Shrinking Communities in Scotland Vote on Creating National Park to Boost Economy

Is creating a national park for the chief purpose of economic development a good idea? Or does it ultimately diminish the conservation value of other national parks?

That is what I asked myself after reading this article from the BBC, about how a western region of Scotland known as “Harris Island” is voting on whether or not to attempt to make the area a national park (Harris is not actually an island).

The area’s population has decreased by 25% over the last twenty years, prompting residents to search for methods to develop Harris’ economy and halt its declining population trend. Other than that, the BBC has provided little additional information.

• » See also: Glowing Bacteria Could Join Rats, Dogs, and Watercress in De-mining Agricultural Land
• » Get EcoWorldly by RSS or sign up by email.

Luckily, I was able to learn more by digging up an older article from a Scottish newspaper known as The Herald. The campaign to make the area a national park was kick-started by a group known as the North Harris Land Trust, a conservation group that “aims to manage, develop and conserve the assets of North Harris in a sustainable manner for the benefit of the community and the enjoyment of the wider public.”

What’s interesting is that the Environment Minister of Scotland emphasized in the initial pitch for the national park that it would, in particular, help people:

First and foremost, national parks should be about local people. I am a passionate supporter of community-led initiatives and, while there are no resources available within existing spending plans for more parks, I would listen to other communities who put forward proposals for national park status. The North Harris Trust is one group which believes national park status would benefit the island economically, socially and culturally.”

It’s pretty interesting  that economics are being highlighted as the primary benefit of national parks by the environment minister, rather than conservation. It’s also interesting that Scotland’s environmental minister mentioned that the park would help the island “economically, socially, and culturally,” but did not say “environmentally.”

I confess that I know little about Scotland, and so with these two points of initial information, I sought out some more information online about the Harris area. I found this webpage, which provides some information focused on scenery and history, but still didn’t really give me a feel for what was unique or special about the area.

After a search on Flickr for photos, I was more impressed. The “Stone-hengish” photo I used above, for instance, makes the area’s cultural history intriguing. This vista (click on link), this waterfall, and this beach also make Harris seem like a beautiful place.

But granted, a lot of places in the world are beautiful and perhaps shouldn’t be made into national parks for other reasons (I’m looking at you Florida Keys). Definitely it’s great that conservation can and should be seen as a vehicle for economic development. I’m just not sure that designating areas as “national parks” should become the default method for achieving this goal. What do you think?

Photo Credit: Hare Guizer on Flickr under a Creative Commons license

Tweet This Post