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: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – 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: PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 472a98-NzQ4N



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

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:

Description:

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 ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:180
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 61
Provided by: FSDe121
Learn more at: http://www.wilderness.net
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 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:


1
  • 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?fusetoolboxessecvum. All toolboxes are
    products of the Arthur Carhart National
    Wilderness Training Center.

2
Strategies for managing wilderness recreation
for quality visitor experiences and minimal
biophysical impact
David N. Cole
3
Biophysical Impacts of Concern
- water
- facilities
4
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
5
Strategies for managing biophysical impacts
What factors determine magnitude of biophysical
impact?
6
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)
7
Frequency of use
8
Frequency of use
Effect of frequency of use on impact has also
been studied using experimental trampling studies
9
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
10
Type of use
Compared the impacts of llamas, horses and hikers
on established trails in Montana
11
Type of use
Erosion potential of horse traffic much greater
than that of traffic by hikers or llamas
12
Type of use
Horse trampling eliminated more vegetation cover
than trampling by hikers or llamas
13
Type of useVisitor behavior
14
Timing of use
  1. Water-saturated soils
  2. Snow
  3. Time when animals are weak, vulnerable, movement
    requires extra effort
  4. Other?

15
Environmental durability
16
  • 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

Forest with understory of Vaccinium scoparium
Deschampsia meadow
17
Meadow
Forest
1 night/year
1 night/year
4 nights/year
4 nights/year
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Years of Camping
18
Recreation impacts are often highly localized
19
Strategies for managing impacts on visitor
experiences
What factors determine magnitude of impact to the
visitor experience?
20
Relationship Between Number of Encounters And
Solitude Achieved Grand Canyon National Park
21
Visitor Behavior Makes A Difference
22
Type of Use Makes A Difference
23
Location Makes A Difference
24
Personal Characteristics Make A Difference
People differ Trip motivations
vary Expectations are important
25
Crowding is often highly localized
26
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
27
Considerations in selecting management strategies
  • Likely effectiveness
  • Possible side effects
  • Administrative cost
  • Cost to visitors
  • access
  • freedom and spontaneity
  • subtlety

28
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

29
Permits Be Required For
  • all users
  • just overnight user
  • just on rivers

30
Permits Can Limit Use
  • to the entire wilderness
  • to particular trailheads (trailhead quotas)
  • to particular zones
  • to particular designated campsites

Permits Can Be Allocated Through
  • reservations
  • first come, first served
  • lottery

31
What is your experience with attempts to
limit/reduce wilderness use?
32
Modify type of use
  • 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

33
What is your experience with attempts to modify
type of use?
34
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 (lt10 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.

35
Modify Visitor Behavior
36
What is your experience with attempts to modify
visitor behavior?
37
Visitor education
Hikers Horse Users
Looked at messages on bulletin board () 71 27
Time spent looking at messages (sec) 22 14
38
Visitor education
Number of messages on bulletin board
2 4 6 8
Looked at messages () 53 70 80 85
Time spent (sec) 9 23 25 26
Per-message attention (sec) 4.5 5.7 4.2 3.3
Message retention () 70 64 49 43
39
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
40
Modify timing of use
  1. Encourage use outside of peak use periods
  2. Discourage use during times when impact potential
    is high
  • soils are water-saturated
  • animals are vulnerable

41
What is your experience with attempts to modify
time of use?
42
Modify the location of use
  • Require the use of designated campsites
  • located on durable locations
  • Encourage groups to hike and camp on
  • durable surfaces
  • Prohibit hiking or camping in
  • fragile locations

43
What is your experience with attempts to modify
location of use?
44
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

45
Hardening/shielding the resourceWhich is the
greater evil in wilderness,built facilities or
severe site impact?
46
Hardening/shielding the resource
47
Hardening/shielding the resource
48
What is your experience with attempts to
shield/harden sites?
49
Modify visitor expectations
Whats your experience
50
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
51
Dispersal vs. concentration of use
Aggregate impact generally reduced by
concentrating use within and among proximate sites
52
Dispersal vs. concentration of use
  • Dispersal can be effective if
  • use levels can be very low
  • ecosystems are resistant
  • visitors practice LNT

53
Dispersal vs. concentration of use
Concentration becomes increasingly important as
environmental fragility increases and as
the impact potential of the user increases
54
What is your experience with attempts to disperse
or concentrate use?
55
Site restoration
Trail restoration techniques are well-developed,
effective and expensive
After
Before
56
Campsite restoration can be more problematic
57
Visitor use management at Grand Canyon National
Park
Limit use permits and fixed
itineraries Length of stay is limited Visitor
educationLeave No Trace Campfires
prohibited Four management zones
58
Visitor use management at Grand Canyon National
Park
Transition Zone designated campsites
located on long-established sites use
concentration large group sites
shieldingtoilets, food hanging poles
educationstay on trail restoration Primitive
Zone at-large camping use dispersal
educationgood locations
59
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
effectivethen select those that are least costly
to visitors
4. Monitor to assess the effectiveness of your
management program
60
Useful sources of further informationon 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.
About PowerShow.com