E.2 Tourism and sport at the local and national scale

The distinction between primary and secondary resources rests on whether a feature exists independently of tourism and is itself the reason people travel. Primary resources pre-date and exist independently of tourism infrastructure.

The Eiffel Tower was built in 1889 as a temporary structure for the World's Fair — not as a hotel, restaurant, or transport link built to service tourists. It has since become a cultural monument that draws visitors on its own merit, independent of whether a nearby hotel exists.

Because the Eiffel Tower is a cultural landmark that people travel to Paris specifically to see — and because it would exist (and be famous) even without the surrounding tourism industry — it is a primary resource, not a secondary one.

The correct option states it is a primary resource that existed before mass tourism and attracts visitors independently. Height and transport dependency are irrelevant classification criteria.

The question tests whether students can correctly apply the primary vs. secondary resource distinction and rebut a common misconception that built structures must be secondary.

'Specifically designed to serve tourists' is historically inaccurate — the tower was built for the 1889 World's Fair as an engineering showcase, not as tourist infrastructure; and even if it attracted tourists, that alone does not make it secondary.

'Taller than most structures' is not a classification criterion in the primary/secondary resource framework — height is irrelevant to whether something is a primary or secondary resource.

'Only attracts visitors when supported by the Métro and airports' misunderstands the framework — secondary resources support visitors in reaching a primary resource, but their existence does not reclassify the attraction itself as secondary.

The correct answer properly applies the primary resource test: the Eiffel Tower pre-dates mass tourism, is a cultural landmark, and generates travel demand independently — making it a primary resource regardless of its built nature.

The question asks for a single explanation covering both (1) tourism type (what activities visitors do) and (2) seasonal demand pattern (when visitor numbers peak and trough).

The Lake District's glacially formed landscape — U-shaped valleys, ribbon lakes like Windermere, steep fells — directly enables hiking, climbing, and water-based activities (sailing, kayaking). The physical terrain determines activity type.

A temperate but changeable climate, with cooler temperatures and higher rainfall in winter and shorter daylight hours, makes the area less attractive in winter, concentrating demand into spring-summer when conditions are more suitable for outdoor activity.

The correct option correctly links glacial landscape to activity type AND climate to seasonality. The other options invent a Mediterranean climate, UNESCO visitor restrictions, or flat cycling terrain — none of which describe the Lake District.

The question requires matching the Lake District's actual physical characteristics to the correct tourism outcomes — both activity type and seasonal pattern must be explained correctly.

'High sunshine hours and Mediterranean climate' and 'beach tourism' do not describe the Lake District — it has a temperate, wet climate and upland terrain, not coastal beaches or a dry Mediterranean regime.

'UNESCO designation restricts visitors to certified eco-tourists in winter' is entirely fabricated — UNESCO designation signals global significance but does not impose seasonal visitor category restrictions.

'Dense broadleaf forests and lowland river plains eliminating seasonal variation' does not match the Lake District's upland, glaciated geography, and no tourism hotspot truly eliminates seasonal demand variation.

The correct answer accurately describes glacial landscape driving walking and water sports, and cooler-wetter climate producing spring-summer demand peaks — matching the physical geography of the Lake District precisely.