Breadcrumbs
NCAF 8/2 Monitoring implementation of part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
Why monitor..............?
1. A monitoring programme will ensure that both the benefits and
any adverse impacts that emerge are identified. The Countryside
Agency will periodically publish information on progress with
implementation of Part 1 using results from the monitoring
programme. We will discuss the form and content of this information
with DETR and others.
What should we measure?
1. The list of potential indicators is very long. It will need to be prioritised carefully in consultation with key interest groups. Criteria along these lines may help to achieve this:
Table 1. Suggested criteria for selection of indicatorsImportance | Characteristic |
Must: | - be relevant to core aims |
- answer priority questions | |
- be measurable | |
- be proportionate and cost effective | |
- provide a clear picture of +/- effects | |
Should: | - be of wider relevance |
- where possible, make use of data already being collected | |
- dovetail effectively with work required by the legislation | |
- have a short lag time where early warning may be required |
Comments are invited on these proposed criteria and on the list of possible indicators at Annex 1.
What should the monitoring programme be like?
1. The programme will need to reflect:
a. the core aims of the programme (eg to track delivery of improved public access opportunities, draw attention to any problems or impacts as they arise, and monitor the effectiveness of measures such as codes and restriction procedures);
b. the priority to be given to different indicators;
c. good co-ordination and targeting of the programme to keep it
cost-effective, ensure it tackles key issues and concerns, and
helps reveal the big picture; and,
d. an objective approach to data collection and analysis, to help
ensure reliable results that carry weight with all concerned.
How should the monitoring programme be implemented - and
when?
1. The Countryside Agency will produce a detailed and cohesive set
of monitoring proposals in close co-operation with DETR and the
other agencies and authorities given lead functions by Part 1 of
the Bill.
2. Data collection and collation will rely significantly on
contracting out. It will draw on a mixture of customised fieldwork,
returns from local authorities, land managers, volunteers and
others, and analysis of key central sources such as the evolving
official maps of access land.
Annex 1
An initial list of potential indicators for monitoring the
effect of Part 1 of the CROW Bill
indicators relating to POSITIVE delivery | |
Target | Possible indicator |
increase quantity of access land | • access land secured under CROW Bill • farmland reverted to permanent open country through proposed Access Improvement Scheme • access land secured by permanent access dedications |
increase the range and quality of access opportunities | • opportunities secured for horse riders, cyclists etc by permanent dedications • positive or negative impacts on ability to walk dogs in the countryside |
improve the physical and legal accessibility of access land | • new routes created to reach inaccessible 'islands' of access land • new access furniture installed • new paths created to help people move around access land |
ensure as wide range of people as possible can use access land | • users by social type • proximity of access areas to urban centres • accessibility via public transport • quality of use for people with mobility problems • new facilities created (eg car parks, toilets) |
increase the number of people aware of access opportunities | • web site hits • sales of new maps • publication and sale of new guides • newspaper advertisements • visitor centres offering access information • access information points |
improve rural economies | • use of local services • visitor spending • jobs created • government funds directed at access land |
indicators relating to impacts, problems and mitigation measures | |
Target | Possible indicator |
minimise any negative impacts on commercial land management | • structured sampling of practical and financial impacts on farming, shooting etc • effectiveness of dog controls • impacts on land values |
minimise any negative impacts on nature conservation objectives | • health of populations of vulnerable species • change in the level and pattern of use against predicted changes |
minimise habitat destruction to frustrate access | • area of habitat damaged |
minimise any negative impacts on heritage interests | • incidents of damage reported |
minimise any negative impacts on the landscape | • extent and effect of new built facilities, car parks, notices, waymarking or other access management measures |
balanced and effective use of access restriction powers | • use of 28 day powers • applications for special restrictions • results of these + grounds • appeals against determinations • whether system is delivering necessary restrictions in time • % of year over which access exclusions or restrictions are in force on a sample of access land • amount of officer time spent processing restriction cases • prosecutions • use by MOD of access restrictions under clause 26 and Schedule 1 |
minimise new obstructions to access | • incidence of obstructions • length of time to removal following complaint • prosecutions |
ensure that users behave in a responsible and safe manner | • complaints about user behaviour • familiarity with/adherence to codes • ranger numbers • accidents/injuries/deaths |
