Tourism and sport at the local and national scale

The **actual ground** a facility occupies — flat land, snow slopes, a coast, a river bank.

Its **position relative to** roads, cities, airports and the people it serves.

How **easily visitors can reach it** — by road, rail, air and parking.

The number of **visitors a site can take** before quality or the environment suffers.

A place that attracts **very large numbers of tourists** into a small area.

Relief/snow and climate (also scenery, water and a large carrying-capacity site).

Accessibility and investment (also marketing/image and cheap land).

A cheap, well-connected **brownfield** site — **accessibility** and land availability were the deciding human factors.

Its physical lagoon site made it a honeypot, but mass tourism now overwhelms its tiny **carrying capacity**.

Almost no physical pull — **investment**, airports and marketing built a tourism hotspot from human factors alone.

Name a factor (1) + **develop** how it shapes that facility's location (1).

Both sides developed, **named case studies**, accurate terms and a **justified judgement** weighing the factors.

**Economic**, **social** and **environmental** - and each can be **positive or negative**.

Visitor spending circulates: it pays **local wages** that are re-spent locally, creating **further jobs and income**.

The share of tourist spending that flows **out** of the destination - to foreign-owned hotels, airlines and TNCs.

A country's planned use of tourism (ecotourism, heritage, mega-events) to drive **development**.

Small-scale, low-impact **nature tourism** that funds conservation and benefits local communities.

The number of visitors a place can take **before** the experience or environment is damaged.

The **area a facility draws visitors from** - set by its threshold and range.

**Threshold** = the minimum users a facility needs to survive; **range** = the maximum distance people will travel to it.

Positive: jobs + the multiplier effect. Negative: leakage to TNCs, rising rents, seasonal low-paid work.

Up to 20-30 million visitors vs ~50,000 residents; crowding and Airbnb raise rents, so it added a day-tripper entry fee.

Low-impact nature tourism funds **national parks** and rural jobs - a sustainable, low-leakage national strategy.

Costs AND benefits across strands, **named case studies**, accurate terms (multiplier, leakage), and a justified judgement.

**Eastings first, then northings** - along the corridor, then up the stairs; split each square into tenths for the exact point.

1 cm on the map = 50 000 cm = **500 m** on the ground (so 2 cm = 1 km).

A line joining points of **equal height**; close together = steep, widely spaced = gentle.

A single labelled point on the map giving an **exact altitude** in metres.

**Subtract** the lower spot height from the higher one - e.g. 775 m - 95 m = 680 m gained.

Measure the route, then read it against the **scale bar** (1:50 000 -> 2 cm = 1 km, 1 cm = 500 m).

The **bearing of the second place from the first** (N, NE, E... or an exact bearing in degrees).

How well a place fits a leisure use, judged from **map evidence** - access, flat land, accommodation, scenery.

A **reason PLUS specific map evidence** (a named road, campsite, contour or grid reference) - not a bare assertion.

**No car park, no station, narrow congested streets, no main road** - read off the surrounding map.

Those are **water/beach** activities; the question wants land activities like walking, birdwatching, cycling or rock climbing.

The ground is **steep** there - the climb is harder and slower, so rest stops and lodges cluster on gentler ground.