

(19m overnight visits x £156.7464 spend per visit) + (358m day visits x £27.4165 spend per visit) = £12,432m total gross visit spend.

6.3.3.2.2 Tourism employment Two of the five measures, (the Rural Economy Grant and Northern Land), will collect output data on jobs created and

sustained. Where this is not collected by the measure, then it can be derived from visit spend data above. There are several methods to estimate this. For this evaluation, the suggested approach is to estimate the amount of visitor spending needed to generate/ sustain one FTE job, and derive the number of jobs accordingly. Various examples exist:

• £63,000 visit spend needed to support one job66 • £54,000 visit spend needed to support one job67

These benchmarks are provided for illustrative purposes. Evaluators are required to assess the most relevant benchmark available at the time of the evaluation. A worked example is provided below:

Estimate rural tourism employment from visitor spend: Worked example

£11,720m gross visit spend in rural tourism/ £54,000 to generate an FTE job = 217,032 FTE jobs

6.3.3.2.3 Rural tourism GVA Rural tourism GVA will not be collected by measure and must therefore be estimated using existing available data.

The suggested approach for this evaluation will be to apply the average GVA per employee in the UK tourism sector – an estimated £40,50068 – to the number of FTE jobs created. A worked example is provided below:

Estimate rural tourism GVA from tourism employment: Worked example

217,032 FTE jobs x £40,500 GVA per worker = total gross GVA of £8,790m

6.3.3.3 Step 3: Deriving the counterfactual The counterfactual will be derived by applying leakage, deadweight, displacement, substitution and multiplier effects

to gross outcomes, (most specifically GVA). These factors will be judged by evaluators during the evaluation using best available evidence and data. A summary of each factor is included below along with initial suggestions on the wider trends and influencers that should be considered during the evaluation.

Leakage The potential benefit that is lost outside of the target beneficiaries/ areas

• Businesses that benefited that were not in the rural tourism sector (the rural tourism sector is defined in Appendix E).

• Businesses that benefited that were not in rural England or moved outside of rural England during the evaluation period.

• Whilst it is accepted that these examples of leakage still represent a benefit to England’s economy, they will be subtracted from the analysis because the scope of the evaluation is to test the impact of the RTP on the rural tourism economy. They could be considered however under wider benefits.


Deadweight The proportion of outputs that would have been achieved anyway

• Businesses that would have created new employment opportunities anyway.• The overall level of growth in the tourism sector overall and within the wider economy (evaluation

baseline report).• Proportion of domestic visits staying in the UK rather than going overseas (e.g. staycation trend)

due to reasons beyond RTP influence. • The influence of weather conditions on consumer behaviour.• The proportion of visits that may have been influenced by wider events.• Wider policies which may have influenced the same outcomes in the same locations such as:

• Other initiatives funded under RDPE (DEFRA)69;• England Coast Path (Natural England); and• Activities of other funders e.g. HLF, English Heritage.

Substitution The proportion of output that is substituted with a similar one to take advantage of public sector assistance

• Business that chose one course of action over another in order to benefit from a grant.

Multipliers The indirect economic effects through the supply chain and further spending

• Money generated through the supply chain.• Money generated through induced spending from employees.

Displacement The extent to which activity and investment in this programme reduced activity or prevented activity occurring elsewhere

• Visitors displaced between different destinations within rural England and therefore no overall change for the rural tourism economy.

6.3.3.4 Step 4: Derive net impact The formula presented below is recommended for use in deriving net impact.

Figure 8: Net impact formula

AI = [GI] - [GI x (1-L) x (1-Dp) x (1-S) x M]

AI = Additional ImpactGI = Gross ImpactL = Leakage

Dp = DisplacementS = Substitution M = Multiplier

6.3.3.5 Step 5: Identify and quantify wider impacts and effects Each measure will deliver a wider range of outcomes and impacts than GVA. The table presented in Appendix B

proposes a range of intended outcomes against each measure with suggested approaches to capturing such results. A qualitative judgement is considered as a minimum. Exact method and levels of robustness will be determined by resources available for the evaluation. Unintended outcomes should also be observed and reported. Delivery agents must also be aware of the potential to observe and record such results.

6.3.4 Economic evaluation method There are two broad approaches advocated in the Magenta Book and the Green Book70 to test the economic

evaluation of a policy. These include a Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) i.e. a comparison of cost per net output and Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) i.e. an estimation of the sum of all costs and benefits over the project life and discounted to present values.

Both methods are appropriate tools to assess the economic efficiency of the RTP. Having considered both options, the CEA approach is considered more appropriate in this context considering the resource implications of a CBA and also taking into account that a broad range of comparable benchmarks are likely to exist for a CEA. A CEA also allows for more direct comparison between measures (excluding the AONB Accord for which an economic evaluation will not be required). The key limitation of a CEA is that persistence of effects over time is not fully incorporated as it would be in a CBA. Evaluators must therefore factor this in appropriately.

40

The Cost Effectiveness Analysis can be conducted at the RTP level overall and by measure, and requires:

• Agreeing which outputs and outcomes will be compared;• Estimating net additional outputs (by applying leakage, deadweight, displacement, substitution and multipliers as

above);• Calculating cost per net additional output (using project actual spend); and• Comparing the results with other appropriate benchmarks.

Additionally, an input output ratio of net GVA generated per £1 spent will also be required.

6.4 Data requirements & synthesis

A series of data requirements have been referenced throughout. This includes:

• A full range of contextual data provided in the evaluation baseline report which should be updated during the evaluation to identify overall trends and changes in the sector to inform judgements about deadweight and displacement;

• Project monitoring data; and • Existing secondary sources used to inform the simulation model described above.

Evaluators will be required to synthesise data collected through delivery and evaluation to advice on the overall findings and ensure research objectives and questions are fully answered.


7. Delivery

7.1 Conducting the evaluation

It is expected that an external evaluator will be appointed to conduct a final ex-post evaluation of the RTP. This may include consultant or academic institutions or consortia bids may be received. Resources for the evaluation have not been determined at time of preparing the monitoring and evaluation framework. It is expected (at time of writing) that a proportionate level of resource for this evaluation would be within the region of £25-£50k. The evaluation methodology has been designed so that it can be delivered within this level of resource, but offers suggestions on further detail and analysis that can be explored if further detail or robustness is required. Key milestones for the evaluation of the RTP are:

• Delivery phase from March 2012 to March 2015;• Collate final output data/ other performance data March 2015;• Tender process to engage evaluator begins in March 2015;• Evaluator engaged by June 2015; and• Evaluation complete by December 2015.

7.2 Governance arrangements

Delivery agents and nominated contacts for each measure are summarised below in Table 28. It will be the responsibility of each Project Manager to ensure that performance data is collected and reported to Defra as well as meeting other performance requirements as per the terms of funding (for example for RDPE and RGF). Any additional information required by Defra that is additional to the performance requirements of their own organisation will need to be agreed between Defra and the delivery agent for the RTP. Defra will be responsible for the collation, co-ordination, holding and supplying the information to the evaluators.

42

Table 28: Delivery agents and project managers

Measure Delivery Agent Project Manager Collect Performance data

Growing Tourism Locally VisitEngland Sharon Orrell Collect & report performance data

Northern Land Defra Fay Collington Collect & report performance data

Paths for Communities Natural England Wendy Thompson Collect & report performance data

Rural Economy Grant Defra Fay Collington Collect & report performance data

AONB Accord National Association for AONBs

Richard Clarke Collect & report performance data

Overall Coordination Defra Justin Martin Collate performance data from each measure

It should also be acknowledged that some of the measures may be evaluated as part of wider evaluations of funds, for example, RDPE and RGF both benefit from regular evaluation activity. It is the responsibility of Project Managers to ensure there is coordination and knowledge sharing between evaluations and evaluators where this is feasible or appropriate.

7.3 Dissemination plan

A dissemination plan is provided to ensure the results of the evaluation are fed back into wider policy making or on-going delivery of the RTP. The dissemination plan for evaluation results is presented below.

7.3.1 What will be disseminated? The following deliverables will be disseminated:

• The full report setting out the baseline, performance management exercise and evaluation method. The report should also identify sources of information and data and how this can be utilised by different stakeholders and prospective users;

• A non-technical executive summary that can be easily circulated and which guides readers to the main report and pertinent sections; and

• A power point presentation setting out key information.

The deliverables must be easy to digest and use plain English. It will show effective synthesis of results and answer research questions in a manner that is understandable for policy makers as well as non-technical audiences.

7.3.2 Who will be engaged? Target audiences for this evaluation have already been defined. This list should be reconsidered during the evaluation

period with any additions made as appropriate. Given the range of interests and stakeholders represented, a non-technical executive summary should be provided.

7.3.3 How will results be used? The results of the study will be used for the purpose of:

• Informing future policy in relevant policy fields;• Sharing lessons about what works in rural tourism development;• Showing how the RTP has contributed to wider agendas; and • Ensure accountability of public resources.

7.3.4 How will results be disseminated? There are many ways in which the evaluation results can be disseminated to the identified audience groups. Methods

of dissemination may include:

• All stakeholders could receive copies of deliverables by email;• All deliverables could be uploaded onto the Defra website;• Web links could be included in correspondence between Defra and other project staff;• Social media, for example, working groups set up on Linkedin, Facebook, Twitter;• Word of mouth – by identifying existing networks and working groups that partners are already engaged with; and• A presentation of results to the project steering group and potentially, at relevant industry conferences or

workshops.

It is anticipated that a combination of these methods and approaches will be required.


8. Lessons

This monitoring and evaluation framework was required to support delivery and future evaluation of the RTP. Whilst an ex-ante evaluation was not required and is beyond the scope of this report, some lessons have been identified which should be observed. These are:

• The underpinning logic chains for this policy have not been well established. An ex-ante evaluation may have been undertaken before delivery. This would ensure the logic chains at both a programme and project level are correct and allow changes to be made to programme delivery before implementation began. A monitoring and evaluation framework would be included within this process.

• Opportunities for synergy between the five measures have not been maximised through programme design. For example, the projects are targeted and distributed across different spatial levels/ geographies and potentially dispersed. This may be necessary to maximise the pool of interest for calls for bids for some projects (such as Paths for Communities or Rural Economy Grant). Perhaps one counterfactual that might be considered is delivery with increased synergy between measures and/ or concentration of resources in specific and targeted parts of Rural England.

• There are no clear targets established for some measures whilst others, such as Growing Tourism Locally, have been verified by the funders (e.g. RGF/ Department for Business, Innovation and Skills).Targets for the RTP exist at a programme level, but it is not clear how they were estimated. URS assessment suggests that these targets (i.e. 7,000 jobs and £300m of visit spend) are unfeasible for the RTP to deliver. The development of more realistic targets should be considered against proposed delivery activity.

• Developing a monitoring and evaluation framework after implementation reduces the scope to gather new information from project beneficiaries as it is too late to include additional data collection requirements into the contractual requirements associated with any grant funding;

• In many cases baseline data is not available for specific activities funded under each measure. This makes assessing the RTP’s impact particularly difficult;

44

• Environmental impacts will be identified and recorded where appropriate although are not a focus for the monitoring and evaluation framework. Whilst this was raised as an aspiration early on, a review of measures funded suggests that it is not a primary goal of the RTP; and

• For policies like the RTP, where individual measures were packaged together and with great pressure for quick delivery without a full appraisal, then an ex-ante evaluation would be very beneficial.


Appendix A: Rural Tourism Project Logic Chains


Rationale • Paths, cycle ways and bridleways remain the second most popular destination (behind parks in towns and cities), for visits to the natural environment. In total, 14% of visits taken during 2010/11 involved a path, cycleway or bridleway.

• Public Right of Way (PRoW) network is fragmented due to funding issues, development and road traffic. They have therefore not evolved to suit modern needs and leave people disconnected from their surroundings and each other. Better routes are also needed to support growth associated with equestrian and cycling usage and which are currently inhibited by a lack of safe and extensive facilities.

• The Department of Health concluded that walking and cycling are the principal means by which we can build physical activity into our lifestyles and so stay healthy. Investment in walking and cycling infrastructure is considered a low cost and high value option for many local communities.

• Making a rural PRoW network work well can improve the amenity and attractiveness of an area for residents, tourists and local businesses which provide social and economic benefits and can contribute to economic growth. Good networks can provide rural communities with not only the basic benefit of rights of access to the places they live (and links to the wider area), but also with the services that come about because of good public access (e.g. more local use supporting local business, increased visitor footfall making new business services viable).

Objectives • Develop and enhance public rights of way. • Deliver benefits (social and economic) for rural communities. • Encourage and enable local rural communities to work with land owners to develop and enhance local

public paths that both extend the network and make it easier to use, in ways that deliver social and economic benefits.

• Enable local communities to enhance their tourism / visitor offer.

Inputs • £2m RDPE funding

Activities • 44 pathways created or upgraded

Outputs • 60 communities supported• 980km of rights of way improved, to make the local path network easier to use, better publicised and

better integrated with local transport, services and popular destinations• 60 business/networks directly benefitting from route improvements (i.e. pubs, B&B able to promote

adjacent route / network) • Evaluation activity currently under development is seeking to collect the following outputs:• Number of new PRoW links created to improve network • Length of new PRoW created and improved (per type of PRoW)• Cost per length of new PRoW created and improved• Type of capital items funded (number of stiles, gates, drainage, surface works etc.)• Level of one off payment to facilitate access paid • Mechanism used to create new PRoW (including EDCL)• Number and type of rural business benefiting • Number of volunteer hours recorded

Outcomes • Economic benefits: Number and type of rural business benefiting• 10b Social benefits: Number of routes connecting people and local services (e.g. shops, schools,

employment)• 10c. Social benefits to health and well-being (HEAT tool)• 10d. Type of applicant and types of organisations involved in projects

Impacts • Outcome 2.2: People are increasingly able to visit and enjoy the natural environment. • KPI 2.2.1 = We work locally with stakeholders, partners and community groups to deliver improvements

to and economic benefits from access infrastructure

46

Rural Economy Grant

Rationale The targeted intervention is needed to: • Make rural tourism more sustainable, e.g. by forging better links between the businesses and their local

environmental and cultural assets, encouraging collaboration, more effective use of ICT.• Provide investments in recreational infrastructure (e.g. long distance walking, cycling and riding routes) to

deliver both economic and health benefits. • Improve the environmental performance of the businesses themselves.

Objectives • To use the natural and cultural resources in England’s rural areas to attract visitors and create new employment opportunities through the development of the tourism sector of the rural economy.

• To make rural tourism businesses more sustainable through collaboration, resource efficiency (including the management of visitor impacts) and effective use of ICT.

• Also aiming to contribute towards 5% growth target.

Inputs • £10m target spend between April 2013 and March 2015

Activities • Rural Economy Grant targeted at tourism businesses. The following levels of activity have been attracted:• Received 300 bids• 120 invited to submit full application• 35 have been successful, 8-9 projects are still being appraised (at time of writing)

• It should be noted that a maximum of 44 recipients will be awarded funds in total.

Outputs • Number of new tourism actions supported (44)• Total volume of investment (£10m)

Outcomes • Additional number of tourist visits (unclear if these are gross or net): • Number of overnight stays (350,000) • Number of day visitors (510,000)

• Gross number of jobs created/ safeguarded (25,000 FTE) (800 for Rural tourism)

Impacts • Economic growth (rate of growth in profitability) (no target is outlined)• Employment creation (no target)


AONB Accord

Rationale • Levels of sustainable tourism within AONBs are under developed and provide growth potential.• This means there is the opportunity to increase the contribution that tourism makes to rural economies.• A need to raise visitor and businesses awareness of the need for continued protection of some of

England’s finest landscapes. • A need to improve collaboration between AONBs and DMOs to facilitate the growth in rural tourism.

Objectives • To unlock tourism potential in AONBs by diversifying and modernising the offer and generating business opportunities appropriate to local environments and communities.

• To encourage local businesses, communities and other local stakeholders to benefit from the potential for sustainable tourism in AONBs through working together for the conversation and enhancement of their special qualities, and developing and managing its contribution to the visitor economy.

• To increase consumer awareness, understanding and enjoyment of AONBs, their products and the experiences they offer.

Inputs • No specific financial resource is attached to the AONB Accord

Activities Activities are to be determined at the local level but will include:• Work in collaboration with local partners to ensure rural tourism businesses have access to information,

skills, support and advice.• Encourage the development and sharing of good practice examples demonstrating how sustainability

principles can underpin the tourism offer in AONBs.• Support the development and use of consistent messages by all local stakeholders that reflect and

celebrate the distinctiveness and special qualities of each AONB and the experiences to be enjoyed there.

• Improve business resilience to changing environments by focusing business support and sustainable tourism initiatives on providing tailored advice on energy efficiency, opportunities to maximise sustainable travel options and reduce food miles.

Outputs • Number of management plans adopting principles of AONB Accord• Number of joint projects / initiatives delivered between AONBs and DMOs • Number of active partnerships between AONBs and DMOs

Outcomes • Businesses adopting positive environmental practices to enhance the benefit derived from being an AONB.

• Improved partnership working between tourism partners.• The value of AONB areas is better understood and appreciated.

Impacts • Increase in sustainable tourism – overnight stays.• Increase in tourism related businesses within AONBs. • Businesses within rural areas. • Increase in employment within rural areas /AONBs.• Increase in visitor spend within AONBs.• Increased number of sustainable tourism projects in AONB areas.• Closer / increased collaborative working between AONBs and VisitEngland / DMOs.• Importance of AONBs is recognised and reflected by DMOs.• Profile and perception of AONBs is improved.

48


Rationale • VisitEngland research, conducted in 2009 and 2012, sought to understand information sources used in trip decision making and the role of national and destination tourist boards within this. Intelligence gaps were found related to ideas, inspiration and conceptualisation of potential trips. These were considered areas where VisitEngland is ideally placed to play a role.

• The campaign is specifically focused upon shallow users who tend to have less product knowledge but are open to visiting new destinations.

Objectives • Grow the value of domestic overnight tourism across all of England’s destinations (thematic campaigns). • Grow the value of the domestic overnight tourism in primary destinations (primary campaigns).• Inspire UK residents to take additional holidays in England generating additional spending on domestic

overnight tourism, with a focus on areas of low private sector growth rates and high unemployment rates.• Boosting local economies by generating additional tourism spending in English destinations, resulting in

the creation of over 9,100 indirect tourism jobs and a return on investment of 10:1 or £400m additional spending on completion of the project.

• To bring increased rigour and co-ordination to local destination promotional activities. • Have a longer-term impact by making a lasting change in the public’s behaviour, increasing people’s

commitment (positive relationship) with England as a destination.

Inputs • £12m of RGF funds between March 2012 and 2015.

Activities Activities can be classified into two separate strands of activity to promote tourism:• Destination element – 14 areas were chosen priority areas within the destination element. These

were chosen trough a filtering approach to shortlist areas with tourism growth potential, existing level of awareness with the domestic consumer enabling them to stimulate additional visits and increased expenditure. Primary destinations were offered support including:• Consultancy support to refine the target audience and the quality of media / marketing campaigns.• Co-ordinating activity to reduce duplication by staggering media campaigns.

• Thematic element – focused around groups of similar destination. Six classifications are currently used – Romantic heritage, cultural cities, coastal escapes, rural escapes, English seaside and active outdoors.

Three media partners were chosen to promote the three thematic elements. These were:• The Guardian: Pre-family • The Daily Mail. The Mail on Sunday: Family • Classic FM and Gold FM: Empty-nesters

Outputs Outputs (thematic):• Number of visits to the VE website (VE webstats)• Number of visits to partner websites (Partner webstats)• Unprompted awareness of England advertising (Brand Tracker)• Prompted recognition of campaign – (Brand Tracker)• PR Coverage (AEV of campaign-related PR)• Social media reach (Numbers of Facebook fans / twitter followers)

Outputs (primary campaign):• Visits to destination websites (webstats – destination websites)• Reach of other media elements (media circulation statistics) • Prompted recognition of primary campaign (Website visitor survey; independent destination research)• Destination newsletters - distribution / open rate (Destination CRM statistics)

Outcomes Final outcomes (thematic):• Incremental spend (ROI among ve.com website visitors and ROI amongst campaign viewers that are not

website users from Brand Tracker)• Spending efficiencies (cost of campaign v’s value of the media)• Increased commitment to England (Commitment Score – Brand Tracker)

Final outcomes (primary campaign):• Incremental spend (ROI among ve.com website visitors)• Bookings made during campaign - where mechanism exists (Destination Booking Statistics)• Offer redemptions - if offers are made (Partner statistics)• Spending Efficiencies (co-ordinated media plan)

Impacts Not stated


Northern Land

Rationale • The project addresses declining visitor numbers to Protected Landscapes in the North East and repositions them for an anticipated upturn in international visitors as a legacy from 2012 on the back of the Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee. Visitor numbers in the Protected Landscapes fell, in Northumberland 2% from 9.15m to 8.93m and in the Durham Dales by 9% between 2010 and 2011.

• Tourism is disproportionately more important in rural and remote rural areas as a source of employment to sustain rural communities.

Objectives • The Northern Land project seeks to:• Develop and animate the tourism product of the North East’s protected landscapes so that they can

attract more visitors, encourage existing visitors to stay longer and increase visitor spend as well as provide more opportunities for visitors to experience the uniqueness of the landscapes.

• Making the most of the natural and cultural assets within each of the Protected Landscapes.• Improve the promotion of sustainable tourism within Protected Landscapes.• Support existing businesses to be more successful by providing products that they can use to attract

customers and will potentially create new businesses in response to activity development.• Up-skill visitor facing staff in a range of businesses to provide excellent customer service. • Fully utilise social media in their own promotion and to more effectively convey a sense of place in their

interactions with visitors to the North East.

Inputs • Total project cost - £747,255, of which £460,378 is from RDPE Grant Funds

Activities Exploring• The development of a network of electric bikes for visitors use along Durham and Northumberland’s

coasts and through the north Pennines. This will include the creation of a network of charging points along the routes.

• Establishing a network of hiring and charging points for electric bikes along the Northumberland and Durham heritage coast.

• Undertake promotional activity to develop interesting and scenic routes for visitors to explore is integral to the success of the scheme as is packaging them for tourism and hospitality businesses along the coast and promoting them business to business.

Animating• Deliver 20 discovery sites to a common standard and interpret them for the visitor and package them for

promotion by tourism and hospitality businesses across the two county destinations.• Forest trail development including way-finding, physical improvements and interpretation are the main

areas for investment.• Development of food and beer trails across the counties, taking in producers and outlets across the

protected landscapes. A festivals exchange scheme would facilitate business growth by providing the opportunity to grow their client base and networks beyond their immediate area.

A sense of place• Delivery of two sets of two-day ‘experiences’ for visitor facing staff, tailored geographically to each

protected landscape. These will focus on customer service, social media and product knowledge. A second set will showcase the results of the ‘explore’ and ‘animate’ work streams.

Outputs • Enterprises supported – 195• Jobs created – 12.6• Jobs safeguarded - 12• Additional overnight stays – 11,000• New tourists activities – 7• Additional day visits – 22,800

Outcomes • Businesses reporting an increase in spend beyond 2014• An increase in visitors during the low season• Improved and distinctive brands for Durham and Northumberland• Improved perceptions of Durham and Northumberland • Higher customer satisfaction levels amongst tourist businesses

Impacts • Increase in visitors (both day and overnight visits)• Increase in visitor spending• A more sustainable tourism sector – reduction in seasonality• Increase in employment within rural areas• Increased number of businesses within rural areas

50

Appendix B: Proposed Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts

Framework Indicator Possible sub-categories (to be monitored as required)

Methodology for data collection

Definitional Issues

Outputs

Path

s fo

r C

omm

uniti

es

• No of PROW created/ improved

• No breakdown is recommended

• Presented in grant application form

• Include both footpaths and bridleways

• Km of PROW created/ improved



• Include both footpaths and bridleways

• No. volunteer hours recorded

• Construction• Maintenance


• Include all volunteering hours such as grant preparation, site preparation, construction and maintenance of PRoW (if specified in form)

• Volume of investment in PRoW (£)



• Include funding from all sources including Defra



• Presented in grant application form. Calculate match funding (all sources excluding Defra grant) as a % of total funding

Rur

al E

cono

my

Gra

nt

• No. businesses/ interventions supported


• On-going monitoring co-ordinated by Defra

• ‘Businesses / interventions supported’ defined as those receiving a minimum level of two days consultancy advice or other non-financial assistance, or a grant or equivalent of at least £1,000

• Volume of investment (£)

• REG investment secured

• Total of all other investment secured


• Total volume of investment defined as the amount of financial support secured including Rural Economy Grant contribution and match funding secured


• REG investment secured

• Total of all other investment secured


• Match funding levered defined as the total expenditure or funding secured as a result of non-financial and financial assistance provided to tourism businesses via the Rural Economy Grant




Definitional Issues

Outputs

Rur

al E

cono

my

Gra

nt

• Number of jobs created



• Defined as a new, permanent, paid, full time equivalent (FTE) job:

• New = should not have existed in the region or with that employer in the UK before the intervention.

• Permanent = should have a life expectancy of at least 1 year from the point at which it is created.

• FTE = paid work of 30 hours or more per week. Convert part time jobs to FTE on a pro rata basis based on hours.

• Temporary jobs may be counted where they are integral to the project and reflect normal employment practice in a sector provided there is a contract of employment that will last for a minimum of 4 weeks per annum. Calculated on a pro rata basis.

• Number of jobs safeguarded



Defined as an existing (i.e. occupied) permanent, paid, full time equivalent (FTE) job which is at risk. At Risk is defined as being forecast to be lost within 1 year. A job should be counted if it is: • Forecast as at risk when the intervention

with the business is approved; • Still in existence (occupied) at the time of

counting; and• No longer at risk of being lost within a

year.Jobs that were forecast to be lost within 3 years can be counted in exceptional circumstances.

Gro

win

g To

uris

m L

ocal

ly

• Media coverage/ reach:

• PR Coverage• Social media

reach• Destination

newsletter• Reach of other

media elements

• Segmentation of visitors by commitment and (shallow and committed visitors) and socio-economic type.

• Information collected through existing Brand Tracker, analysis of Visit England web statistics and website visitor surveys.

• Number of visits to the VE website

• Analysis of Visit England web statistics

• Number of visits to partner websites

• Provided by partners where available

• Visits to destination websites

• Provided by destinations where available.

52



Definitional Issues

Outputs

AO

NB

Acc

ord

• No. partnerships established between DMOs and AONBs

• Data to be collected for all AONBs in England. Analysis for each individual AONB is not recommended.

• On-going monitoring – AONB partnerships to record performance on an annual basis.

• ‘Partnerships’ include: • The development of joint project activity

and events;• Regular meetings to discuss shared or

complimentary objectives• The sharing good practice between

organisations• The development of joint funding bids• The sharing of resources (including co-

location of staff).

• Number of AONB Management plans adopting AONB Accord principles.



• AONB management plans adopting or referencing the Accord’s principles:• To unlock the tourism potential in

AONBs by diversifying and modernising the offer and generating business opportunities appropriate to local environments and communities.

• To encourage local businesses, communities and other local stakeholders to benefit from the potential for sustainable tourism in AONBs through working together for the conservation and enhancement of their special qualities, and developing and managing its contribution to visitor economy.

• To increase consumer awareness, understanding and enjoyment of AONBs, their products and the experiences they offer.

• Number of events run by AONB partnerships to engage with tourism businesses.



• ‘Events’ - activities designed to attract visitors to AONB including:• Walks;• Talks;• Workshops;• Group recreational activities;• Festivals and celebrations.

• Number of Tourism businesses in contact with the AONB partnership.



• Tourisn business’ operate within the following sub-sector defined by the ONS Tourism Intelligence Unit - See Appendix E.

• ‘In contact’ with AONB partnership includes:• Attendance at AONB organised events;• Engagement AONB forums or working

groups;• Engagement in AONB project activity

(e.g. Buy local schemes);• Businesses support by grant funding

(e.g. Sustainable Development Funding or LEADER);

• In receipt of AONB newsletters;• Responding to AONB consultation

activity.




Definitional Issues

Outputs

Nor

ther

n La

nd

• Number of new tourism activities supported.

• No breakdown is recommended as the target number of new tourism activities is small (7)

• On-going project monitoring recorded by Northern Land funded interventions and co-ordinated by Defra

• Tourism activities include:• The development of food trails;• ‘Experience days’;• Electric bike pick up and drop off

points;• Cycle routes developed or sustained;• ‘Dark sky discovery sites developed’


• No breakdown is recommended.


• ‘Businesses / interventions supported’ defined as those receiving a minimum level of two days consultancy advice or other non-financial assistance, or a grant or equivalent of at least £1,000.

• Number of jobs created

• No breakdown recommended as the target number of jobs created is small (13).


Defined as a new, permanent, paid, full time equivalent (FTE) job:• New = should not have existed in the

region or with that employer in the UK before the intervention.

• Permanent = should have a life expectancy of at least 1 year from the point at which it is created.

• FTE = paid work of 30 hours or more per week. Convert part time jobs to FTE on a pro rata basis based on hours.

Temporary jobs may be counted where they are integral to the project and reflect normal employment practice in a sector provided there is a contract of employment that will last for a minimum of 4 weeks per annum. Calculated on a pro rata basis.

• Number of jobs safeguarded

• No breakdown recommended as the target number of jobs created is small (12)


Defined as an existing (i.e. occupied) permanent, paid, full time equivalent (FTE) job which is at risk. At risk is defined as being forecast to be lost within 1 year. A job should be counted if it is: • Forecast as at risk when the intervention

with the business is approved; and • Still in existence (occupied) at the time of

counting; and • No longer at risk of being lost within a

year. Jobs that were forecast to be lost within 3 years can be counted in exceptional circumstances.

54

Outcomes

• Number of path users

• Males• Females• Walking• Cycling• Horse Riding• Jogging• With Dog• No. under 16 year

olds in party• Wheelchair user• Other walking aid

• Undertake a count of users. • Target around 28 days (ideally

42) throughout year between 2 and 4 days a month

• Ensure a split of weekend and weekday counts

• Try to capture all four seasons • Each survey day should cover up

to 6 hours (not necessarily all done at once) from 8am to 6pm

• Capture date, time and weather of count

• Capture characteristics as set out

• User count template is available

• Number of visits (Paths 4Communities)

• Visits (Local)• Visits (Day visitor)• Visits (Tourist)

• Undertake a user survey• Undertake alongside above user

survey• Ask where user has come from• Keep survey to less than ten

mins. Collect other information including satisfaction with pathway now and before intervention, other activities undertaking, expenditure associated with pathway

• 4 examples of user surveys are available

• Local user – from within 20 minutes’ walk

• Day visitor – visiting the local area for 3 hours or more

• Tourist – staying overnight in the local area

• Visitor spend (Paths for Communities)


• Calculate total number of users (from user count)

• Estimate proportion of users who are local, day visitor and tourist (from user survey)

• Apply average spend per visitor type

• Number of trips (Rural Economy Grant)

• Number of trips to be broken down by:• Day• Overnight• Out of season

• Collection of on-going monitoring data from businesses awarded REG funding, co-ordinated by Defra.

• Trips are defined as:• Day trips - defined as round trips for

leisure purposes that start from and return to home, and are not taken routinely (i.e. should not include business trips or routine shopping activities).

• Overnight trips - the number of people that stay in serviced accommodation (Hotels, B&B etc.) or self-catering accommodation overnight, camping etc. It does not include those staying with friends and family (often referred to as VFR).

• Out of season – trips taking place between October and March


Outcomes

• Visitor spend (Rural Economy Grant)

• Visitor spend associated with the following trips:• Day• Overnight• Out of season

• The method of data collection is dependent upon the resources available for evaluation:

• Collection of on-going monitoring data from businesses awarded REG funding – Applying the average spend data collected by VisitEngland to the number of visitors to businesses;

or

• Primary surveying of visitors to businesses in receipt of a Rural Economy Grant. Estimated levels of spend should be collected.

• Collection using on-going monitoring should be applied to the by average spend associated with trips to the countryside in 2011:

• Day trips - £26.41 (source: Great Britain Day Visits Survey)

• Overnight visits - £153.97 (Source: Great Britain Tourism Survey)

• Out of season (Oct-March). Overnight - £132.72. Day visit - £26.76.

• These figures should be applied to the number of recorded visitors.

• Recognition of campaign (Grow Tourism Locally)

• VisitEngland – BrandTracker / Partner media panel surveys (where available)

• No. of bookings made during the Grow Tourism Locally Campaign (Grow Tourism Locally).

• Duration of booking (e.g. number of nights)

• Destination booking statistics (where available)

• Increased commitment to holidays in rural England (Grow Tourism Locally)

• VisitEngland – BrandTracker (disposition score)

• Additional visitor spend (Grow Tourism Locally)

• Overnight visits • Adoption of the conversion methodology adopted for the evaluation of the RGF campaign.

• Businesses adopting positive environmental practices to enhance the benefit derived from being an AONB (AONB Accord)

• Regional variations in business trends should be investigated along with any examples of best practice.

The method is largely dependent upon the budget available for evaluation. These impacts could be investigated via:• An online survey of AONB

businesses;or• Qualitative consultation with a

sample of businesses engaged with their AONB.

• Examples of ‘positive environmental practices’ include participation in sustainability schemes such as:• Buy local,• Become Green Tourism Business

Scheme;• Activities funded by the

Sustainable Development Fund,• Businesses that volunteer to

become an ‘Environmental Champion’

• The value of AONBs is better understood and appreciated (AONB Accord)



partners and businesses; or• Qualitative consultation with

a sample of businesses and partners engaged with their AONB.

• The perception that the value of AONBs is better understood and appreciated should be assessed.

56

Outcomes

• Improved partnership working between tourism partners (AONB Accord)



partnership leads and their partners;

or • Qualitative consultation with

a sample of AONB leads and partner organisations.

• Partner organisations include VisitEngland, Destination Management Organisations, Local Authorities, Natural England, Environment Agency, Local Wildlife Trusts, Ramblers Association, membership organisations and conservation organisations.

• Number of trips (Northern Land)

• Number of trips to be broken down by:• Day• Overnight• Out of season

• Collection of on-going monitoring data from businesses awarded REG funding, co-ordinated by Defra.

• Visits are defined as:• Customers accessing the services

of Rural Economy Grant businesses.

• Visitor spend (Northern Land)

• Visitor spend associated with the following trips:

• Day• Overnight• Out of season

The method of data collection is dependent upon the resources available for evaluation: • Collection of on-going monitoring

data from Northern Land beneficiaries, co-ordinated by Defra – Applying the average spend data collected by VisitEngland to the number of visitors to businesses;

or• Primary surveying of visitors

Northern Land funded interventions. Estimated levels of spend should be collected.

• Collection using on-going monitoring should be applied to the by average spend associated with trips to the countryside in 2011:

• Day trips - £26.41 (source: Great Britain Day Visits Survey)

• Overnight visits - £153.97 (Source: Great Britain Tourism Survey)

• Out of season (Oct-March). Overnight - £132.72. Day visit - £26.76.

• These figures should be applied to the number of recorded visitors.

Impacts

• No. residents benefiting from improved access amenity (P4C).


• Calculate total number of users (from user count)

• Estimate proportion of users who are local (from user survey)

• No. of businesses benefiting from improved access/ amenity (P4C)

• Cafes and restaurants

• Cycle hire• Equestrian centres• Leisure/Tourism-

based shops (e.g. outdoor clothing, souvenir shops)

• Attractions• Accommodation

• Undertake a baseline of businesses within 400m of the PRoW via a detailed websearch

• Improved wellbeing (P4C)


• Qualitative feedback from path users collected by volunteers.

• Visit profile is less seasonal (P4C)


• Business survey (via telephone or email) of businesses within the ‘local area’ of the paths improved.

• ‘Local area’ is currently being adopted on a self- defined basis.


Impacts

• Path users type is diversified (P4C)

• Visits (Local)• Visits (Day visitor)• Visits (Tourist)

• In user survey ask whether the respondent had used the pathway before the intervention

• Compare the profile of path users who had used pre and post implementation of new PRoW to just post implementation.

• Increase in GVA within the rural tourism sector (P4C)


• Total level of visitor expenditure (from user survey) divided by £63,000.

• Trip profile is less seasonal (Rural Economy Grant)


• Analysis of REG monitoring data and Secondary analysis of VisitEngland data from the GB Day Visit Survey and GB Tourism Survey data.

• Qualitative consultation with partners and businesses in receipt of funding allocated via the Rural Tourism Package.

• Based upon trips to the ‘countryside’ and ‘village’

• Seasonality – out of season is classified as between October and March.

• Increase in GVA within the rural tourism sector (Rural Economy Grant).


• Estimation of GVA using project outputs data applied to the estimated GVA per employee within the tourism sector.

• GVA can be estimated by applying the GVA per employee within the tourism sector (£40,548) to the number of outputs recorded for jobs created and sustained.

• Perception/ awareness and commitment to rural tourism is improved


• Secondary analysis of brand tracker to assess the campaign measures against the disposition of countryside destinations.

• Investigation of the factors affecting a change in perception / awareness and commitment to rural England should be assessed using Brand Tracker.

• Trip profile is less seasonal


• Booking statistics and Secondary analysis of VisitEngland data from the GB Day Visit Survey and GB Tourism Survey data.


• VisitEngland data to rural areas is classified as trips to the ‘countryside’ and ‘villages’


• Increase in trips to AONBs (AONB Accord)

• It is not recommended that that results are analysed for individual AONBs

• Analysis of Monitoring Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) survey data.

• Visit data collected by the MENE survey is not directly comparable with data collected by VisitEngland. Visits are typically shorter in nature and dominated by local residents visiting green spaces to undertake walking activity.

• Observed change in partnership working (AONB Accord)

• Regional variations in partnership working should be explored along with any examples of best practice.

The method is largely dependent upon the budget available for evaluation. These impacts could be investigated via:• An online survey of AONB leads

and their partners.or• Qualitative consultation with

a sample of AONB leads and partner organisations.

• Partner organisations could include VisitEngland, Destination Management Organisations, Local Authorities, Natural England, Environment Agency, Local Wildlife Trusts, Ramblers Association, membership organisations and conservation organisations.

58

Impacts

• Trip profile is less seasonal (Northern Land)


The method is largely dependent upon the budget available for evaluation. These impacts could be investigated via:• Collected via project monitoring

requirements attached to funding, co-ordinated by Defra. This can then be compared and verified using secondary analysis of VisitEngland data from the GB Day Visit Survey and GB Tourism Survey.



• Increase in overnight trips (Northern Land)

The method is largely dependent upon the budget available for evaluation. These impacts could be investigated via:• Overnight visitor data collected

as part of project monitoring requirements, co-ordinated by Defra.

• Project monitoring data should be compared and verified using secondary analysis of VisitEngland data from the GB Day Visit Survey and GB Tourism Survey.

• VisitEngland data to rural areas is classified as trips to the ‘countryside’ and ‘village’ within the North East of England.

• Overnight trips - the number of people that stay in serviced accommodation (Hotels, B&B etc.) or self-catering accommodation overnight, camping etc. It does not include those staying with friends and family (often referred to as VFR).

• Increase in GVA within rural tourism sector (Northern Land)

• Overnight trips• Day trips

The method is largely dependent upon the budget available for evaluation. These impacts could be investigated via:• A survey of visitors to Northern

Land funded interventions to assess tourism expenditure.

or • Secondary analysis of STEAM

data commissioned by the Northern Land project.

• Tourism expenditure accounts for 43.9% of the sector’s GVA.


Appendix C: Proposed Evaluative Research Questions

Evaluation Objectives Associated Research Questions

Assess the extent that the RTP has addressed the rationale or whether the challenges still exist

• In what context was the RTP and five measures delivered?• To what extent has this contextual position changed since the baseline position?• Have the original needs for the RTP and identified market failures been addressed or do

they still exist? • To what extent did the policy contribute to wider relevant policy agendas?

Assess performance at the programme and project level

• How was the policy delivered?• How efficiently was the RTP and its five measures delivered across England? Were any

barriers to delivery identified?• Did the RTP and five projects meet intended milestone, output and spend targets (where

appropriate)? • What geographical variations exist and why?• What are staff and beneficiary experiences of delivery?• Are there examples of collaborations generated from the RTP and five measures which

have improved delivery?• Are there other strategic benefits that have been identified as a result of the RTP?• How effectively were beneficiaries identified, targeted, engaged or consulted (where

relevant)?• Did beneficiaries drop out of the process (where appropriate) and why?• What systems and processes were in place and how effective were they? • Were risks adequately identified and monitored?

Determine whether the policy has achieved its intended objectives and impacts

• What are the direct results of the RTP on the rural tourism economy in England?• What are the outcomes that have been recorded?• What are the impacts of the RTP and five measures and wider observed benefits?• To what extent were impacts a result of the policy and what proportion would have

happened anyway?• What is the anticipated persistence of effects over time?• What are staff and beneficiary perceptions of outputs, outcomes, impacts and wider

benefits?• Was the RTP and its five measures the right policy response for the needs and market

failures identified?• How was impact/ benefit distributed and have there been any unintended distributional

effects?

Assess changes to delivery and unintended effects

• Were the measures delivered as planned or did measures evolve and change? How? • Were any unplanned outcomes observed?

Assess changes to delivery and unintended effects

• Were the measures delivered as planned or did measures evolve and change? How? • Were any unplanned outcomes observed?

Generate lessons and insights on what works to promote rural tourism and growth

• What has worked well – what hasn’t? What are the views of different stakeholders and how do they compare across different stakeholder groups?

• What are the lessons learnt for promoting rural tourism/ supporting rural businesses via the RTP?

• How could the interventions funded via the RTP be improved?

Provide a robust assessment of Value for Money

• What was the economic impact of the RTP and the five measures?• Did this represent value for money?• What was the return on investment in terms of GVA per £1 of spend?

60

Appendix D: Intended Audience for the Rural Tourism Package Evaluation

Organisation Link to the Rural Tourism Package of Interventions Stakeholder role in the evaluation

Defra Primary funder of Rural Tourism Package Defra will be the owner of the evaluation framework going forward and are therefore responsible for co-ordination of monitoring data collection on an on-going basis. Defra’s Internal Policy Evaluation Group is a key stakeholder ensuring complementarity with other internal evaluation activity as well as the use and dissemination of the evaluation results.

Other project delivery agents

Natural England

Natural England’s role is to conserve and enhance the natural environment to secure its long term benefits to the natural environment. It is therefore a key public funded body in the development and conservation of rural and natural environments. Natural England has overall responsibility for the Countryside and Rights of Way Act that implements the ‘Right to Roam’. It is therefore responsible for managing the restrictions and exclusion regime (outside national parks) and provides guidance to land managers and the public on how the new right of access operates, and whether it is necessary to restrict or exclude access to conserve any flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features on the land in question. Natural England is responsible for designating Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is the lead agency for the MENE survey.

A provider of data as the commissioner and Project Manager of the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) Survey. Their role in designating AONB status means they will have a particular interest in the evaluation of the AONB Accord.

VisitEngland VisitEngland is the country’s national tourist board. They are also responsible for developing integrated marketing campaigns and providing data and intelligence from the Great Britain Tourism Survey and the Day Visitor Survey. VisitEngland are leading the delivery of the Regional Growth Funded marketing campaign – Grow Tourism Locally.

A key delivery partner and provider of tourism data for the evaluation. VisitEngland will also be a user of the evaluation results in order to review the of the tourism action plans.

National Association for AONBs

The National Association for AONBs is the lead agency for the AONB Accord, one of measures within the RTP. It is designed to improve collaborative working between AONB partnerships, Visit England and DMOs.

A key partner, co-ordinator of output monitoring data and beneficiary within this evaluation. The findings will inform their future strategic activity and identify best practice in partnership working.

Other programme funders / evaluators

DCMS The Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) leads on making Britain a place to visit. The work of DCMS is supported by 44 agencies, one of which is VisitEngland.

For information only – the results of the evaluation will be of use for DCMS in terms promoting tourism within rural areas and joint working with Defra.

LEADER / LAG

The Northern Land programme is funded by the LEADER Programme. The overarching programme’s objectives provide a strong link to the RTP:Improve the competitiveness of farming and forestry;Support a diverse and successful rural economy; and Develop vibrant and thriving rural communities.

For information only – data collected by the evaluation framework will help provide evidence to underpin future rounds of LEADER / LAG funding.


Organisation Link to the Rural Tourism Package of Interventions Stakeholder role in the evaluation

RGF Funder of the Visit England Campaign. The Regional Growth Fund is a £3.2m fund designed to create jobs and drive economic growth.

Funder and key stakeholder - the evaluation framework will collect information that demonstrates the impact of RGF in rural areas.

RDPE The Rural Development Programme for England includes the Northern Land project, one of the RTP measures.

RDPE are a key stakeholder within the evaluation. The Northern Land Project is contributing to the overall impact of the RDPE and so the evaluation framework will feed into the wider RDPE evaluation.

Other interested parties

LEPs LEPs deliver the drive to generate economic growth at a local level. Their role includes setting economic priorities for their locality and prioritising the allocation of EU fund between 2014 and 2020.

Key stakeholder given the role of rural economic development in some LEP areas.

National Parks UK

National Parks are protected landscapes which are key drivers of visits and trips to the countryside in England.

Project partner for Northern Land. National Parks are therefore a key project partner and an indirect beneficiary of RTP funding.

Visit Britain Visit Britain’s role is to promote the UK as a tourism destination for overseas visitors. This includes rural as well as urban areas.

Information purposes only – Visit Britain will be interested the impact generated by the RTP on visitor numbers to inform the design of funded activity in the future.

Visit Wales / Scotland

Visit Wales and Scotland are responsible for promoting the tourism offer (including rural tourism) within their respective countries to potential customers in both the UK and abroad.

Information purposes only – Visit Wales and Scotland will be interested in the impact generated by the RTP on visitor numbers to inform the design of funded activity in the future.

Local Authorities

Local Authorities are key partners in several of the RTP projects including the Northern Land Project, the VisitEngland Campaign and Paths for Communities.

Information purposes only – the evaluation framework will generate evidence to identify the role and value of rural economic development programmes.

Outdoor Industry Association

The Outdoor Industry Association is the industry body for organisations that provide products and services for the outdoor leisure pursuits. They therefore promote the outdoor activities and also offer business support to member organisations.

For information purposes only.

Sport and Recreation Alliance

The Sport and Recreation Alliance represents governing bodies and membership organisations. Some of their members therefore promote visits to rural areas and the countryside.

For information purposes only.

Forestry Commission

The Forestry Commission manages forested land in England and Wales, some of which is the location of RTP activity (e.g. Northern Land and the AONB Accord). The Forestry Commission has an Accord with the National Association for AONBs as well as having ‘Accords’ in place with a number of individual AONBs.

For information only - Data generated by the evaluation framework will help to demonstrate the impact of partnership working between the Forestry Commission and AONBs. It will also demonstrate the impact of RTP activity to increasing visits to Forestry Commission managed land such as the Paths for Communities project.

National Lottery

The National Lottery is a major funder of project based activity, having allocated over £30bn since 1994. Funding is directed through its twelve independent specialist grant making organisations. These include the BIG Lottery and the Heritage Lottery Fund.

For information only – The results of this evaluation and the impacts generated will provide lessons learnt for future lottery funded activity.

62

Appendix E: Tourism Definition - SIC2007 Footprint71

Sub-group SIC2007 Code Definition

Transport 49100 Passenger rail transport, interurban

Transport 49320 Taxi operation

Transport 49390 Other passenger land transport

Transport 50100 Sea and coastal passenger water transport

Transport 50300 Inland passenger water transport

Transport 51101 Scheduled passenger air transport

Transport 51102 Non-scheduled passenger air transport

Accommodation 55100 Hotels and similar accommodation

Accommodation 55201 Holiday centres and villages

Accommodation 55202 Youth hostels

Accommodation 55209 Other holiday and other collective accommodation

Accommodation 55300 Recreational vehicle parks, trailer parks and camping

Accommodation 55900 Other accommodation

Food & Drink 56101 Licensed restaurants

Food & Drink 56102 Unlicensed restaurants and cafes

Food & Drink 56103 Take-away food shops and mobile food stands

Food & Drink 56210 Event catering activities

Food & Drink 56290 Other food services

Food & Drink 56301 Licensed clubs

Food & Drink 56302 Public houses and bars

Real Estate & Rental 68202 Letting and operating of conference and exhibition centres

Real Estate & Rental 68209 Other letting and operating of own or leased real estate1

Real Estate & Rental 68320 Management of real estate on a fee or contract basis

Transport 77110 Renting and leasing of cars and light motor vehicles

Recreation Activities & Facilities 77210 Renting and leasing of recreational and sports goods

Transport 77341 Renting and leasing of passenger water transport equipment

Transport 77351 Renting and leasing of passenger air transport equipment

Travel Agency and Tours 79110 Travel agency activities

Travel Agency and Tours 79120 Tour operator activities

Travel Agency and Tours 79901 Activities of tour guides

Travel Agency and Tours 79909 Other reservation service activities n.e.c.

Recreation Activities & Facilities 82301 Activities of exhibition and fair organisers

Recreation Activities & Facilities 82302 Activities of Conference Organisers

Recreation Activities & Facilities 90010 Performing arts

Recreation Activities & Facilities 90020 Support Activities for the performing arts

Recreation Activities & Facilities 90030 Artistic creation

Recreation Activities & Facilities 90040 Operation of arts facilities

Recreation Activities & Facilities 91020 Museums activities

Recreation Activities & Facilities 91030 Operation of historical sites and buildings and similar visitor

Recreation Activities & Facilities 91040 Botanical & zoological gardens and nature reserves activities

Recreation Activities & Facilities 92000 Gambling & betting activities

Recreation Activities & Facilities 93110 Operation of sports facilities

Recreation Activities & Facilities 93199 Other sports activities

Recreation Activities & Facilities 93210 Activities of amusement parks and theme parks

Recreation Activities & Facilities 93290 Other amusement and recreation activities n.e.c


Appendix F: Swot Analysis of Rural TourismThis section summarises the trends, opportunities and constrains facing the rural tourism sector both presenting and in the future. Unless referenced, the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are based upon URS’ perceptions and professional opinion. Strengths

• England has a rich and varied rural landscape that already attracts 19 million overnight and 33372 million day trips. This includes 10.7 million visitors who are on overnight holiday trips.

• Overnight trips to rural areas tend to attract higher numbers of visits from the ABC1 socio-economic groups (73%) than overnight trips to ‘small town’ and the ‘seaside’73.

• Tourism trips to rural England are estimated to be worth some £11.2 billion, supporting nearly 472,670 jobs and 57,000 businesses directly74.

• Approximately 23% of England is designated either a National Park (NP) or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), each of which have clear profiles as a rural tourism destination. Other areas such as the National Forest, Cotswold Water Park, the Forest of Dean, the West Pennine Moors, and Yorkshire Wolds, and the Fens (as non-protected landscapes) also feature within the expanding portfolio of rural tourism destinations in England.

• Over two thirds of England’s population live within a half an hour’s drive of an AON75.

• Visitor impacts and behaviours transcend the ‘official’ designations, meaning that the ‘destination’ associated with National Parks and AONBs in particular is often much larger in area than the designation itself.

• Rural England includes some of the country’s most iconic, revered and visited attractions including Stonehenge, Eden Project, Chatsworth House and Ironbridge Gorge.

• The increase in websites offering holiday accommodation is acting to increase the accessibility of rural tourism – see http://www.visitengland.com/where-stay for signposting to booking websites

• Britain’s (and England’s) landscapes and natural beauty form a key part of the holiday experience for domestic and overseas audiences, affording opportunities to get off the beaten tourist trails, and to escape, relax and unwind.

• Undertaking some form of outdoor pursuit is a primary purpose of domestic trips to the countryside. The largest proportion of trips to the countryside (76%) involve walking whilst activities such as eating out, wildlife watching and visiting an attraction are also important.

• Many popular ‘countryside’ destinations are easily accessible, with at least one National Park within a 1.5 hour driving time from 10 of England’s most populous urban areas76.

• A strong competition between rural tourism destinations is helping to drive up quality standards and targeted investment in innovative new products and services.

• Many rural destinations are supported by an identified management organisation whose team is responsible for marketing, promotion, co-ordinating and supporting development. These organisations also have direct associations with national bodies such as VisitEngland, Natural England, Environment Agency and English Heritage.

• The tourism sector plays an important role in supplementing the income of existing businesses (e.g. farms) and sectors (e.g. agriculture). It is therefore vital in supporting the viability and welfare of rural communities.

• The association between tourism and the need to protect, conserve and enhance England’s natural and built heritage can often be strongest within rural areas. This can lead to high levels of involvement of the third sector and volunteers in rural conservation projects, some of which can also be motivators of tourism (e.g. through volun-tourism and eco-tourism).

Weaknesses

• Despite the diversity of England’s landscapes, rural tourism visits are not evenly spread. A high concentration of visits focus on the better known and protected landscapes such as the Lake District NP (14.8 million trips), the Yorkshire Dales NP (9.5 million), and the Peak District NP (8.4 million)77. Lesser known and less accessible destinations such as Exmoor NP (1.4 million trips) and Dartmoor NP (2.4 million) receive significantly fewer visits. Both situations can present management challenges whilst the priority is to increase the value, as opposed to the volume, of visits to place less pressure on natural landscapes.

• AONBs do not tend to have the same resonance as National Parks, pointing towards a more developed tourist offer in many National Parks.

64

• The strong competition between rural destinations and the growing choice of rural destinations in England. This can create challenges for certain areas in terms of attracting sufficient visitor numbers and spending to support the rural economy.

• The countryside has experienced a decline in business trips78. Business trips form an integral part (15%) of the tourism sector nationally accounting for 15.5 million trips in 2011. Of this, only 1.2 million (6.2%) are made to the countryside.

• Many rural economies can be overly-geared towards tourism. This can present economic challenges such as reliance upon a sector that has high incidences of low paid work, seasonal employment, and part-time employment within these areas, exacerbating issues of deprivation.

• Many rural tourism businesses are small, lifestyle businesses which are subject to life-stage changes. Such businesses also tend to offer poor terms of conditions for their employees.

• Overnight trips to the rural countryside are susceptible to seasonality, with over 64% taking place between April and September79 in 2011, compared to 58% of all overnight trips.

• The existing transport network can make access to, and travel within, some rural areas challenging, especially through more sustainable means (i.e. without the need for a car). Trips to the rural areas are predominantly reliant upon car usage (77% of tourist day trips in 2011 were undertaken by car80) providing associated challenges with pollution, congestion and a lack of car parking in some areas.

• Improving transport access to these remote rural areas can be challenging and can meet with opposition due to the prospect of increased visitor numbers and the issues that this could create within rural towns and villages.

• Rural destinations often transcend more than one local authority. However, the policy and management of the landscape between the local authorities is not always consistent. Management organisations are not always in place to address this issue, and even where they are, they are not always successful. This in turn can impact on the visitor experience within the destination.

• The sensitivity of the rural landscapes and efforts to conserve and protect designated and sensitive areas can be challenging where there is a high incidence of visitor footfall, with footpath erosion, littering, traffic congestion, noise and habitat disturbances often common complaints associated with visitor behaviours in some rural destinations.

• ICT infrastructure is generally considered to be poorer in rural areas of England. This in turn hampers tourism businesses which require a strong web-presence, and also may deter visitors – particularly business trips – who have an increasing demand for ICT due to improving mobile technologies.

• The additional planning constraints associated with rural areas, especially protected landscapes, can hinder new tourism development and improvements to existing stock. Conversely, a lack of suitable planning policy controls can result in a decline of provision (e.g. conversion of hotels/inns to dwellings), changes in local community character (e.g. through increased second home purchases in villages and towns), and inappropriate development (e.g. second home holiday complexes); each of which can have inadvertent implications for the local visitor economy.

Opportunities

• Rural tourism can play an important role in helping rural economies diversify and become more resilient and support rural communities and businesses under threat.

• Rural tourism in England is expected to grow, with VisitEngland anticipating visitor growth to the countryside to contribute to the industry’s growth aspirations of 5% per annum between 2010 and 2020. Domestic tourism (or staycationers) are likely to be the primary market and are widely considered to have driven visits in recent years.

• Long term climate change impacts are expected to result in increases in domestic tourism in Great Britain. There is also forecasted to be a shift away from tourism trips to Southern England to Northern England, Scotland and Wales. Both of these forecasted trends provide the potential for increased demand for rural tourism81.

• VisitEngland has identified a series of rural tourism destinations and predominantly rural counties within its ‘attract brands’ marketing strategy – for example, Cotswolds, Dorset, Lake District, New Forest, Norfolk, Northumberland, Peak District, Suffolk, Wiltshire, Yorkshire Dales, and Yorkshire Moors.

• Encouraging the existing large number of day visitors to the countryside to become overnight stayers, and increasing the proportion of international visitors to the countryside are considered to be two key market opportunities for rural tourism by VisitEngland. Reversing the trend of declining number of business trips to the countryside is also identified as a priority.

• With overnight tourism trips – both short break and holiday – and day trips becoming more experience-based, rural tourism destinations need to develop and promote a broad range of products and services to support different activities and interests. Any associated difficulty or challenge to the activity needs to be highlighted, and even promoted as part of the experience. However, the activities also need to be keenly matched to the individual to their own abilities and skill levels to ensure the safety (e.g. through walking/cycling trail grading).


• Rural destinations also need to promote the distinctiveness of their offer. This is not only achieved through the landscape and the products, activities and services they offer, but also through its culture, its history, its producers, and its natural heritage (e.g. wildlife).

• AONBs and other non-designated rural tourism destinations are likely to raise their profile and encourage new tourism activity, but this needs to be sensitive to the nature and character of the destination and its landscape, assets, activities and other principle attractors.

• The development of new products and services will need to be continued within key rural areas, with a particular focus on improving visitor experience, driving up quality, encouraging longer durations of stay and reducing seasonality.

• Improving ICT networks to ensure that rural tourism business and visitors to rural areas can utilise ICT and mobile technologies more fully will also be required.

• The rise in online bookings is expected to be preceded by a dramatic rise in mobile booking and marketing throughout the sector. Rural enterprises need to position themselves to take advantage of this trend.

• Rural tourism businesses and destination managers need to examine ways to support the ‘greening’ of the tourism sector through new initiatives. This is to be reflected through increased participation in ‘green’ accreditation schemes such as the Green Tourism Business Scheme (open to all tourism business) and David Bellamy Conservation Award (open to holiday parks, camping and caravan sites only).

• Public transport services and networks will need to be utilised and improved if visitor dependency upon the car to both access and move around the destination is to be reduced. Similarly, the development and promotion of leisure routes for walking, cycling and horse riding is to be linked with accommodation and other supply-side services (e.g. cycle hire, equestrian centres, bag carriage, etc.).

Threats

• Changes to the current trends in domestic tourism as the principle mechanism for growth in rural tourism. This is a realistic prospect as confidence returns to the economy, which in turn could result in more of the UK population seeking holidays overseas. This would represent a return to the prevailing trends of pre-2008.

• There is a proliferation of ‘rural destinations’ that compete for visitor demand. Destinations therefore need to understand their target markets and work with neighbouring areas that provide a complimentary offer as opposed to generating duplication.

• Local planning policy failing to reflect the character of the environmental setting in attracting visitors; the importance of existing provision in supporting visitors; the importance of having a mix of provision to cater for different markets and interests; and the change, pace and type of development needed within the tourism sector as determined by a sustainable growth framework.

• The global tourism trade is closely linked to climate change with the sector’s contribution to climate change expected to increase by 152% by 203582. In addition, climate change provides a threat to the rural tourism sector with the risks associated with the predicted extreme weather changes and wetter periods more evident in rural areas. This in turn could deter visits to the countryside.

• Rising costs for businesses associated with fuel, energy and food which have implications for business viability.

• Changes to other support mechanisms for the rural economy such as through the Common Agricultural Policy and Rural Development Programme for England which have supported diversification into tourism and leisure services.

66

References1 Source: The Plan for Growth. Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 20112 For further information regarding how tourism is managed – please see: http://www.visitengland.org/england-tourism-industry/

how-tourism-is-managed/3 Rural Economy Growth Review: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/183289/rural-

economic-growth-review.pdf4 Source: A Strategic Framework for Tourism in England, 2010-2020. Visit England, revised edition 20115 Source: A Strategic Framework for Tourism in England, 2010-2020. Visit England, revised edition 20116 Source: Government Tourism Policy. Department for Media, Culture and Sport, 20117 Rural Statement. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, 20128 Visit England, (2011); Great Britain Tourism Survey 9 Source: Visit England, (2011) Day Visits Survey, The figures in this table excludes 3+hour leisure trips and relates to all places

visits and not the main place visited.10 Source: ONS, International Passenger Survey. Data relating to trips available to rural areas and villages is not available for 2011. 11 Estimate based on ONS International Passenger Survey 2010 number of visits, nights and spend data and activity analysis

presented in the Visit Britain September 2013 Inbound tourism to Britain’s nations and regions report.12 Urban tourism trips are those classified as being to either a ‘large city / large town’ or a ‘small town’.13 URS calculation based on tables 2 and 414 Visit England, (2012); Great Britain Tourism Survey15 Source: Visit England, (2012) Day Visits Survey, The figures in this table excludes 3+hour leisure trips and relates to all places

visits and not the main place visited.16 Source: Great Britain Tourism Survey. VisitEngland, 2008-12 17 Source: Great Britain Tourism Survey. VisitEngland, 2006-1218 Total domestic overnight trips include trips for holidays, business and visiting friends and relatives19 Source: Great Britain Tourism Survey. VisitEngland, 2013; 2008-201220 Visiting friends or family for leisure; ’Special’ shopping for items that you do not regularly buy; going out for a meal; going on a

night out to a bar, pub and/or club; going out for entertainment – to a cinema, concert or theatre; Undertaking outdoor leisure activities such as walking, cycling, golf; Taking part in other leisure activities such as hobbies, evening classes, etc. (outside of your home); Taking part in sports, including exercise classes, going to the gym; Watching live sporting events (not on TV); Going to visitor attractions such as a historic house, garden, theme park, museum, zoo; Going to special public event such as a festival, exhibition; Going to special events of a personal nature such as a wedding, graduation, christening; Going on days out to a to a beauty or health spa/centre; Going on general days out/ to explore an area; Going on day trips/excursions for other leisure purpose not mentioned above

21 Source: VisitEngland, 2013; Great Britain Day Visits Survey. NB - The data presented in this table may include visitors to more than one type of destination (e.g. rural and coastal areas)

22 Source: Natural England, MENE Visitor Data 2009-10 to 2012-13.23 Source: MENE Visitor Data 2009-10 to 2012-1324 Source: MENE visitor data 2009-10 to 2012-13. URS calculations25 Natural England, 2013; Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment 2009-13.26 Natural England, (2014); Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Available at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/

conservation/designations/aonb/. Accessed January 2014.27 Natural England, (2014); Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Available at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/

conservation/designations/aonb/. Accessed January 2014.28 Natural England, 2013; Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment 2009-13.29 Source: MENE Visitor Data 2009-10 to 2012-1330 Source: Tourism: Jobs and growth. The economic contribution of the tourism economy in the UK. Deloitte and Oxford Economics,

2013.


31 Source: Tourism: Jobs and growth. The economic contribution of the tourism economy in the UK. Deloitte and Oxford Economics, 2013. The figure estimated by Deloitte and Oxford Economics has been adopted by BIS for the purposes of evaluating the regional Growth Fund supported Growing Tourism Locally project

32 Source: Satellite Tourism Accounts, ONS, 2011. Figure rounded to the nearest £500.33 URS calculations34 GVA estimated for England only based upon UK tourism expenditure accounting for 43.9% of total GVA in 2011. This figure has

been applied to rural tourism GVA. 35 ONS, (2013); Rural-urban classification (2011) of output areas. Available at: https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/geoportal/

catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B01B285A9-6261-44F9-99EF-52FEB90350E5%7D. Accessed January 2014.36 ONS, (2010); Measuring Tourism Locally – Guidance Note One: Definitions of Tourism37 ONS Crown Copyright Reserved, 2013; Interdepartmental Business Register (IDBR) 2011 – Local Unit Level Rural-Urban Analysis38 ONS Crown Copyright Reserved, 2013; Interdepartmental Business Register (IDBR) 2011 – Enterprise Unit Level Rural-Urban

Analysis39 ONS Crown Copyright Reserved, 2013; Interdepartmental Business Register (IDBR) 2011 – Local Unit Level Rural-Urban Analysis40 Source: ONS (2011) Business population estimates for the UK and regions.41 ONS Crown Copyright Reserved, 2013; Interdepartmental Business Register (IDBR) 2011 – Enterprise Unit Level Rural-Urban

Analysis42 ONS Crown Copyright Reserved, 2013; Interdepartmental Business Register (IDBR) 2011 – Local Unit Level Rural-Urban Analysis43 ONS Crown Copyright Reserved, 2013; Interdepartmental Business Register (IDBR) 2011 – Enterprise Unit Level Rural-Urban

Analysis. Please note that turnover information uses a different IDBR analysis (Enterprise Level) to the data used for employment and businesses (Local Unit Level) and so is not comparable, i.e. the turnover figures cannot be associated with the employment and business figures.

44 ONS Crown Copyright Reserved, 2013; Interdepartmental Business Register (IDBR) – Local Unit Level Rural-Urban Analysis45 ONS Crown Copyright Reserved, (2013); Interdepartmental Business Register – Local Unit Level Rural-Urban Analysis46 ONS Crown Copyright Reserved, (2013); Interdepartmental Business Register – Local Unit Level Rural-Urban Analysis47 ONS Crown Copyright Reserved, (2013); Interdepartmental Business Register – Local Unit Level Rural-Urban Analysis48 Defra, September 2011, Statistical feature Report – Tourism49 This information is published by ONS within the National Accounts and is presented in Defra’s Statistical Digest for Rural England

with rural and urban splits based on broad Local Authority classifications. This rural urban classification is different to the classification used in IDBR data.

50 Defra, 2013; Statistical Digest for Rural England November 2013 Update.51 Source: The Plan for Growth, BIS, 201152 Source: Great Britain Tourism Survey and Day Visits Survey, VisitEngland, 201153 Source: England’s Countryside. What are the opportunities? VisitEngland, 2013.54 Source: Great Britain Tourism Survey, VisitEngland, 201155 Visit England provides signposting and links to a wide range of holiday booking websites - See http://www.visitengland.com/

where-stay.56 Source: The Plan for Growth, BIS, 201157 Match funding for Paths for Communities was secured at the project (local) level as opposed to at the national level.58 Choosing the Right FABRIC (HM Treasury, Cabinet Office, National Audit Office, Audit Commission, Office for National Statistics,

2001). The document suggests that an optimal set of performance indicators should be ‘Focused, Appropriate, Balanced, Robust, Integrated, and Cost-Effective’.

59 This document is not intending to replicate existing technical guidance and readers are urged to refer to the Magenta Book for more detailed information.

60 Source: URS summary of HM Treasury Magenta Book 61 Source: VisitEngland Tourism Factsheet, 201262 English Partnerships Additionality Guide 63 Impact Evaluation Framework, Department for Business Innovation and Skills.

68

64 Calculated by dividing the total spend associated with domestic overnight trips to rural England by the number of domestic overnight trips to rural England Source: Great Britain Tourism Survey, VisitEngland, 2011.

65 Average spend per tourism day visit to rural England in 2011. Source: Great Britain Day Visits Survey, VisitEngland, 2011.66 Steam 201067 Source: Tourism: Jobs and growth. The economic contribution of the tourism economy in the UK. Deloitte and Oxford

Economics, 2013. The figure estimated by Deloitte and Oxford Economics has been adopted by BIS for the purposes of evaluating the regional Growth Fund supported Growing Tourism Locally project

68 Source: Satellite Tourism Accounts, ONS, 2011. Figure rounded to the nearest £500. It should be noted that the figure refers to the tourism sector as whole as opposed to just the rural tourism sector. It is likely that the level of GVA per employee provides a slight over estimate in the UK given that average spend per trip to urban areas is higher than the spending associated with rural trips.

69 Outputs data for RDPE funded activity can be requested from the RDPE project database. Historical output data can be accessed from the Mid Term Evaluation of the Rural Development Programme for England from the following link: via: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/countries/uk/mte-rep-uk-england_en.pdf?bcsi_scan_E956BCBE8ADBC89F=0&bcsi_scan_filename=mte-rep-uk-england_en.pdf

70 Source: The Green Book. Appraisal and evaluation in Central Government, HM Treasury.71Source: ONS Tourism Intelligence Unit72 GB Tourist 2012 and GB Day Visitor Survey 2012 – please note, the day visitor figures have been changed as a result of

a URS review of GB DVS data73 Source: Great Britain Tourism Survey Data Browser, VisitEngland74 Office for National Statistics - (2013); Inter Departmental Business Register (IDBR), Local Unit Level Data Rural Urban

Analysis April 2012 – March 201375 Source: The Value of AONB Partnerships. An independent assessment prepared for AONB Partnerships. Land Use

Consultants, 2013.76 The respective ‘built up areas’ (as determined by ONS) of Greater London, Greater Manchester, West Midlands, West

Yorkshire, Liverpool, South Hampshire, Tyneside, Nottingham, Sheffield and Bristol77 Based upon 2009 STEAM Data - http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/learningabout/whatisanationalpark/factsandfigures78 Visit England – Rural Tourism Action Plan – as part of the England Strategic Tourism Framework 2010 - 202079 Source: Great Britain Tourism Survey, Visit England, 201180 Source: Great Britain Day Visits Survey, Visit England, 2011 81 Source: Hamilton and Tol (2007) The impact of climate change on tourism in Germany, the UK and Ireland: a simulation

study. Regional Environmental Change. Volume 7, issue 3, pp 161-17 82 Source: United Nations Environment Programme: http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/Business/SectoralActivities/

Tourism/Activities/WorkThematicAreas/ClimateChange/tabid/78787/Default.aspx

Prepared for:

rural tourism package - gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/document.aspx?document=12045... · appendix b...

Documents