A sustainable and green approach to Stonehenge visitation: the "brownfield" option
a discussion paper by Ian Baxter, Moffat Centre, Glasgow Caledonian University & Christopher Chippindale, Museum of Archaeology & Anthropology, Cambridge University February 2002
Instead of a brief visit from an adjacent car-park with cramped visitor provisions, visitors will spend much longer in learning about the Stonehenge landscape and the inconspicuous but archaeologically important elements to it. One compelling benefit of that scheme, the promise that visitors would once more be able to walk freely amongst the Stones, has recently been cancelled.
Is this lengthy exploration of a landscape what most visitors want? We fear not.
Stonehenge is a place of emotional experience, a place to see the famous Stones and discover they indeed make a strange and compelling thing. The technical details of its multiple phasings, and the story of other less or (in)visible earthen monuments around it, are not what Stonehenge is world-famous for.
In all current debate, the present car-park and visitor-access arrangements are written off as a disaster which must be erased. Little effort has been made to see if what there is could work better.
This paper explores how at comparatively modest cost facilities on the present site could be decisively improved, giving a lower-budget and brownfield alternative to the present expensive greenfield option.
It has the great merit of providing what visitors presently enjoy, a rapid access which enables everyone to see the authentic stones from quite close by. And it has the usual advantages of a brownfield over a greenfield approach.
Conservation at and around Stonehenge
The first duty of those to whom Stonehenge is entrusted is to preserve the place and its setting.The case for careful conservation management at Stonehenge and the wider surrounding landscape need not be rehearsed again. Numerous appraisals have been published, and a new research agenda is to reflect the complexities and characteristics of the 'ancient' Stonehenge landscape, befitting the site's iconic status within Heritage designation (Darvill et al. 2001) and in the wider world.
Conservation does not occur within a vacuum, and wider environmental forces are at play. The interaction of conservation (as a science) and management (as a professional activity) leads to a sustainable approach to site development, and philosophies derived from environmental/landscape protection may be applied to Stonehenge. Notable are the notions of carrying capacity and establishment of the limits of acceptable change.
An acute awareness and understanding of the carrying capacity of Stonehenge is required for the bounded guardianship monument itself. Its surroundings, of grass on thin soils over chalk, are both fragile and easily damaged; as is seen in the current state of the grass around the site, and the replacement of downland greensward by specially cultivated playing-field turf (Cathersides 2001).
Understanding of carrying capacity is equally important for the wider Stonehenge landscape, since it is the stated intention to open up the landscape to visitors, and to channel visitors across a fragile land surface from afar. A previous discussion paper (Chippindale & Davison 2001) considered the implications behind the stated intent, concentrating on the sheer weight (notional and physical) of visitors in large numbers.
The limits of acceptable change are less well publicised or even understood. Current discussions between parties interested in site management may develop an understanding of these environmental concerns and apply them to the archaeological landscape. This approach, if developed in conjunction with the Research Agenda, will measure 'change' forced upon the site through conservation activities (including archaeological excavation and monument repair), management developments (of the current visitor provision and car parking in the 1960s), and other forces driven by outside pressures (among them historical events like the upgrading/surfacing of the A344, or long-term change from grazing to ploughing on the downland). These measurements may effectively assess the actual state of the historic environment within the wider landscape of the World Heritage Area.
A crude consideration of this important and difficult measurement might suggest that close-by changes and pressures have already exceeded the limits of acceptable change. Archaeological intervention at the monument itself (excavation, test- pits, re-erection of stones, etc.) has destroyed so much that perhaps no further archaeological work should be undertaken at the site for many centuries into the future.
What the professional enthusiasts want tourists to want to do at Stonehenge
The conservation gaze falls on those people who are or who ought to be thoroughly interested in a site which offers a tourist experience and acts as an educational resource.Visitors are to approach Stonehenge from a far distance, having wandered freely through the expansive Stonehenge landscape. Underlying this is our professional desire that people should want to wander long distances through the landscape and should want to appreciate the monument of Stonehenge as part of a much wider historic environment and natural landscape -- thereby to want to gain a fuller understanding of its cultural significance for the local area, Britain and the World.
With this benevolent vision in mind, planned redevelopment at Stonehenge involves removing the roads and present visitor provision, offering instead 'world-class' (EH 1999b) visitor facilities some 3 km distant by the Countess East roundabout on the scruffy outskirts of Amesbury. Interpretative facilities can there be provided which will foster understanding of the monument in its landscape, and provide all the necessary creature comforts required of a modern visitor facility (car-park, catering, retail).
In essence the plan is to create a discovery centre (in the broadest sense of the phrase), which will set visitors on a path through the landscape (via a transit system) to find many things other than Stonehenge.
Why do tourists want to go to Stonehenge?
Current published documents concerning the plans for Stonehenge make no mention of the special characteristics of Stonehenge as a visitor attraction, or of current attitudes towards the present facilities.A visit to Stonehenge is for most people primarily an emotional experience, an opportunity themselves to see the famous Stones and to discover they indeed make a strange and compelling place. See how many visitors take photographs of each other standing with the Stones behind them. The point is to have been there and seen it.
The technical details -- of which no crisp account can be given because there is so much doubt about them -- of Stonehenge's multiple phasings, and the story of other less or (in-) visible earthen monuments around it, are not what Stonehenge is world-famous for.
The Statue of Liberty is not famous for having been made in innumerable fragments in (of all places) central Paris and shipped transatlantic to New York piecemeal. Instead it is famous for being the Statue of Liberty. The same applies to Stonehenge.
A longer visit with much attention to non-emotional aspects to Stonehenge does not augment the emotional experience in a way commensurate with the extra time and effort it requires. Have visitors and others been asked during or immediately after their visit to Stonehenge if their entire party would have preferred to walk for twenty minutes or more to visit Stonehenge (and the same again to return), having left the car even further away and having been bussed in on a transit system?
Have they said they would? Would they be prepared to make that effort to visit the monument where there may be no toilets, no shop, no catering and no shelter -- and still no direct access amongst the Stones of the henge itself.
The tourist experience under the presently planned provision
Tourism planning -- and tourism planning is what the development of visitor facilities for the World Heritage site is -- requires an expectation of extreme circumstance: no visitors or lots of visitors; either way requiring a certain minimum standard and size of visitor reception facility if the tourism venture is to succeed. Stonehenge currently has lots of visitors (approximately 800,000 annually).Current planning supposes that the landscape can be opened up for free access, because there will be a 'drop-off' from the number of people arriving at the visitor centre, to the number journeying to their first view of Stonehenge in the distance site via a transit system to King Barrow Ridge, and then a further 'drop-off' when some do not go beyond King Barrow Ridge. This 'drop-off' will lessen visitor impact around and close to Stonehenge.
This approach, stated or not, misunderstands the perceived tourist notion of Stonehenge and the wider motivations driving tourist behaviour.
Tourists are coming to Stonehenge to see Stonehenge, not the wider landscape or an exhibition about the archaeology of Stonehenge, or an audio-visual display of whizzy pictures about Stonehenge. This is currently evidenced by the lack of tourists which can be seen on the footpaths leading away from the site, or on the open downland to the north of the guardianship monument and the A344. Only the tiniest proportion of present tourists have the time and inclination to explore this wider landscape, although excellent paths, sign-boards and leaflets encourage them to. Despite its conservation and archaeological uniqueness, tourists find it visually uninteresting. Of the upstanding archaeology in the immediate vicinity of the Stones, the Avenue is completely invisible to the inexpert eye. The barrows do stand out but they do not make obvious attractions in themselves, in the way that West Kennet Long Barrow does.
Those tourists that do come to the site are making a deliberate visit: Stonehenge is close to no urban centre, and Amesbury (the nearest community) is not a tourist destination. Having made that deliberate visit, tourists want to find themselves close to their mode of transport and equipment/provisions or other baggage which they have brought with them. They do not want to arrive at the Stonehenge Visitor Centre to find that they are in fact more than 3 kilometres away from the site, and will either be taken to the site in a manner which they cannot directly control (a transit system which itself is dependent on infrastructure and management, and which may not be immediately accessible), or have to get themselves to the site on foot when they are not prepared for this and haven't got the right footwear, coats, sun-hats and so on.
The tourist will be charged to see 'Stonehenge -- the visitor centre' without actually getting anywhere near Stonehenge at all. To our mind -- and we use a strong word -- this sounds like the unwary visitor is being conned. They are being sold 'Stonehenge' (the icon and the magnet for visitation in the first place) at a site which isn't Stonehenge. There is huge potential for inbuilt confusion and loss of both visitor confidence and goodwill, when the innocent payer parks at a facility hidden behind an unattractive service station, hemmed in by a river (with sewage works beyond it), a dual carriageway and unappealing housing on a busy trunk route, and cannot even see the monument because there is a large hill (King Barrow Ridge) in the way. When they finally get to the top of the hill, they are still not at Stonehenge, which is so far away that on a typical rainy day, the Stones will be invisible.
Stonehenge first, or the visitor provision first?
One merit of the present visitor provision (on which more below) is that the visitor goes first and straight to Stonehenge, and at Stonehenge first to the closest point they will ever get to the actual stones, just a few metres away. That is, there is an immediate advance to the immediacy of being close to the Stones. Afterwards, visitors have more distant views as they circle the monument; after that, they return towards the car-park, and it is then they go into the shop.A corresponding weakness of the planned provision is that the encounter with Stonehenge is postponed, and distractions substituted: first, the visitor centre with its interpretative and audio-visual displays (which the present plans make clear will be given the visitor before they leave the centre:: EH 2001); second, the transit vehicle ride; third, the walk from the transit station to Stonehenge. Immediacy is so delayed it will be much the less immediate when achieved. And the audio-visual displays will have filled the eye and clouded the mind with compelling images of and about Stonehenge, against which the reality will be less fresh and forceful.
Re-appraising current visitor management
So, if the current proposals are not suitable, could the existing provision at the monument itself be re-appraised?For too long, the negative aspects of the current visitor facility provision have been trumpeted: in tourism management terms, the current situation may in fact be considered a success, which can be improved on with the intention of providing a sustainable future for the Stonehenge landscape.
Plainly put, the current visit to Stonehenge site is not a calamitous tourist experience at all: you get to see what you have come to see, and it is quick, easy and reasonably cheap.
A visitor can drive near to the site; park their car close by; see what it is they are going to visit before they have to pay anything; and have available compact ticketing, catering, shopping and comfort facilities. As an icon representing British 'antiquity' to foreign visitors, Stonehenge is also perfectly packaged for tour itineraries and access by coaches (who require access close-by and a controlled time-monitored experience).
Whether the archaeologists like it or not, Stonehenge can be, and often is, 'done' in 10 minutes flat. (In the 'fast and free' version, visitors pay nothing and peer through the fence.) Interpretation is available from site staff or via small-scale flexible technology (the audio wands which can be programmed in different languages).
The problems with the provision currently are its overcrowding in peak months, the proximity of the trunk A303 road to the site, and the unaesthetic nature of the site buildings and underpass.
The main physical 'impact' on the site (apart from visitors) is the A344 road. Both the current car-park and visitor facilities are lower than the road on its north side, which is itself lower than the monument. The slope from east to west across the car park is substantial, reducing the visual intrusion looking away from the monument. The car-park is not visible from the visitor at Stonehenge, nor Stonehenge from most of the car-park. If the vehicle entrance to the car park were moved from its current location at the eastern end to the western end, and the A344 road closed from that point east, then a major impact could be reduced immediately. Access to Stonehenge would be at the end of a cul-de-sac; that access road could itself be 'greened' to reduce traffic noise, speed, and visual impact from its current state as a conventional straight and fast main highway. That is a quick-fix for improving the Stonehenge environment, which would be further enhanced by removal of the A303 from the surface.
In re-making the current provision, a 'brownfield' approach can be taken by confining new facilities to the zone where the archaeological levels have already been compromised or destroyed in the car-park, and underneath the footprint of the current visitor provision and tunnel. A minimum of some 1600 square metres are available for regeneration, a space increased if the redundant pedestrian tunnel and tunnel-access slopes are added, giving an 'L-shaped' footprint on which to redevelop visitor provision. Additional space may be available under the closed A344, on the south side of the present car-park, depending on how deep the road-building foundations have gone.
This brownfield approach is avoiding new damage to archaeology at the site. It gives visitors access close by the site and the surrounding landscape. It can be sunk into an already-existing slope to improve the aesthetic environment around the monument.
We conservation professionals have spent our time looking at the current provision and complaining about it. Stonehenge's visitors have the visitor provision behind them and out of sight when they look in wonder at the monument.
Site specifications, requirements and comparisons
Stonehenge as it stands has the required facilities for visitors, lacking only a good format and aesthetic appeal. Redevelopment on the current site could benefit wider goals for both the conservation and visitor experience of the Stonehenge landscape. As an environmentally-friendly approach, it manages impact on the monument without increasing it, and avoids new impact on areas previous unaffected in the wider landscape.There is much good experience in designs which blend visitor provision in the landscape without creating a pastiche effect, minimising visual impact. A good example of this, which The National Trust has direct experience of, is White Cliffs Visitor Centre.
The whole of the new facility should be below ground level, covered with grass to follow the contour of the slope; where elements of the construction are visible (at the visitor entrance) it should be of natural materials.
For the interior of the centre, comparison might be made with the recent developments by Historic Scotland at Urquhart Castle, where a new visitor centre building has been bedded into a hillside (albeit steeper). The key measurements for the redevelopment there are presented in the table below.
Urquhart Castle currently receives approximately 200,000 visitors per
year. If these numbers, and the footprint of the new visitor centre is
scaled up by a factor of about 3, then we come close to the space which
is both needed and available on the Stonehenge brownfield site. Interior
ratios of space can be tweaked, suggesting that if half of a brownfield
redevelopment at Stonehenge is interpretation (950 sq. metres), and the
audio-visual element is removed, then the arithmetic falls right. Current
proposals have 950 sq. metres for interpretation at Countess East.
| Urquhart Castle -- visitor centre measurements
Footprint 662 sq. metres Floor area visitor centre level (excluding fire escapes) 643 sq. metres Interpretation (exhibition) 52 sq. metres Circulation and ticketing 219 sq. metres (this includes lift and general introductory interpretation) Film Theatre 75 sq. metres (seating 80) Education room 36 sq. metres Cafe 101 sq. metres (75 covers) Food preparation 36 sq. metres Retail 44 sq. metres Toilets (including disabled and baby-changing) 55 sq. metres (figures supplied by Historic Scotland, Urquhart Project Manager) |
The visitor journey
The visitor journey (table below), building on management science (Lennon 2001; Middleton 2001), would therefore give the tourist the opportunity to visit a 'prehistory park'. Possibly having already glimpsed the Stones from the A303 if it still exists, they drive eastwards towards the site on the now-greened A344, before turning down into the car park (itself 'greened', and with more mature tree-plantings) at its western end. Driving down from Fargo, they will have glimpsed Stonehenge from a distance; now they are in the car-park, it has vanished from sight.|
Start of the visitor attraction customer journey Quality of printed material, brochures, posters, web-sites and electronic marketing, advertising, consortia, posters etc. Signage, impact and data offered Attraction impressions -- entrance gates, road ways, litter, car parks, pathways, gardens etc. Human impression -- staff; facial, oral, postural, cleanliness, uniform, name badges, general appearance First stage -- point of sale data; pricing, admission retail, orientation, sell on opportunities Interpretation -- key resources; audio, visual, cleanliness, wear and tear, orientation, guidance, lighting, décor Second Stage point of sale data; Catering, signage, orientation, pricing, visual display, smell, cleanliness, staff appearance, food and beverage offer, service, attraction linkage etc. Third stage point of sale data: Retail -- signage, orientation, content, pricing, lighting, visual merchandising and display, product range, service, pricing Toilets -- numbers, orientation, signage, location, cleanliness, heating, baby changing facilities, disabled facilities Exit experience -- signage, safety, farewell, sell on experience, return incentives |
It is important then that they go nearly directly to the Stones, the object of their desire. The approach from the east end of the present car-park is a good one, in which the Stones do their magic trick of rising into view from the ground. Following the present access path, the visitors have, as now, the immediate encounter first. As now, they return on a circular counter-clockwise path around the henge.
Approaching the car-park, they have the choice of returning directly to their vehicles or of going down into the visitor centre.
The account there will be partly about the other monuments and the Stonehenge landscape. It is here that the visitors will be encouraged to go out from the visitor centre and themselves explore the landscape; the majority, we are sure, will not choose so to do, and therefore the pressure of visitors on that landscape will not be great.
The display will give about equal space to historical Stonehenge as to the prehistoric Stones, and will display the multiple and emotional responses to the place.
We make no audio-visual element in the presentation, for two reasons. Firstly we are adopting a low-tech/low-key approach for the centre (which can be mitigated by the enhancement of the already-existing audio-wands). Secondly, because the Stones are close by, a spectacular audio-visual presentation will crowd out the true experience of seeing the Stones without benefit of summer-solstice visual sequences, or a fly-through the prehistoric landscape in a VR representation.
Leaving the displays, the visitor will be invited to go back and have another look at Stonehenge before their brief encounter with it ends.
Conclusions: greenfield or brownfield?
It is clear that the entire visitor journey must be considered more thoroughly for the site, and planning for the improvement of the conservation and visitor experience at Stonehenge must not end with the day that the building is finished. At this stage staffing, expertise, skills gaps for interpretation must be identified and assessed. The whole concept of Stonehenge in its landscape does not work if a basic retail/interpretative/catering experience (with typical tourist facility staffing complement) is just dropped into a complex historic landscape and expected to act as a Stonehenge Discovery Centre. Whether low-tech or high-tech approaches are used, the encouragement of people to discover the World Heritage Area must be backed up by 'rangers' or suitable materials if the conservation desire for others to understand has any hope of succeeding.And here we return to the nub of the problem -- are we, as conservation and archaeological professionals, imposing our beliefs and our desires through our control of planning for the future management of Stonehenge on visitors and on the physical archaeological remains themselves in an experimental fashion -- in the hope that we know what is best for them? We cannot afford to experiment with Stonehenge in the way that we may be able to with other historic sites, yet current public planning documents look as if this approach is being taken.
It is unfortunate that English Heritage and the National Trust, although assiduous in their consultations with interested parties, have always done so on the basis of inviting comment on one proposed scheme -- although just what that one scheme is changes with dismaying frequency. What is needed is a range of options -- cheap/mid-priced/ expensive; lo-/medium-/hi-tech; brownfield/greenfield -- from which a preferred scheme can emerge.
That question aside, we have presented the brownfield option as an alternative and a 'sustainable' solution. This gives two extreme options (and many others exist in between): one cheap, one more expensive; one low-tech, one high-tech -- both very different. But both can be developed with the vision that we should not only manage the site with a 'light tread', but we should also encourage others to tread lightly as they explore what they want to across a unique prehistoric landscape.
References
BAXTER, I. 2001. The heritage monitor 2000--2001. London: English Tourism Council.BAXTER, I. & C. CHIPPINDALE. 2000. The Stonehenge we don't deserve: responses to Geoffrey Wainwright's report 'The Stonehenge we deserve', Antiquity 74:334-42.
BAXTER, I. & C. CHIPPINDALE. 2002 (in press). From 'national disgrace' to flagship monument: recent attempts to manage the future of Stonehenge, Conservation & Management of Archaeological Sites 6.1
CATHERSIDES, A. 2001. Stonehenge: restoration of grassland setting, Conservation Bulletin 40:34-6
CHIPPINDALE, C. & B. DAVISON. 2001. The one million and the one hundred thousand: the people of Stonehenge's future: a discussion paper. Devizes: Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society.
DARVILL, T., V. CONSTANT & E. MILNER. 2001. The Stonehenge Site Research Framework: an introduction. http://apollo5.bournemouth.ac.uk/consci/stonehenge/frameintro.htm
EH (English Heritage). 1999a. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan. London: English Heritage.
EH (English Heritage). 1999b. The Commercial Opportunity. London: English Heritage.
EH (English Heritage). 2001. The Stonehenge project: access to the Stonehenge landscape. London: English Heritage.
EH/NT (English Heritage/National Trust). 1999. Stonehenge -- the Master Plan. London: English Heritage/National Trust.
LENNON, J., E. MCDIARMID & M. GRAHAM. 2001. The 2000 visitor attraction monitor. Glasgow: VisitScotland & Glasgow Caledonian University.
MIDDLETON, V.T.C. 2001. Marketing in travel and tourism. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.