Contracting the right to roam

Wallace McNeish*, Steve Olivier

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter (peer-reviewed)peer-review

    41 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    In recent decades, the emergence of environmental ethics has added extra dimensions of complexity to the leisure political terrain upon which the right to roam is contested. In this chapter, two very different but influential versions of the social contract will be juxtaposed to bring the key arguments into high relief. On the one hand, Hardin’s eco-Hobbesian Tragedy of the Commons (1968/2000) thesis, and on the other, Rawls’ Kant-inspired A Theory of Justice (1971). It will be argued that Hardin’s pessimistic, exclusionary and potentially authoritarian conclusions are incompatible with the allocation of rights and duties in liberal democratic societies. Hardin should therefore be rejected in favour of an interpretative development of Rawls which designates the right to roam as a primary social good that is compatible with a conception of justice as sustainable fairness—an ideal which can be used to inform an inclusive environmentally sensitive leisure citizenship.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationThe Palgrave handbook of leisure theory
    EditorsKarl Spracklen, Brett Lashua, Erin Sharpe, Spencer Swain
    Place of PublicationLondon
    PublisherPalgrave Macmillan
    Pages289-308
    Number of pages20
    ISBN (Electronic)9781137564795
    ISBN (Print)9781137564788
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 19 Apr 2017

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Contracting the right to roam'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this