Basak Tanulku, an independent researcher who conducted her PhD research study in Sociology at Lancaster University, examines the conflict between jobs and the environment in the Lake District

SOME projects proposed for the Lake District create large divisions of opinion and generate many column inches in local newspapers.

The most recent one was the Thirlmere Activity Hub proposal. The same attention was also given to some previous projects, such as wind turbine schemes or nuclear facilities across the region.

They all sparked debate in both in local and national media, with attention focused on their job prospects, whether they were necessary and potential environmental problems.

The debates centre on two approaches. The first is economism - that is, the priority given to the economics over everything else. Within this context, proposed projects such as an 'activity hub' or wind turbines are regarded as necessary investments, which would bring more visitors or create jobs for local people.

In this view, the economy generally comes before the protection of the environment. The latter is seen by some as an elitist interest, which neglects local people’s financial needs.

Economism also relies on the belief that more of anything (jobs, visitors, and money) will automatically bring more happiness.

An alternative view is that these projects should be assessed more carefully. They should not be just judged on their economic potential, but also on their social, cultural and environmental impact.

The second view prioritises protectionism and planning and argues that places like the Lake District should be protected against further damage, in part for the sake of future generations.

Some see this view as realistic and short-sighted. It is common to think of someone who praises protection as old-fashioned and having a NIMBY attitude.

In the end, these views often clash without coming to a solution. The dilemma - investments against the environment (or heritage) - is not only faced by national parks like the Lake District but also in other rural areas.

But like other rural areas across the world, the main problem in the Lake District is not the need for 'more visitors, more local jobs, and more investment'. Instead, it is a widespread general belief that economism comes first and the environment is a luxury.

Before investing in such projects questions should be asked. Who is going to use these facilities - the local people, visitors or someone else from the outside?

The second question to consider is the gradual change of the region through the construction of new homes or conversion of old structures for second home-owners, which can lead to changes in its demographics.

The third problem is the area's reliance on only one sector, in this case, tourism. In this context, having a balance between jobs dependent on tourism and jobs dependent on other industries is essential.

What will be the nature of any new jobs created? Will they be full-time or part-time (or seasonal)? Can they provide people with more psychological satisfaction?

Last but not least, these proposed projects are located in the Lake District: while it is a national park which was crowned as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2017, it is also a living heritage inhabited by not only people, but also a diverse flora and fauna, and symbolises a rural culture which can never be replaced, once damaged.

Finding a balance between creating opportunities for local people and protecting the natural and cultural landscape should be the main agenda for the future of the area.

We don't want investments which would destroy its physical landscape, but rather those which would strengthen the area's rich cultural heritage.

These should be encouraged to protect the Lake District for the benefit of local people, visitors and the future generations.