Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Strategies & Tactics for Managing Social Impacts
in Wilderness
Dr. Troy E. HallUniversity of Idaho
April 14, 2009
Overview
• Common concerns related to experience quality– Illustrations from interviews with visitors
O i f t t i d t ti• Overview of strategies and tactics• Case studies of ways tactics have been
combined
Wilderness Experiences“Outstanding opportunities for solitude
or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation”
Photo: Lisa Eidson
Types of Impacts
• Crowding• Loss of privacy• Conflict• Conflict• Stress
Photo: Brad Johnson
“Right when we first walked in to where there’s all those campsites, there was a crowd there and we don’t want to be like next to everybody – you know, camp right
next to all them.”
Impacts to experiences are determined by several factors
Frequency of use
Type of user & behavior
Environmental characteristics
E tOverall
Personal characteristics
Spatial distribution
of use
Encounters Impact
Amount/Frequency of Use• “There are far too many people up here”• “It’s beautiful, pristine, but at this point there are too
many people”• “It’s early and there’s already a ton of people up here”• “There’s a zillion cars and we passed a lot of people.”
Church group of ~50 people at Snow Lake
2
Environmental characteristics
• Environment affects the number and duration of encounters
Environmental characteristics
Use level Encounters Visitor Experience
? ?
1 mile
Trailhead
Obsidian FallsThree Sisters Wilderness
Encounters & experience
• Many factors influence the use → experience relationshipM j diff t• Major differences seem to occur between no encounters and a few encounters
Photo: George Wuerthner
Spatial Distribution of UseDistribution of Use, Mt. Jefferson 2006
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
ber
of V
isito
rs
0
500
1000
Marion
Lake
Pameli
a Lak
e
Whit
ewate
r
Duffy
Lake
Pine R
idge
Trian
gulat
ion
Breit
enbu
sh La
ke P
CT
Sout
h Bre
itenb
ush
Woo
dpec
ker
Big M
eado
ws
Crow
n Lak
e
Maxwell
Roar
ing C
reek
Chea
t Cre
ek
Bingh
am R
idge
Crag
Num
b
Spatial Distribution of Use
• Often management concern is for areas of concentrated use
Spatial Distribution of Use –Day Use Destinations
“Every place that we found that was kind of an inlet was occupied by a camp group. So p y p g pthat was kind of disappointing.”
3
Spatial Distribution of Use –Campsite Clusters
“Being camped near the other people did detract from our experience… when you have people chopping incessantly and then there were a couple of 10-year-old kids that were running around and kept coming up to us and talking to us. They’re kids, but that’s not why I come out here. I didn’t want to meet any neat kids.”y
Behavior and Type of Use
• Impact is often due to more than just the number of encounters
• Major factorsj– Group size– Mode of travel– Behavior
http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~kurt/personal/selway.html
Behavior and Type of Use“We ran into a few people on top of Horton Pass and that was the first people we had seen so that was cool. We talked about going up and how it was, we sort of enjoyed that.
Then we came down and there were more people, just huge groups of people. We ran into a group ofjust huge groups of people. We ran into a group of like 8 people. We really didn’t interact with them, but it is sort of negative. You think, man, that’s a huge group.”
Behavior and Type of Use
“Between our near neighbors who were noisy and not particularly interested in abiding by the regulations and so forth, our camp experience was probably less than optimal … Somebody abandoned the camp and just left the fire going Leaving a fire burning it’s criminalthe fire going… Leaving a fire burning, it s criminal stupidity.”
Personal Characteristics
• Nature of the group and motivations• “Purists”• Expectations• Expectations
Photo: Brad Johnson
Strategies & Tactics to Manage Social Impacts
4
Strategies for managing impacts
1. Modify user expectations2. Modify type of use and/or visitor
behavior 3. Modify location of use 4. Limit/reduce use5. Modify timing of use
Each factor can be influenced by management
Frequency of use Reduce/limit use
Spatial distribution of use Modify location of use
Type of user & behavior Prohibit/discourage behaviors, uses
Environmental characteristics
Modify location of use
Personal characteristics Modify user expectations
Considerations in selecting a strategy
• Know the problem – Its causes– Its extent– Trends
• Select a strategy– Consider factors that affect magnitude of
impact• Select tactics
– Specific tools– Each strategy has multiple possible tactics
Considerations in selecting a strategy
• Select tactics, based on– Effectiveness
Cost– Cost– Visitor burden– Side effects
Photo: Brad Johnson
Tactics
• Indirect– Education– Site manipulation– Fees
• Direct– Regulations– Use limitation
Modify User Expectations
• Tactics are mostly indirect– Print materialsPrint materials– One-on-one
• Often limited utility for some impacts
5
Modify Type of Use and/or Behavior
• Tactics range from indirect to direct– LNT
Mandatory briefings– Mandatory briefings– Restrictions
• Can be highly effective for some impacts, not for others
Modify Type of Use and/or Behavior
• Sometimes can be accomplished pby other indirect means
Modify the Location of Use
• Designated campsites• Site manipulation
Tactics for Limiting/Reducing Use
• Education– On site– Off siteOff site
• Site changes– Reduce trailhead parking
• Fees
Tactics for Limiting/Reducing Use
• Quotas– Limit the number of visitors– Limit length of stay
Limit/Reduce Use
• Sometimes the only effective way to reduce encounters
• However, not well accepted as a , pstrategy for promoting solitude
• Potential for displacement
6
Tactics for Limiting/Reducing Use
• Effectiveness varies– Ability or desire to change the site may be low– Fees may affect certain populations adversely– Education is often not effective to reduce use
Modify the Timing of Use
• Modifying timing of use is the same as reducing use during certain periods
• Therefore tactics are same as forTherefore tactics are same as for limiting/reducing use
Two Case Studies
Mt. Jefferson Wilderness –Jefferson Park
• Collected data over 3 years• Collected trail & camp encounter data• Documented ecological impacts at sites
Photos: Greg Lief
Jefferson Park
• Encounters approaching standard• Large proportion of overnight use• Many campsites, heavily impactedMany campsites, heavily impacted• Campsites highly visible around
lakeshores• Desire for tactics that accomplish
multiple objectives
Obsidian Falls -Three Sisters Wilderness
7
1 mile
Obsidian FallsThree Sisters Wilderness(pre-regulation)
Obsidian Falls• Same monitoring data as Mt. Jefferson• Encounters > standard
– Often, but not by a large marginU i i• Use increasing
• Large proportion of use is day trips
Obsidian Falls• Campsites
– Many sites near trails and water– Many good sites away from trails/water
What strategies might be appropriate?
1. Modify user expectations2. Modify type of use and/or
visitor behaviorvisitor behavior 3. Modify location of use 4. Limit/reduce use5. Modify timing of use
Limit/reduce use
• Decision not to limit use through regulation (quota)
• Avoid promoting Jeff Park
• Identify “high use area” on map
Modify visitor behavior• Campfire ban
– Trailhead information– Enforcement
8
Site occupancy, Scout Lake
0
# Nights Occupied
012-34-56-78-910+
48 nights of observation;31 campsites
Modify location of use
• Designated campsites– If < 250 ft from lake– Else, “at large” campingElse, at large camping
Evaluation: Educational tactics to reduce use
• Costs? Low• Burden? Low• Effective?
– Can people comply? YesCan people comply? Yes– Will people comply? No– Improves conditions? Yes
• Side effects? Little concern• Overall Assessment: Worth the cost
Evaluation: Campfire Ban• Costs? Moderate (enforcement)• Burden? Initial visitor objections, but acceptance today• Effective?
– Can people comply? Yes– Will people comply? At this site, mostly yes– Improves conditions? Modest effect on solitude
• Side effect? Positive benefit for resource conditions; little displacement
• Overall Assessment: Effective
9
Evaluation: Designated Sites
• Costs? Moderate• Burden? Preserved “freedom” option; initial visitor
objections, but acceptance today• Effective?
– Can people comply? Depends, here yes– Will people comply? Generally, if easy to find– Improves conditions? Yes, improves solitude
opportunities• Side effect? Low. (There are enough sites.) Positive
benefit for resource conditions• Overall Assessment: Effective
Obsidian Falls -Three Sisters Wilderness
Obsidian Falls• Same monitoring data as Mt. Jefferson• Encounters > standard
– Often, but not by a large marginU i i• Use increasing
• Large proportion of use is day trips
Obsidian Falls• Campsites
– Many sites near trails and water– Many good sites away from trails/water
What strategies might be appropriate?
1. Modify user expectations2. Modify type of use and/or visitor
behavior 3. Modify location of use 4. Limit/reduce use5. Modify timing of use
Tactics to modify location of use
• Campsite closure/restoration
10
Tactics to modify location of use
• Camping setback (regulation)
Tactics to limit/reduce use
• Educational efforts– Training office staff– Trailhead informationTrailhead information– Wilderness information
specialists at trailhead
Tactics to limit/reduce use• Limited entry area
Use Limits
• Limited day and overnight use• 20 groups/day through trailhead
– Why 20?f• All available for reservation
• Available only at two ranger stations– Possible due to access
• Maximized convenience
Evaluation: Info/education to reduce use
• Costs? Low• Burden? Low• Effective?
– Can people comply? Yes– Will people comply? No– Improves conditions? Not really
• Side effects? Few, because not highly effective• Overall Assessment: Marginal
11
Evaluation: camping setback to improve solitude
• Costs? Moderate (enforcement)• Burden? Minimal• Effective?
– Can people comply? If they can judge distanceWill l l ? N t h– Will people comply? Not enough
– Will social conditions improve? Yes, for campers• Side effects? Site proliferation• Overall assessment: Immediate adverse effects on #
sites; good improvement in solitude
1 mile
Obsidian FallsThree Sisters Wilderness(pre-regulation)
1 mile
Obsidian FallsThree Sisters Wilderness(post-regulation)
Evaluation: Use Limits to protect solitude
• Costs? High• Burden? Least desirable• Effective?
– Can people comply? Depends– Will people comply? Usually (overnight)Will people comply? Usually (overnight)– Will conditions improve? Solitude yes
• Side effects? Moderate– Displaced those who don’t like regulations– Modified the timing of use
• Overall Assessment: Modest improvements in solitude; adverse effect on freedom
Conclusions
Photo: Scott Stouder
Conclusions• Consider the magnitude of the problem(s)
and the causes• Consider a mix of strategies – be creative• Be clear what problem each action is• Be clear what problem each action is
intended to address• Think about unintended consequences –
Displacement? Campsite impacts?• Monitor the outcomes
12
Photo: Gordon Ash
Questions?Troy Hall
Conservation Social SciencesUniversity of Idaho
