Transcript Slide 1

Visitor management frameworks in
North America
COST Action E33:
Forests for Recreation and Nature Tourism (FORREC)
2nd Management Committee meeting + WGs meeting + Workshop in
Edinburgh, Scotland
31 Oct. – 2 Nov., 2004
Wolfgang Haider
School of Resource and Environmental Management
Simon Fraser University
Vancouver, Canada
Goals of presentation
 To briefly present the major North
American visitor management frameworks
for forest recreation and protected areas
 To briefly evaluate them
 To initiate a discussion of their relevance
and applicability in Europe
The Origin: Carrying Capacity
The maximum level of use an area can sustain as determined by
natural factors
Resource and social impacts
With tourism / recreation, there is an ecological capacity, and a
social capacity (the impact on visitor experiences) (Wagar, 1964)
A
B
Y2
Y1
X1 X2
Recreation use
Carrying Capacity - Limitations
 Impacts on biological and physical resources do not help
establish carrying capacity
 Different recreation/tourism experiences have different
carrying capacity
 There is no strong cause-and-effect relationship between
amount of use and impacts
 Carrying capacity is a product of value judgements
 There is NO “magic number”
INSTEAD, IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT:
 With visitor use, change is inevitable
 The question revolves around ‘acceptable change’
 Management approaches depend on ‘objectives’
This leads to mgt frameworks, all of which contain
evaluative criteria and include societal values
Visitor Management Frameworks
1979 – ROS (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum)
1985 - LAC (Limits of Acceptable Change)
1985 – VAMP (Visitor Activity Management Process)
1990 – VIM (Visitor Impact Management)
1993 – VERP (Visitor Experience Resource Protection)
1996 – TOMM (Tourism Optimisation Management Model)
ROS
LAC
VIM
The ROS – main features
 Acknowledges the diversity of recreation
opportunities
 The 3 key components of recreation mgt. are
 Setting (opportunity)
 Activity
 Experience
 6 land classes
VERP
 A tool for landscape / regional recreation
planning (~ zoning)
TOMM  Occasionally used as a research framework
VAMP
ROS
ROS - classes
Each class is defined with respect to a combination of setting characteristics
LAC
Classes
(6)
Mgt.
factors
Primitive
Semiprim.
Nonmot.
Semiprim.
Mot.
Semidev.
natural
Developed
natural
Highly
developed
(examples)
VIM
Very difficult
Physical
Difficult
access
VERP
Moderately difficult
Strict regimentation
Managerial
Moderate regimentation
Min. regimentation
TOMM
VAMP
No regim.
Social
encounters
No / few contacts
Moderate contacts
Many contacts
ROS
ROS - map
LAC
VIM
VERP
TOMM
VAMP
Product: a zoned landscape,
based on established criteria
ROS
The ROS – discussion
LAC
 Suitability for EU
VIM
VERP
TOMM
VAMP




Additional challenge of large scale homogenous landscapes
Classes are too coarse
Most of EU lacks the remote end of the spectrum
The generic concept itself might be useful
 e.g. TOS (Tourism Opportunity Spectrum)
 if access criterion is differentiated much more subtly
 Similar problem has been recognized in the US:
 ROS now for private land in NE-US
 The class “HIGHLY DEVELOPED” has been split into:
 Large natural (> 15 acres)
 Small natural (< 15 acres)
 Facilities (e.g. baseball field)
The need for a more site-specific decision tool became
obvious
ROS
The LAC framework
1 – identify areas of concern and issues
LAC
VIM
2 – define and describe management
objectives
3 – select indicators of resource and
social conditions
4 – inventory resource and social
conditions
VERP
5 – specify standards for resource and
social conditions
6 – specify alternatives
TOMM
VAMP
7 – identify management actions for
each alternative
8 – evaluate and select an alternative
9 – implement actions and monitor
conditions
In a
participatory
context
ROS
Indicators
(Measures of resource or social
conditions)
LAC
VIM
VERP
TOMM
VAMP
 Should be measured cost-effectively and accurately
 Should reflect some relationship to the amount/type
of use occurring
 Should be related to user concerns (social indicators)
 Must be responsive to management control
 Examples




Water quality
Soil compaction
Vegetation cover
Number of encounters
ROS
Standards
(A level beyond which change
is unacceptable)
LAC
VIM
VERP
 Standards may vary between opportunity classes
(ROS) or other zoning / regions
 May reflect existing conditions or future targets
 Monitoring and evaluation provide means for revision
and improvement
Indicator
Standard
Number of encounters No more than 1 [6] encounter
with another party per day
with other parties
TOMM
People at one time at
selected sites
No more than 20 people on a 50m
section of trail
VAMP
Exposed tree roots
No more than 4 trees per target
campsite
ROS
LAC
VIM
VERP
LAC – discussion
Suitability for Europe
 Positive arguments
 Adequate attention towards management of biophysical and
social conditions
 Included monitoring of resource conditions and effectiveness
of management actions
 Allows zoning as means of protecting pristine qualities
 Good trackability and explicitness of protected areas decision
making
 Encourages innovative approaches to citizen participation
 Critical arguments
TOMM
VAMP
There are cost associated with adapting such a general fw
Lack of attention to experiential knowledge
Compartmentalization of functions
Pragmatism vs. rigid framework (much planning in EU
seems to follow the LAC logic intuitively)
 Ability to react timely to newly arising problems




First application in Finland in protected areas
ROS
LAC
VIM
 Very similar to LAC - built specifically for
the US Parks Service
 More prescriptive, management oriented
 lack of participation
VIM
VERP
TOMM
 No successful implementations
 the original publication (1990) contains
 a good ‘catalogue’ of impacts
 a good ‘catalogue’ of inventorying and monitoring tools
 Suitability for Europe
 Suitable if public participation is not an issue
 Catalogues as background
VAMP
ROS
LAC
VIM
VERP
TOMM
VERP
 Very similar to LAC - built specifically for the US
Parks Service
 Attempt to make the framework useful and efficient for an
organization with single purpose and mandate
 Includes crucial components of public participation (remain
for the most part more formal)




Scoping comments
Comments on EA and EIS (Environmental Impact Statements)
General comments
Stay involved (web-site, superintendent)
 Standards set for zones within the park, or for special sites
 5 applications
 Suitability for Europe
 Suitable for single purpose agencies (i.e. protected areas)
VAMP
ROS
TOMM – main features
LAC
VIM
VERP
 Very similar to LAC, with focus on overcoming
lack of stakeholder support for LAC and VIM in
Australia
 The term ‘impact’ and ‘limits’ are perceived as
discouraging growth by tourism businesses
 Narrow focus on condition of physical environment and
visitor experience
 Adapt to tourism needs
TOMM
Tourism Optimisation Management Model
VAMP
ROS
LAC
TOMM – indicators, evaluation and
monitoring
Market
Opportunities
VIM
VERP
TOMM
VAMP
Experienti
al
conditions
ROS
TOMM – indicators, evaluation and
monitoring
LAC
VIM
VERP
TOMM
VAMP
Social
conditions
for
residents
ROS
LAC
VIM
VERP
TOMM
VAMP
TOMM – indicators, evaluation and
monitoring
ROS
VAMP
 Core: visitor activity profiles
LAC
VIM
VERP
TOMM
VAMP
 Market research focus (connect a particular activity with
the social and demographic characteristics of
participants with the activity’s setting requirements and
with trends affecting the activity)
E.g. cross-country skiing
- Recreation day-use skiing
- Fitness skiing
- Competitive skiing
- Backcountry skiing
 Each specialization requires
different levels of service and has
different standards
ROS
LAC
VIM
VERP
TOMM
VAMP
ROS
LAC
VIM
VERP
TOMM
VAMP
VAMP
 To develop a national position regarding
an activity
 Influence on criteria selected for
Appropriate Activity Assessment (AAA)
 Attempt to tie the framework to already
established processes of Parks Canada
during the dual mandate eara
 No successful implementation (despite
occasional other claims)
ROS
LAC
VIM
VERP
TOMM
VAMP
Comparing the frameworks
Evaluative criteria
ROS
LAC
Suitable for regional
planning (multiple
areas)
***
*
**
Provides info on
impacts of visitor use
needed for mgt
VIM
***
Makes explicit provision
for inclusion of
stakeholders
***
Responsibility /
discretion for action left
to managers
**
**
*
*
**
**
Readily integrated with
other forms of planning
(e.g. mgt. or tourism
plans)
Results in a
publishable, standalone document
**
VERP
after: Newsome et al, 2002
TOMM VAMP
***
***
**
***
**
***
***
***
**
*
***
**
ROS
LAC
VIM
VERP
TOMM
VAMP
Summary
 Over past 2 decades, agencies in North
America have experimented with several
different recreation mgt processes
 The LAC concept has proven to be a [the
most] successful concept / formula
Very generic  flexible
Participatory (by coincidence rather than design)
VERP - adaptation to specific agency requirements
TOMM - adaptation to different use / culture /
administrative setting
 Mostly on site-specific and local scales, except when
linked with another framework, e.g. ROS)




 ROS – a framework for large scale
GO AND EXPERIMENT WITH IT
Other North American trends in
recreation and landuse management
 Ecosystem (based) management serves as new mgt.
paradigm for most land and/or recreation mgt. agencies
 Established mgt frameworks are frequently subordinated to it
 Introduces the concept of adaptive mgt. (purposeful research)
 Human use management (Parks Canada)
 Ecological Integrity Panel (1999)
 National Parks Act (2000)
 A new process to deal with ALL human uses in a National Park (i.e.
Banff NP)
 DOES NOT USE ANY OF THE ESTABLISHED FRAMEWORKS
 Appears to be problem-oriented
 Land and Resource Management Planning (BC)
 example for participatory planning on a large regional scale (24 mgt
units across the province)
ROS
Suggestions
LAC
 When thinking about adopting and adapting any of
the visitor mgt frameworks, one should consider the
following
VIM
VERP
TOMM
VAMP
 Planning is a process, not necessarily a product
 Challenge: keep it as process; avoid that it slips into rigid
format of application (cookbook)
 Planning is a political process in a politicized setting
 Grounding the process in legislation is critical
 Understanding the institutional context for LAC processes is
fundamental to planning and implementation
 Requires adaptation to European / national / regional
situations
 Defending decisions requires a trackable/traceable process
 Learning is an important objective in the LAC process but not
yet well developed
 Rethink the frameworks from the current knowledge base
(mgt sciences, social sciences)
 [see next slide]
ROS
LAC
VIM
Opportunities & Challenges
 Be cognizant of the culture (paradigm)
driving these frameworks




VERP
 Particular challenges for research, e.g.

TOMM
If the desire is to “make trade-offs and values
explicit”


VAMP
Training of future managers and researchers
Create an international publication platform for
exchange and dissemination of ideas
Rethink these positions periodically
Adopt the concept of ‘adaptive management’
Use state-of-the-art research methods (decision
analysis, multivariate trade-off methods)
Data capturing and analysis

Operate both deductively and inductively
Thank You !