Transcript Strategies for managing recreation impacts

• This document is contained within the Visitor Use
Management Toolbox on Wilderness.net. Since
other related resources found in this toolbox may
be of interest, you can visit this toolbox by visiting
the following URL:
http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=toolbo
xes&sec=vum. All toolboxes are products of the
Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training
Center.
Strategies for managing wilderness
recreation:
for quality visitor experiences and
minimal biophysical impact
David N. Cole
Biophysical Impacts of Concern
Recreation changes:
- vegetation
- soil
- animals
- water
- facilities
People leave behind
- trash
- human waste
Impacts of pack stock
Pack stock cause similar, but more severe, impacts than
hikers when traveling on and off trail.
They cause unique impacts when confined and when
allowed to graze
Strategies for managing
biophysical impacts
What factors determine magnitude of biophysical impact?
Frequency
of Use
Type and
Behavior
of Use
Season
of Use
Environmental
Conditions
Intensity of Impact
Spatial Distribution
of Use
Area of Impact
Total Impact
Frequency of use
Compared magnitude of
high, moderate and low
use campsites in the Eagle Cap
Wilderness, Oregon,
1979
Since then, studied campsites in diverse ecosystems types:
Bob Marshall Wilderness (MT),
Grand Canyon (AZ) and Delaware Water Gap (PA)
Frequency of use
Frequency of use
Effect of frequency of use on impact has also been
studied using experimental trampling studies
Relative Vegetation Cover (%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
100
200
300
Number of Passes
400
500
Type of use
Campsites in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, MT,
1981
Backpacker
sites
Stock sites
Disturbed area (m2)
76
456
Damaged trees (#)
5
56
Trees with exposed roots (#)
1
25
Relative cover, exotics (%)
5
43
Increase in mineral soil (%)
5
9
Vegetation cover loss (%)
26
33
Seedling loss (%)
100
100
Type of use
Compared the impacts of llamas, horses and
hikers on established trails in Montana
Measured sediment yield from trails after trampling
and a simulated rainfall event
Type of use
Erosion potential of horse traffic
much greater than that of traffic
by hikers or llamas
250
Sediment Yield (g)
Horse
200
150
Llama
Hiker
100
Control
50
0
Type of use
Relative Vegetation Cover (%)
Horse trampling eliminated
more vegetation cover than
trampling by hikers or llamas
100
Hiker
Llama
Horse
80
60
40
20
0
25 passes
150 passes
Type of use:
Visitor behavior
1. Unnecessary impacts: can
be eliminated
2. Impacts more severe with
certain types of use
3. Inevitable impacts of use
Timing of use
1. Water-saturated soils
2. Snow
3. Time when animals are
weak, vulnerable, movement
requires extra effort…
4. Other?
Environmental durability
NOLS courses camped in
previously undisturbed sites in
two vegetation types
- spruce-fir/grouse whortleberry
- subalpine meadow
Camped in groups of four
- either one or four nights/year
- up to three successive years
Deschampsia meadow
Forest with understory
of Vaccinium scoparium
Meadow
Forest
120
Relative Vegetation Cover (%)
1 night/year
4 nights/year
1 night/year
4 nights/year
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
Years of Camping
1 2 3
Recreation impacts are
often highly localized
Strategies for managing impacts on
visitor experiences
What factors determine magnitude of impact to
the visitor experience?
Frequency
of Use
Type and
Behavior
of Use
Environmental
Conditions
Intensity of Impact
Personal
Characteristics
Spatial Distribution
of Use
Area of Impact
Total Impact
Relationship Between Number of
Encounters And Solitude Achieved:
Grand Canyon National Park
7
Solitude Achieved
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
10
20
30
Encounters/Day
40
50
Visitor Behavior Makes A Difference
Type of Use Makes A Difference
Location Makes A Difference
Personal Characteristics
Make A Difference
People differ
Trip motivations vary
Expectations are important
Crowding is
often highly localized
Strategies for managing recreation
impacts
FACTOR
STRATEGY
Frequency of use
Reduce use
Type of use
Prohibit certain uses
Visitor behavior
Encourage low impact practices
Timing of use
Prohibit use at certain times
Environmental conditions
Modify location of use
Environmental conditions
Shield or harden site
Personal characteristics
Modify expectations
Spatial use distribution
Concentrate/disperse use
Deal with the symptoms
Site restoration
Considerations in selecting management
strategies
•
•
•
•
Likely effectiveness
Possible side effects
Administrative cost
Cost to visitors
– access
– freedom and spontaneity
– subtlety
Reduce use
1. Limit number of visitors (limited permits)
2. Limit length of stay.
3. Encourage use of some places; discourage
use of others.
4. Require certain skills and/or equipment
5. Charge a visitor fee
6. Make access more difficult in some
places or easier in other places
7. Provide/improve facilities in some places;
remove them in other places
Permits Be Required For:
• all users
• just overnight user
• just on rivers
Permits Can Limit Use
•
•
•
•
to
to
to
to
the entire wilderness
particular trailheads (trailhead quotas)
particular zones
particular designated campsites
Permits Can Be Allocated Through
• reservations
• first come, first served
• lottery
What is your experience with
attempts to limit/reduce wilderness
use?
Modify type of use
1. Confine users with high impact potential to
portions of the wilderness
- large groups, groups with stock…
- particularly effective to prohibit/restrict
them in places that are undisturbed,
vulnerable and valuable (off-trail)
2. Prohibitions
- no dogs
- party size limits
- no overnight use
What is your experience with
attempts to modify type of use?
Party size limits
- Party size limits are inherently subjective
- In many cases, rationale for limits is unclear and limits
are often unfair
- Primary effect of party size limits in popular places in
wilderness is to reduce campsite area.
- Party size limits are most important for users with
higher impact potential
- Party size limits must be quite low (<10 at least) to
have much ecological effect
- Party size limits of most value in lightly used parts of
wilderness where dispersal is
being practiced
- Impacts of larger groups can be
minimized if group members
spread out and break into
small camping units.
Modify Visitor Behavior
What is your experience with
attempts to modify visitor behavior?
Visitor education
Hikers
Horse
Users
Looked at messages on bulletin
board (%)
71
27
Time spent looking at messages
(sec)
22
14
Visitor education
Number of messages
on bulletin board
2
4
6
8
53
70
80
85
9
23
25
26
Per-message attention (sec)
4.5
5.7
4.2
3.3
Message retention (%)
70
64
49
43
Looked at messages (%)
Time spent (sec)
Visitor education
Education is a “preventive” stewardship program
and is very different from “responsive” visitor
management actions
Education is not likely to solve specific problems
in short periods of time
We need BOTH visitor education programs and
responsive visitor management programs
Educate visitors early and educate them
everywhere, but when specific problems have
been identified in specific places, implement
actions that deal directly with these problems
Modify timing of use
1.
2.
Encourage use outside of peak use periods
Discourage use during times when impact
potential is high
• soils are water-saturated
• animals are vulnerable
What is your experience with
attempts to modify time of use?
Modify the location of use
1. Require the use of designated campsites
located on durable locations
2. Encourage groups to hike and camp on
durable surfaces
3. Prohibit hiking or camping in
fragile locations
What is your experience with
attempts to modify location of use?
Modify the location of use
Criteria for what constitutes a durable location
varies with:
•management objectives
•type of use (large or small group, stock or foot)
•amount of use
In popular areas, important criteria might be
aesthetics, screening
In more remote places, important criteria
might be vegetation resistance and animal
habitat
Hardening/shielding the resource
Which is the greater evil in wilderness,
built facilities or severe site impact?
Hardening/shielding
the resource
Hardening/shielding the resource
What is your experience with
attempts to shield/harden sites?
Modify visitor expectations
What’s your experience
Dispersal vs. concentration of use
Dispersal: spreading use and impact over a large
area
- reduces frequency of use, increases the total
area that is impacted and decreases the
aggregation of impact
Concentration: confining use and impact within a
small area
- increases frequency of use, decreases the total
area that is impacted and increases the
aggregation of impact
Appropriateness of either depends on
management objectives
Dispersal vs. concentration of use
Aggregate impact generally reduced by concentrating
use within and among proximate sites
Dispersal vs. concentration of use
Dispersal can be effective if:
- use levels can be very low
- ecosystems are resistant
- visitors practice LNT
Dispersal vs. concentration of use
Concentration becomes increasingly important
as environmental fragility increases and as the
impact potential of the user increases
Off-trail travel is
particularly destructive in
areas of microbiotic crust
Off-trail travel by large
groups and groups traveling
with stock is a particular
concern
What is your experience with
attempts to disperse or concentrate
use?
Site restoration
Trail restoration techniques are welldeveloped, effective and expensive
Before
After
Campsite restoration can be more
problematic
Visitor use management at Grand
Canyon National Park
Limit use
permits and fixed itineraries
Length of stay is limited
Visitor education—Leave No Trace
Campfires prohibited
Four management
zones
Visitor use management at Grand
Canyon National Park
Transition Zone
designated campsites
located on long-established sites
use concentration
large group sites
shielding—toilets, food hanging
poles
education—stay on trail
restoration
Primitive Zone
at-large camping
use dispersal
education—good locations
Conclusions
1. Apply knowledge about factors that influence the
magnitude of impact to developing a management
program
2. Utilize multiple management strategies and
consider zoning
3. Select management techniques that will be
effective—then select those that are least costly
to visitors
4. Monitor to assess the effectiveness of your
management program
Useful sources of further information
on managing biophysical impacts
•Newsome, D., S. A. Moore, and R. K. Dowling 2002. Natural Area Tourism:
Ecology, Impacts, and Management . Clevedon, UK: Channel View Books.
•Hendee, J. C. and C. P. Dawson. 2002. Wilderness Management: Stewardship and
Protection of Resources and Values. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.
•Leung, Y. and J. L. Marion. 2000. Recreation impacts and management in
wilderness: a state-of-knowledge review. In: Wilderness Science in a Time of
Change Conference. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station
Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5: 23-48.
•Hammitt, W. E. and D. N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and
Management (Second Edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
•Knight R. L. and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists:
Coexistence Through Management and Research . Washington, DC: Island Press.
•Liddle, M. J. 1997. Recreation Ecology: The Ecological Impact of Outdoor
Recreation and Ecotourism. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
•Buckley, R. 2004. Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Publishing.