Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Understanding wildflower tourism in
a global biodiversity hotspot
Sally-Anne Mason
Bachelor of Environmental Science (Hons)
This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of
Veterinary and Life Sciences Murdoch University
2015
DECLARATION
I declare that this thesis is my own account of my research and contains as its main
content work which has not previously been submitted for a degree at any tertiary
education institution.
________________________
Sally-Anne Mason
Abstract
_______________________________________________________________
Protected areas found in biodiversity hotspots play an important role in the conservation
of the unique biodiversity found within them. Such areas also provide an opportunity for
visitors to engage in tourism activities such as the viewing flora and fauna. Because
tourism is increasingly being used as a tool for valuing and conserving areas rich in
biodiversity there is an urgent need to understand and manage the interface between
tourism activities and protected areas. This is especially important within biodiversity
hotspots. This study examined the impacts of wildflower visitors on flora in three
national parks (Lesueur, Fitzgerald River and Stirling Range National Parks) located in
one of two Australian global biodiversity hotspots (Southwest Australia).
Complementary associated analyses of visitors’ perceptions of impacts on biodiversity
were also undertaken in order to understand the social context in which such wildflower
tourism occurs.
The first objective was to describe and measure one environmental effect (namely
trampling) on vegetation communities within selected protected areas. Recreational
trampling damage of natural vegetation is an increasing problem in the global context
and has the potential to impact on vegetation communities that are of high ecological
interest found in biodiversity hotspots. Wildflower tourism in the national parks of
Southwest Australia has the potential through trampling to damage the largely shrub-
dominated vegetation on which it depends. Virtually no published data exists regarding
how these areas of shrub-dominated vegetation respond to human trampling. This study
is the first to do so, using plot based surveys and trampling experiments. Plot based
surveys measured the vegetation height and cover at three sites frequented by wildflower
tourists. Vegetation height and cover declined in response to use by tourists. Trampling
experiments, which relied on trampling treatments of 0, 30, 100, 200, 300/500 passes,
where 0 passes represents the control, were applied at four sites. Trampling led to a
significant reduction in vegetation height immediately post-treatment, for all treatments,
with a non-significant recovery over time. Trampling also significantly reduced
vegetation cover, with the resistance indices for the experimental sites ranging from 30-
300 passes. Collectively these results illustrate the low resilience and resistance of these
valued communities and the possible impacts of wildflower and other nature based
tourism, through trampling.
The second objective was to describe and measure how biodiversity is valued by visitors
and their knowledge of it, collectively referred to in this thesis as visitor perceptions of
biodiversity, in protected areas in a global biodiversity hotspot. This information was
collected via a comprehensive visitor survey undertaken across the three national parks
(n=602). The importance of intrinsic and non-use values, and particularly being able to
‘bequest’ biodiversity to future generations, was a highlight of these findings. This
finding is on contrast to previous research where the instrumental or use value of
biodiversity has dominated responses. Visitors were knowledgeable regarding threats to
biodiversity, although they seemed to under-estimate the threats they create as tourists.
Visitors were clustered according to how they valued biodiversity and other key
variables. Cluster analysis revealed two types of visitors, separated largely by activities,
with one group focused on walking and the other on appreciating nature and scenery.
This typology provides a finer grained analysis to those conducted previously by
separating out these two different types of nature explorers, which to date have been
aggregated as one cluster.
The photographs taken as part of the trampling experiments (before and after applying
passes) at each national park were incorporated into the visitor survey. This
methodology used is innovative as no previous study has incorporated the actual
photographs taken before and after trampling applied to a vegetation community into a
visitor survey completed at the same location as the trampling study. The visitors had a
lower acceptance of change in vegetation as a result of trampling (30-100 passes) than
the levels of acceptable change using the resistance indices (30-300 passes). This is an
important finding for the management of trampling impacts in the three national parks
especially when considering the social level of acceptable change in vegetation when
compared to the resistance indices derived from experimental results.
Given the increasing number of people visiting protected areas in Western Australia and
worldwide the interaction can be effectively managed using a range of management
strategies. These management strategies include: taking into account the sensitivity of
the vegetation when creating or designing new trails; implementing educational
programs in protected areas to encourage appropriate tourist behavior such as staying on
established trails; and knowledge of the values of the visitors to assist in developing
conservation and park management goals. It is essential to understand the connection
between wildflower tourism and biodiversity in order to effectively manage and protect
these important natural areas now and for the future.
i
Table of Contents
_______________________________________________________________
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.1.1 Tourism 1
1.1.2 Biodiversity 3
1.1.3 Biodiversity hotspots 4
1.2 Research questions and objectives 5
1.3 Outline of thesis 6
Chapter 2: Research Design 9
2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 Research paradigm 9
2.3 Selection of tourism activity, hotspot and protected areas 10
2.4 Selection of environmental component to study 15
2.4.1 Analysis of the literature 15
2.4.2 Advice from Department of Parks and Wildlife staff 16
2.4.3 Assessment of impacts at research locations 17
2.4.4 Observations of visitors to national parks 17
2.4.5 Observations of visitors on organised wildflower tours 19
Chapter 3: Trampling 23
3.1 Introduction 23
3.2 Factors influencing a plant’s response to trampling 26
3.2.1 Plant characteristics 27
3.2.2 Disturbance factors 29
3.2.3 Environmental factors 31
3.3 Methods for the two trampling studies 32
3.3.1 Study sites 33
3.3.2 Vegetation parameters measured 36
ii
3.3.3 Plot based survey set-up 37
3.3.4 Plot based survey analysis 39
3.3.5 Trampling experiment set-up 40
3.3.6 Trampling experiment analysis 43
3.4 Plot based survey results 44
3.5 Trampling experiment results 47
3.5.1 Effects of trampling on the pre and post (immediately after)
vegetation height measurements
47
3.5.2 Effects of trampling on the recovery of vegetation height post
trampling over a 12-month period
52
3.5.3 Effects of trampling on vegetation cover post trampling over a
12 month period
55
3.5.4 Resistance index 61
3.6 Rainfall data 61
3.7 Discussion 62
3.7.1 Resistance of vegetation height to trampling 62
3.7.2 Resistance index (vegetation cover) 64
3.7.3 Resilience (recovery) of vegetation (cover and height) to
trampling
65
3.7.4 Vegetation responses to visitor behaviour 66
3.8 Conclusion 68
Chapter 4: Perceptions 69
4.1 Introduction 69
4.1.1 Values 71
4.1.2 Knowledge 74
4.2 Methods 76
4.2.1 Survey research 76
4.2.2 Survey structure and content 76
4.2.3 Sampling strategy and distribution 80
4.2.4 Data analysis 81
4.3 Results 82
iii
4.3.1 Visitor characteristics 82
4.3.2 Visit characteristics 84
4.3.3 Participation in recreational activities 84
4.3.4 Knowledge about biodiversity 85
4.3.5 Perceptions of impacts 88
4.3.6 Acceptability of change in vegetation due to trampling 90
4.3.7 Biodiversity values 92
4.3.8 Management issues 96
4.4 Discussion 97
4.5 Conclusion 104
Chapter 5: Conclusion 105
5.1 Introduction 105
5.2 Significant contributions to knowledge from this research 105
5.3 Addressing research questions and associated objectives 106
5.4 Recommendations for managers 110
5.5 Overall 116
References 117
iv
List of Figures
_______________________________________________________________
Figure 2.1 Southwest Australia global biodiversity hotspot 10
Figure 2.2 Research locations within Lesueur National Park (Map a),
Stirling Range National Park (Map b) and Fitzgerald River
National Park (Map c)
14-15
Figure 3.1 The effects of visitors trampling on the environment 26
Figure 3.2 Factors influencing a plant’s response to trampling 28
Figure 3.3 The location of sites for plot based surveys and trampling
experiments within Lesueur National Park (Map a), Stirling
Range National Park (Map b) and Fitzgerald River
National Park (Map c)
35-36
Figure 3.4(a) Size and approximate layout of transect corridors 38
Figure 3.4(b) Size and approximate layout of treatment lanes for
trampling experiments
40
Figure 3.5 Change in vegetation heights at plot based survey sites 45
Figure 3.6 Change in percentage cover of living material at plot based
survey sites
46
Figure 3.7(a) Mean vegetation heights (and corresponding standard
errors, represented as vertical bars) for the LE1 and LE2
sites during trampling experiment before trampling,
immediately after trampling, and 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 52
weeks after trampling
50
Figure 3.7(b) Mean vegetation heights (and corresponding standard
errors, represented as vertical bars) for the FE1 and SE1
sites during trampling experiment before trampling,
immediately after trampling, and 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 52
weeks after trampling
51
v
Figure 3.8(a) Mean vegetation heights (and corresponding standard
errors, represented as vertical bars) for the LE1 and LE2
sites during trampling experiment for varying levels of
trampling and at various time points
53
Figure 3.8(b) Mean vegetation heights (and corresponding standard
errors, represented as vertical bars) for the FE1 and SE1
sites during trampling experiment for varying levels of
trampling and at various time points
54
Figure 3.9(a) Percentage cover of living matter (and corresponding
standard deviations, represented as vertical bars) for the
LE1 and LE2 sites during trampling experiment before
trampling, 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 52 weeks after trampling
56
Figure 3.9(b) Percentage cover of living matter (and corresponding
standard deviations, represented as vertical bars) for the
FE1 and SE1 sites during trampling experiment before
trampling, 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 52 weeks after trampling
57
Figure 3.10(a) Percentage cover of living matter (and corresponding
standard errors, represented as vertical bars) for the LE1
and LE2 sites during trampling experiment for varying
levels of trampling and at various time points
58
Figure 3.10(b) Percentage cover of living matter (and corresponding
standard errors, represented as vertical bars) for the FE1
and SE1 sites during trampling experiment for varying
levels of trampling and at various time points
59
Figure 4.1 Categories of individual values towards natural areas 72
Figure 4.2 The first photo pair from Fitzgerald River National Park as
an example
79
Figure 4.3 Percentage of respondents participating in each type of
activity at LNP, FRNP and SRNP
85
vi
Figure 4.4 Percentage of respondents identifying factors that
contribute to the loss of biodiversity in Western Australia
across LNP, FRNP and SRNP
88
Figure 4.5 Acceptability of the change in vegetation due to trampling
at LNP
91
Figure 4.6 Acceptability of the change in vegetation due to trampling
at FRNP
91
Figure 4.7 Acceptability of the change in vegetation due to trampling
at SRNP
92
vii
List of Tables
_______________________________________________________________
Table 1.1 Research questions, associated objectives and methods of
investigation
7
Table 2.1 Potential national parks assessed against criteria 12
Table 2.2 Information gained from meetings with DPaW staff 17
Table 2.3 Direct negative impacts on the vegetation identified at
research locations in consultation with DPaW staff
18
Table 2.4 Observations of visitors to three national parks during the
spring of 2006
19
Table 2.5 Observations of visitors on organised wildflower tours 20
Table 3.1 Research locations, plot based surveys and trampling
experiment sites
34
Table 3.2 Trampling experiment data collection dates at LNP, FRNP
and SRNP sites
43
Table 3.3 Conditional F-tests for individual terms in the model
assessing the difference between pre- and post-trampling
vegetation heights
47
Table 3.4 Parameter estimates, standard errors, and p-values for
linear mixed effects model assessing the difference
between pre- and post-trampling vegetation heights
48
Table 3.5 Conditional F-tests for individual terms in the model
assessing post-trampling vegetation height by number of
passes and number of weeks since initial trampling
52
Table 3.6 Parameter estimates, standard errors, and p-values for
linear mixed effects model assessing post-trampling
vegetation height by number of passes and number of
weeks since initial trampling
52
viii
Table 3.7 Conditional F-tests for individual terms in the model
assessing post-trampling percentage vegetation cover by
number of passes and number of weeks since initial
trampling
55
Table 3.8 Parameter estimates, standard errors, and p-values for
linear mixed effects model assessing post-trampling
percent vegetation cover by number of passes and number
of weeks since initial trampling
60
Table 3.9 Resistance indices for national park sites 61
Table 3.10 The rainfall at the closest weather station to each national
park during the trampling experiment study period
(2006-2007)
62
Table 4.1 Visitor characteristics of respondents visiting LNP, FRNP
and SRNP
83
Table 4.2 Visitor characteristics of respondents visiting LNP, FRNP
and SRNP
84
Table 4.3 Respondents definitions of biodiversity 86
Table 4.4 Visitors’ perceptions of observed and potential
environmental impacts at LNP, FRNP and SRNP
89
Table 4.5 Values identified in respondents’ responses to why it is
important to conserve biodiversity
94
Table 4.6 Value statement means 95
Table 4.7 Value type means for cluster analyses (K-means) 96
Table 4.8 Level of support from respondents for management actions
at each national park
97
Table 4.9 Characteristics of Nature Explorers and visitors in this
study
99
Table 5.1 Resistance indices and visitor acceptability of trampling for
the parks
106
Table 5.2 Recommendations for management attention in regard to
increasing wildflower tourism in biodiversity hotspots
112-114
ix
List of Plates
_______________________________________________________________
Plate 2.1 Visitors following tour guide through bush at Wongamine
Nature Reserve on Organised Tour 1
21
Plate 2.2 Man stepping over chain at Wireless Hill on Organised
Tour 2
21
Plate 2.3 Visitors following tour guide through bush at Chester Pass
Road on Organised Tour 4
22
x
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
_______________________________________________________________
SWA Southwest Australia
LNP Lesueur National Park
FRNP Fitzgerald River National Park
SRNP Stirling Range National Park
DPaW Department of Parks and Wildlife
NAVS Natural Area Value Scale
xi
List of Appendices
_______________________________________________________________
Appendix 3.1 Morphological, anatomical and physiological characteristics of
plants genera dominating the vegetation community at LNP,
FRNP and SRNP research locations
Appendix 3.2 Photos taken at LE1, LE2, FE1 and SE1 before and after trampling
for the different number of passes (30, 100, 200 and 300/500) in
each treatment lane
Appendix 4.1 Visitor survey
Appendix 4.2 Set of photographs used for Question 13 of the visitor survey at
Fitzgerald River National Park
xii
Acknowledgements _______________________________________________________________
To begin with I would like to thank Murdoch University and Sustainable Tourism CRC
for providing financial support throughout my study. I would also like to thank the
Department of Parks and Wildlife for their financial and in-kind support from the staff.
Finally I would also like to thank the Rangers of Lesueur National Park who kindly
assisted in collecting surveys from this park as part of this study.
To my supervisors Professor Sue Moore and Associate Professor David Newsome I
would like to express my deep gratitude for all that you have done throughout my study.
Sue, thank you very much for all your guidance, motivation, knowledge and support
throughout my study. David, thank you very much for all your encouragement,
enthusiasm, knowledge and guidance throughout my study. I would also like to thank
Ryan Admiraal for his statistical advice and support which was very much appreciated.
To my Mum and Dad and my sister Rhoda, thank you for all of your help with months
of field work and your continued help and encouragement throughout this study. In
particular thank you Mum and Dad for caring for my children over the years so I could
continue on my PhD journey. Lastly I would like to make a special thanks to my
husband, Don, whose loving support, patience and faith has enabled me to complete this
research. Thank you for all the months of field work, it will not be forgotten.
xiii
Publications
_______________________________________________________________
The following paper relevant to the research presented here has been published in
Biodiversity and Conservation:
Mason, S., Newsome, D. Moore, S. and R. Admiraal (2015). Recreational trampling
negatively impacts vegetation structure of an Australian biodiversity hotspot.
Biodiversity and Conservation 24(11): 2685-2707.
Two papers have been presented at International Conferences:
Mason, S., Newsome, D. and S. Moore (2007). The impacts of tourism on biodiversity
hotspots: research opportunities and dilemmas. 13th
International Symposium on Society
and Resource Management: Landscape Continuity and Change. June 17th
-21st, 2007
Park City, Utah, USA.
Mason, S., Newsome, D. Moore, S. and R. Admiraal (2014). Response of vegetation to
recreational trampling damage in a global biodiversity hotspot: Indicative data from
three national parks. XIII International Mediterranean Ecosystems Conference:
Crossing Boundaries across Disciplines and Scales. October 06th-09th, 2014 Olmué,
Chile.
xiv
1
Chapter 1: Introduction _______________________________________________________________
1.1 Introduction
Tourists travel all over the world to see and experience components of biodiversity such
as forests, coral reefs, birds, wildflowers, fish and mammals (Buckley 2002a; Diamantis
1999; Newsome et al. 2013). Tourism can result in improved biodiversity conservation
but can also cause loss of biodiversity (Buckley 2010; Catibog-Sinha 2008; Hall 2010;
Van der Duim and Caalders 2002; Van Oosterzee 2000). It is essential to understand the
interactions between tourism and biodiversity to ensure that the biodiversity on which
tourism depends remains uncompromised by increasing numbers of visitors (Buckley
2002b; Worboys et al. 2015). This study provides valuable insights into understanding
this interaction.
The interaction between tourism and biodiversity is complex in nature (Bulter 2000;
Farrell and Twining-Ward 2004; Hughes 2002; Pickering and Hill 2007; Spenceley
2005; Van der Duim and Caalders 2002). Both systems are dynamic and many factors
come into play (Farrell and Twining-Ward 2005; Kelly et al. 2003; Pickering and Hill
2007; Shultis and Way 2006; Van der Duim and Caalders 2002). When exploring the
interaction one needs to consider and clearly define which aspects of tourism and
biodiversity are being investigated. The focus of this study was understanding
wildflower tourism in a global biodiversity hotspot and in particular within protected
areas in this hotspot.
1.1.1 Tourism
Tourism has been defined in many different ways in the literature (Cooper et al. 2005;
Inkson and Minnaert 2012; Newsome et al. 2013; Robinson et al. 2013; Weaver and
Lawton 2010). For the purpose of this study tourism was defined as “the sum of the
processes, activities and outcomes arising from the relationship and the interactions
among tourists, tourism suppliers, host governments, host communities, and surrounding
2
environments that are involved in attracting, transporting, hosting and the management
of tourists and other visitors” (Weaver and Lawton 2010 p2). This is a comprehensive
and universal definition of tourism (Newsome et al. 2013; Weaver and Lawton 2010).
Tourism in its simplest form includes visitor use and activities, accommodation and
shelter, and transport and travel (Buckley and Pannell 1990; Van der Duim and Caalders
2002). All three tourism elements have an impact on the biodiversity of an area and are
important in understanding the nature of the interaction between biodiversity and
tourism (Newsome et al. 2013; Van der Duim and Caalders 2002). The most obvious
impact is ecosystem degradation such as the removal of vegetation to build
accommodation and infrastructure (Buckley 2004; Newsome et al. 2013). This can lead
to changes in soils and hydrology resulting in pollutant runoff and sedimentation
(Newsome et al. 2002). Different tourism activities (e.g. hiking, camping, horse riding,
mountain bike riding and alpine skiing) impact upon the plant biodiversity of an area
(Barros and Pickering 2014; Leung and Marion 1999a; Monz and Twardock 2004;
Newsome et al. 2002; Pickering et al. 2010; Pickering et al. 2011; Worboys et al. 2005).
For example, hiking can result in the trampling of vegetation damaging the biodiversity
of sites of tourism interest (Barros et al. 2013; Growcock 2006; Pickering et al. 2010;
Worboys et al. 2005). The transport of tourists consists of travel by air, sea, rail, road
and foot. Transport can directly impact on biodiversity through the introduction of
weeds and disturbance of wildlife (Buckley 2004; Pickering and Mount 2010; Worboys
et al. 2005).
Nature based tourism and recreation is steadily growing each year in Australia
(Newsome et al. 2013; Pickering and Hill 2007; Tourism Research Australia 2013;
Worboys et al. 2015). In Western Australia nature based tourism has resulted in an
increased visitation to protected areas (TWA and CALM 2010). One of the major draw
cards to these protected areas are the unique wildflowers found there (Tate 2002; TWA
2005). Wildflower tourism in Western Australia attracts thousands of visitors each year
to experience extensive and colourful spring flowering period with more than 60 percent
of the plants found nowhere else in the world (Agafonoff et al. 1998; TWA 2011).
3
Moreover, Western Australia is known as a global destination for wildflower tourism
(Burbidge et al. 1990; TWA 2011). Given the human interest in visiting wildflower rich
areas it is essential to understand the interaction between visitors (e.g. wildflower
visitors) and the biodiversity of protected areas where the wildflowers occur (e.g.
national parks) to ensure that the biodiversity (wildflowers) on which tourism depends
remains uncompromised by increasing numbers of visitors.
1.1.2 Biodiversity
Biodiversity can be defined in many ways and there is no single definition in the
literature (Dybas 2006; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a; Noss 1990; Poiani et
al. 2000; Reyers et al. 2012; Swingland 2001). For the purpose of this study biodiversity
was defined as “the variability among living organisms from all sources including inter
alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of
which they are part: this includes diversity within species, between species and of
ecosystem” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a p18). Worldwide biodiversity is
continuing to decline as a result of threatening processes which include habitat loss and
degradation, invasion species, climate change, overexploitation, pollution and disease
(Burgman et al. 2007; Kingsford et al. 2009; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a;
Rands et al. 2010; Wilson et al. 2005). In Western Australia biodiversity has the
potential to decline as a result of the clearing of large areas of native vegetation; plant
disease (e.g. dieback); pastoralism; introduced animals (e.g. rabbits and foxes); mineral
exploration and mining; weeds; fishing; salinity; animal diseases; human-induced
climate change; urban development and tourism/recreation (Burgman et al. 2007;
CALM 2005; Carwardine et al. 2012; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a). In the
future some of the threatening processes that will have a rapidly increasing impact on
biodiversity in Western Australia are climate change (human-induced climate change)
and invasive species (introduced animals, weeds and plant disease) (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment 2005a).
4
There are many different approaches to measuring biodiversity in the literature (Harper
and Hawksworth 1995; Noss 1990; Smyth and James 2004). One example is the
hierarchy approach, which uses indicators at different levels and attributes to measure
biodiversity (Noss 1990). Measuring vegetation cover at the community-ecosystem
and/or population-species levels was an indicator selected as part of this approach (Noss
1990). In this study the changes in vegetation cover of three shrub-dominant vegetation
communities were measured (Chapter 3 Trampling).
1.1.3 Biodiversity hotspots
The international term “biodiversity hotspot” was proposed by Norman Myers in 1988
to prioritise areas where the largest numbers of species were and where there was a
degree of threat through habitat loss. To qualify as a hotspot, an area must contain at
least 1,500 species of vascular plants as endemic and have lost at least 70% of its
original habitat (Myers et al. 2000). Initially 25 hotspots worldwide were identified but
this has been revised twice and now includes 35 biodiversity hotspots worldwide
(Mittermeier et al. 2004; Mittermeier et al. 2011; Myers et al. 2000; Williams et al.
2011). Of the original 25 biodiversity hotspots one was located in Australia which was
the Southwest Australia biodiversity hotspot (Myers et al. 2000). Recently, the 35th
hotspot was added which was the Forest of East Australia (Williams et al. 2011).
There has been much debate about using the biodiversity hotspot approach (Holmes
2005; Jepson and Canney 2001; Kareiva and Marvier 2003; Marchese 2015). It can be
argued that the importance of the biodiversity hotspot concept is not the percentage of
earth’s surface that it protects (17.3%) but rather it is a way of prioritising areas to be
conserved due to their unique nature and loss of habitat (Holmes 2005; Marchese 2015;
Myers 2003). The biodiversity hotspot concept doesn’t imply that other areas of
biodiversity should be denied conservation effort.
5
1.2 Research questions and objectives
This study was guided by the following research questions and objectives:
1. What are the interactions between visitors and biodiversity in terrestrial
protected areas in biodiversity hotspots?
a. Select the tourism activity and protected areas within the biodiversity
hotspot to be used to study the interaction.
2. What are the environmental effects of the interaction?
a. Describe the general environmental effects of the interaction; and
b. Describe and measure one or more important environmental effects of
tourism on the vegetation communities within the selected protected
areas.
3. What are the social effects of the interaction?
a. Describe and measure how biodiversity is valued by visitors and
investigate their knowledge of it, collectively referred to in this thesis as
visitor perceptions of biodiversity, in protected areas in a global
biodiversity hotspot; and
b. Describe, categorise and analyse the types of visitors according to how
they value biodiversity and other key variables.
4. How can an understanding of these interactions contribute to management of
protected areas in biodiversity hotspots?
a. Use the results obtained from a combination of ecological and social
studies to provide recommendations for managing nature-based tourism
in biodiverse regions.
Table 1.1 outlines these questions and associated objectives and locates where these
questions are addressed in this thesis.
6
1.3 Outline of thesis
This thesis is divided into five chapters. The first chapter provides an introduction to the
study including the research questions and objectives. It highlights the importance of
understanding the interaction between tourism and biodiversity to enable tourism to
provide a means of valuing and conserving biodiversity rather than destroying it. The
second chapter outlines the selection of the research focus: wildflower tourism occurring
in three national parks (Lesueur, Fitzgerald River and Stirling Range) in the Southwest
Australia biodiversity hotspot. It highlights the urgent need to obtain more information
on the effects of recreation and tourism on such plant communities (e.g.Kelly et al.
2003; Pickering et al. 2010) to add to the global store of knowledge on biodiversity
hotspots. It includes an overview of the environmental component of the interactions and
the selection of trampling impacts to study. The third chapter explores the effects of
trampling on the shrub-dominated vegetation of the selected national parks. It includes
the methodology to investigate trampling effects used in the study, the results obtained
and a discussion of these results. The work reports that virtually no published data
exists regarding how shrub-dominated vegetation of the Southwest Australia
biodiversity hotspot has been and could be impacted by human trampling. Accordingly
the results from this study provide much needed data in order to understand and manage
the interaction. The findings of this study provide valuable insight into the effects of
human trampling on these unique vegetation communities.
The fourth chapter explores how biodiversity is valued by visitors and their knowledge
of it in protected areas in a global biodiversity hotspot. These findings will significantly
add to the global store of knowledge of how biodiversity is valued by visitors. The final
chapter highlights the key findings of the research questions and objectives and provides
a series of recommendations to managers based on the data obtained.
7
Table 1.1: Research questions, associated objectives and methods of investigation
Research Question Associated objectives Corresponding chapter of
thesis that addresses
research question
Method of
investigation
What are the interactions
between visitors and
biodiversity in terrestrial
protected areas in
biodiversity hotspots?
Select the tourism activity and protected areas within the
biodiversity hotspot to be used to study the interaction
Chapter 2: Research Design Qualitative
What are the
environmental effects of
the interactions?
Describe the general environmental effects of the
interaction.
Describe and measure one or more important
environmental effects of tourism on the vegetation
communities within the selected protected areas.
Chapter 2: Research Design
Chapter 3: Trampling
Analysis and
integration of literature
Participant observation
Expert advice
Quantitative
What are the social
effects of the
interactions?
Describe and measure how biodiversity is valued by
visitors and investigate their knowledge of it, collectively
referred to in this thesis as visitor perceptions of
biodiversity, in protected areas in a global biodiversity
hotspot.
Describe, categorise and analyse the types of visitors
according to how they value biodiversity and other key
variables.
Chapter 4: Perceptions
Chapter 4: Perceptions
Analysis and
integration of literature
Quantitative and
qualitative
How can an
understanding of these
interactions contribute to
management of protected
areas in biodiversity
hotspots?
Use the results obtained from a combination of ecological
and social studies to provide recommendations for
managing nature-based tourism in biodiverse regions.
Chapter 5: Conclusion
Analysis and
integration of literature,
qualitative and
quantitative data
8
9
Chapter 2: Research Design _______________________________________________________________
2.1 Introduction
The rationale for the post-positivist research paradigm guiding this study is provided in
this chapter. Details and description of selection of the interaction between wildflower
visitors and the vegetation in one of Australia’s two biodiversity hotspots follows. The
narrowing of the research scope to the interaction between visitors and vegetation
communities in the three national parks is described. Information on the choice of
trampling as a further point of focus concludes this research design chapter.
2.2 Research paradigm
This research was located within the post-positivist paradigm. Within this paradigm the
study used both quantitative and qualitative methods of research. These methods are
commonly used in social and environmental sciences. A paradigm is a frame of
reference people use to organise and understand their views and feelings (Babbie 2007).
It can be viewed as a set of basic beliefs that influence a person’s actions (Guba and
Lincoln 1994). The four common paradigms are constructivism, critical theory,
positivism and post-positivism (Denzin and Lincoln 1994). The characteristics of post-
positivism as described by Ryan (2006) are: research that is broad in nature; both theory
and practice are considered; the motivations and commitments of the researcher are
considered; and there are many techniques that can be used to collect and analyse data
(Ryan 2006). A key characteristic of post-positivism research is the collection of data
using mixed methods (Henderson 2011). The advantage of using more than one method
of data collection is it provides a more comprehensive picture of the topic being studied
(Henderson 2011). This study used both quantitative and qualitative methods of
research and this provided a greater understanding of the interaction between tourism
activities and biodiversity hotspots. This study makes an original contribution to
understanding this interaction by using a mixed method approach.
10
2.3 Selection of tourism activity, hotspot and protected areas
The wildflower tourism industry was selected as the tourism activity, including
conducted organised tours and independent visitors. It was selected because wildflowers
are a major visitor draw card to Western Australia during spring and people from all
over the world visit WA to see the wildflowers in bloom (Agafonoff et al. 1998; TWA
2005; TWA 2011). The Southwest Australia (SWA) is one of 35 global biodiversity
hotspots (Mittermeier et al. 2011; Williams et al. 2011) and it was selected as the
biodiversity hotspot (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: Southwest Australia global biodiversity hotspot
(Source: Mittermeier et al. 2004; Myers et al. 2000)
11
The SWA is recognised as a vulnerable global biodiversity hotspot and is highly
threatened by clearing, climate change and dieback (CALM 2005; Hopper 2009; Hopper
and Gioia 2004; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a; Mittermeier et al. 2011;
Myers et al. 2000; Shearer et al. 2004). Within Australia SWA it is also recognised as
one of the ten most vulnerable ecosystems where a modest change in the environment
may cause a major change in the ecosystem (Laurance et al. 2011). The SWA has a
Mediterranean-type climate, covers an area of 33,336km2 and contains over 5,469 plant
species of which 4,331 plant species are endemic (Myers et al. 2000). The vegetation of
this area has adapted to nutrient deficient soils (Hopper et al. 1996). The damage to
vegetation in the SWA and other parts of Australia is driven by ecological impacts such
as clearing and fragmentation, climate change, fire, feral animals, weeds and the
presence and spread of fungal pathogens (Burbidge et al. 1990; Gole 2006; Laurance et
al. 2011; Pickering et al. 2008).
The vegetation of the SWA is important as it is a global destination for wildflower
tourism (Agafonoff et al. 1998; TWA 2011). According to Agafonoff et al. (1998) and
TWA (2011) thousands of tourists visit Western Australia each year in order to view
plants that are flowering from June in the North to November in the South. There has
been limited research on the value of wildflower tourism in the SWA (Priskin 2003a).
This research will provide much needed data on understanding impacts, perceptions of
impacts and their integrated management.
Within the biodiversity hotspot three potential protected areas were initially identified
and these were Lesueur National Park (LNP), Fitzgerald River National Park (FRNP)
and Stirling Range National Park (SRNP) (see Figure 2.1 previous page). These three
national parks have been identified as areas with the highest species diversity (Gole
2006; Hopper and Burbidge 1990). They provide opportunities to protect biodiversity
while at the same time are magnets for wildflower tourism because of their biodiversity.
12
To determine if these sites were suitable for the study they were assessed against a set of
five criteria (Table 2.1). For the protected area to be selected it needed to meet at least
four of the five criteria. All three national parks (LNP, FRNP and SRNP) met the criteria
and were included in the study (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1: Potential national parks assessed against criteria
Criteria
Sites
Lesueur
National Park
Fitzgerald River
National Park
Stirling Range
National Park
1. Occur within the
Southwest Australia
biodiversity hotspot
Yes Yes Yes
2. Large number of
flora species and
endemic flora species
821 flora
species of
which 111 are
endemic
1,748 flora
species of which
75 are endemic.
1,530 flora species
of which 82 are
endemic.
3. Occurs within a
protected area
Yes Yes Yes
4. Large number of
visitors visiting per
year
No, 1,705
visitors during
2005/2006
Yes, 43,511
visitors during
2005/2006
Yes, 54,673 visitors
during 2005/2006
5. Large number of
CALM licensed Tour
Operators visiting the
area
Yes there are
29 licensed
tour operators
Yes there are 53
licensed tour
operators
Yes there are 76
licensed tour
operators
Total Criteria Meet 4 5 5
Sources: (CALM 1995a; CALM 1995b; CALM 1999; CALM 2005; Claymore 2005;
TWA 2004).
The three national parks are unique in their landforms, geology and endemic flora.
Lesueur National Park covers 26,987 hectares and the major landforms are the Lesueur
dissected uplands and Peron slopes. The geology of the park is sandstone with minor
amounts of siltstone and clay. The vegetation of the park is shrub-dominated. It
contains 821 different species of plants of which 111 are endemic to the park. Within
LNP the main tourism activities occurring are appreciating nature and scenery,
wildflower viewing, sightseeing, picnicking and bushwalking (CALM 1995a).
Fitzgerald River National Park covers 329,039 hectares and the major landforms are
dunes, plains, valleys, ranges and uplands. The geology of the park is sedimentary,
13
granite and gneissic. The vegetation of the park is shrub-dominated. It contains 1,748
different species of plants of which 75 are endemic to the park. The main tourism
activities occurring within FRNP are appreciating nature and scenery, wildflower
viewing, bushwalking, sightseeing, camping, canoeing, picnicking, beach walking,
fishing and whale watching (CALM 1995b).
Stirling Range National Park covers 115,920 hectares and the major landforms are a
series of isolated hills and valleys. The geology of the park is altered sandstones and
shales. The vegetation of the park is shrub-dominated. It contains 1,530 flowering
species of which 82 are endemic to the park. The main tourism activities occurring
within SRNP are appreciating nature and scenery, wildflower viewing, bird watching,
bushwalking, mountain climbing, camping and picnicking (CALM 1999).
All three national parks are managed by a state government agency called the
Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW). DPaW manages 100 national parks and 13
marine parks with a diverse array of landscapes in Western Australia. They manage the
national parks with the aim of conserving and protecting native plants and animals and
manage many aspects of the access to and use of these areas on behalf of the people of
Western Australia (DPaW 2013).
In consultation with DPaW staff research locations were selected at each national park.
Due to access restrictions only one site was selected at Stirling Range National Park.
The research locations identified were:
Lesueur National Park:
o Lesueur Day Use Area; and
o Information Bay (Figure 2.2 a).
Stirling Range National Park:
o Pay Station at Bluff Knoll (Figure 2.2 b).
Fitzgerald River National Park:
o East Mt Barren Carpark 1; and
East Mt Barren Carpark 2 (Figure 2.2 c).
14
Figure 2.2 (a): Research locations within Lesueur National Park
Figure 2.2 (b): Research location within Stirling Range National Park
15
Figure 2.2 (c): Research locations within Fitzgerald River National Park
2.4 Selection of environmental component to study
The interaction between the wildflower visitors and the vegetation within the three
national parks was explored. The impact of trampling on the vegetation of the national
parks was selected as the environmental component to study. The reasons for selecting
this impact were based on analysis of the current literature, advice from DPaW staff,
assessment of impacts on vegetation at research locations, observations of visitors to
national parks and observations of visitors on organised wildflower tours.
2.4.1 Analysis of the literature
The direct negative impacts of visitors on the vegetation can include: disturbance
(trampling, soil erosion and compaction); addition of matter (litter, human waste and
hydrocarbons); addition of biota (weeds and pathogens (e.g. dieback)); withdrawal of
matter and biota (alteration and loss of biomass as a result of fire and harvesting) and
conversion of natural vegetation to other land uses (Ballantyne and Pickering 2012;
16
Barrett and Yates 2014; Cilimburg et al. 2000; Eagles et al. 2002; Ells and Monz 2011;
Leung and Marion 1999a; Leung and Marion 2000; Monz et al. 2010a; Newsome et al.
2013; Pickering and Hill 2007; Pigram and Jenkins 2006; Van der Duim and Caalders
2002; Vaughan 2000). Trampling of vegetation was selected for detailed analysis after
reviewing the current literature. Kelly et al. (2003) considered the direct and indirect
effects of tourism on 72 plant taxa in Australia by reviewing literature and reports by
government agencies. The study identified trampling as the most common impact
affecting 20 plant taxa. Other impacts such as dieback affected 14 plant taxa, harvesting
affected 10 plant taxa, increased frequency of fires affected 4 plant taxa, weeds affected
4 plant taxa and soil compaction affected 3 plant taxa (Kelly et al. 2003). Ballantyne
and Pickering (2013) found the most common threat to IUCN red-listed vascular plants
in Europe was trampling. These studies highlighted that trampling commonly affects
plant taxa in Australia and worldwide.
In Australian tourism is a threatening process for orchids in the environment (Ballantyne
and Pickering 2012; Kelly et al. 2003; Newsome et al. 2013; Pickering and Ballantyne
2012). Orchids in the environment can be affected by recreational trampling, vegetation
clearance, road and track maintenance, illegal collection, dieback and weeds (Ballantyne
and Pickering 2012; Kelly et al. 2003; Newsome et al. 2013; SAG 2006). Orchids form
a crucial part of the wildflower tourism industry and as such understanding the impact of
trampling on orchids is important for the sustainability of this industry.
2.4.2 Advice from Department of Parks and Wildlife staff
From initial meetings advice from DPaW staff was sought in regards to the impacts of
visitors at each national park (Table 2.2). DPaW staff identified trampling as a major
threat at SRNP and FRNP. The biggest impact identified at LNP was the clearing of
18ha to construct the scenic drive. From these initial meetings trampling was
highlighted as a threat to the vegetation communities of the national parks (Table 2.2).
17
Table 2.2: Information gained from meetings with DPaW staff
Date DPaW staff comments DPaW staff member
30.06.2005 No dieback present in Park, weeds on the
perimeter, fires in 1997 and 2004. Biggest
impact was the clearing of 18ha to construct
new scenic drive. Previously trampling an
issue due to 4WD use and people getting out
of cars and trampling the vegetation.
Ranger at LNP
27.07.2005 Advised that unable to measure the impacts of
dieback, fire and weeds within the sampling
period.
Manager of SNRP and
FRNP
13.09.2005 Impacts include dieback, weeds, fire and
trampling. Seen bus loads of people trampling
the bush in the park with no control.
Ranger at FRNP
16.09.2005 Two major threats from visitors to the park are
trampling and illegal removal of flora.
Dieback is already present throughout most of
the park.
Ranger at SRNP
2.4.3 Assessment of impacts at research locations
In consultation with DPaW staff a range of existing direct negative impacts on the
vegetation were identified at the five research locations across the national parks (Table
2.3). The impact of trampling on the vegetation was identified at all five research
locations (Table 2.3).
2.4.4 Observations of visitors to national parks
Participant observation of visitors to the three national parks was conducted during the
spring of 2006. The main advantage of observing visitors to the national parks was the
researcher’s ability to study interactions and behaviour as it happens (Denscombe 1998;
Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996; Jennings 2010; Neuman 2006). Participant
observation included visual observations of the setting, photo taking and note taking.
These participant observations were conducted to determine if visitors:
1. Stayed on established paths;
2. Went off established paths and in the process trampled the vegetation;
3. Picked plants; and
4. Dropped litter.
18
Table 2.3 Direct negative impacts on the vegetation identified at research locations
in consultation with DPaW staff
Impact observed
Research locations at national parks
LNP FRNP SRNP Lesueur
Day use
area
Information
Bay East Mt
Barren
Carpark 1
East Mt
Barren
Carpark 2
Pay Station
at Bluff
Knoll
Disturbance Trampling of
vegetation
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Soil erosion
& compaction
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Addition of
matter
Litter Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Human waste Not
assessed
Not
assessed
Not
assessed
Not
assessed
Not
assessed
Hydrocarbons Not
assessed
Not
assessed
Not
assessed
Not
assessed
Not
assessed
Addition of
biota
Weeds Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Pathogen
(dieback)
No No Yes Yes Yes
Withdrawal
of matter
and biota
(alteration
and loss of
biomass as
a result of
fire and
harvesting)
Fire – year of
last fire pre
2005
1983 1966 1989 2006 30 yrs+
Harvesting
flora
(picking)
No No No No No
Conversion
of natural
vegetation
to other
land uses
Land clearing
as part of
tourism
development
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
The visitors were observed at the research locations previously identified for each
national park (see Figure 2.2). The researcher was an observer from a bench or chair at
each site. The researcher was anonymous to ensure the data collected was unbiased.
When a visitor arrived at a site the researcher observed to see if they stayed on the
formal paths or went off the paths into the vegetation, dropped litter and/or picked
plants. The data were recorded in a log book in addition to the following information:
site visited, date, arrival time, departure time, weather, independent visitor or part of a
tour, number of people and general behaviour.
19
After 76 hours of participant observation across the three national parks 213 visitors
were observed (Table 2.4). A key observation noted by the researcher was when visitors
did not stay on established tracks they followed a path of least resistance. This resulted
in visitors heading towards bare ground and going around larger shrubs and trees.
Of the 213 visitors observed 41 visitors (19%) went off the path (Table 2.4). It is
interesting to note that none of the 213 visitors were observed dropping litter or picking
plants (Table 2.4). This could be a result of the presence of the researcher and other
visitors in the area while they were visiting.
Table 2.4 Observations of visitors to three national parks during the spring of 2006
National Park Number of
visitors to
the sites
Number of
visitors went
off path
Number of
visitors pick
plants
Number of
visitors drop litter
LNP 33 11 0 0
FRNP 51 7 0 0
SRNP 129 23 0 0
TOTAL 213 41 (19%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
2.4.5 Observations of visitors on organised wildflower tours
In 2005 the researcher observed the behaviour of tourists on four organised wildflower
tours as an anonymous participant. Due to the availability of tours at the time, these
tours did not necessarily visit the three national parks that form the basis of this study
but they did visit protected areas in Western Australia. These observations of visitors on
the organised wildflower tours provided a snapshot of the behaviour of wildflower
tourists.
The details of the four organised wildflower tours were:
Organised Tour 1 on 28th
August 2005, stops at Wonga Mine Reserve and
catchment area near Bolgart (see Figure 2.1), duration 10 hours and 12 visitors
(see Plate 2.1);
Organised Tour 2 on 19th
September 2005, stops at Wireless Hill and
Gooseberry Hill Reserve (see Figure 2.1), duration 8 hours and 12 visitors (see
Plate 2.2) ;
20
Organised Tour 3 on 1st September 2005, stops in bush surrounding North
Eneabba caravan park (see Figure 2.1), duration 3 hours and 38 visitors; and
Organised Tour 4 on 17th
September 2005, stops throughout Stirling Range
National Park (see Figure 2.1), duration 3.5 hours and 13 visitors (see Plate 2.3).
The researcher observed the visitors’ behaviour in regards to walking on paths
(Table 2.5).
Table 2.5 Observations of visitors on organised wildflower tours
Organised Tour Observations of visitors walking on a path
Organised Tour 1 Visitors followed the guide through the bush
(Plate 2.1). The tour guide mentioned not leaving the path
but he was the first one to leave the path at Stop 2.
Organised Tour 2 At Wireless Hill two people stepped over the chain to take a
photo (Plate 2.2). The tour guide said to me “You can step
over to get a photo”. At Gooseberry Hill the tour guide
walked off the track to show the visitors a Pink Fairy Orchid.
Organised Tour 3 Visitors followed the guide through the bush staying on the
path.
Organised Tour 4 Guide was very strict and insisted on staying on paths (Plate
2.3). No visitors went walking off the path through the bush.
From these observations the visitors mirrored the tour guide’s behaviour in terms of
staying on the path. The guides for organised Tour 3 and Tour 4 were very strict about
visitors staying on the path (Plate 2.3). They explained the importance of staying on a
path to stop the trampling of vegetation. The two other tour companies did not have
such strict control on the movement of the visitors through the bush to minimise
trampling (Plate 2.1 & Plate 2.2). The tour guides from Organised Tour 1 and Tour 2
were also both observed going off track to observe wildflowers.
21
Plate 2.1: Visitors following tour guide through bush at Wongamine Nature
Reserve on Organised Tour 1 (Source S.Mason 2005)
Plate 2.2 Man stepping over chain at Wireless Hill on Organised Tour 2
(Source: S Mason, 2005)
22
Plate 2.3: Visitors following tour guide through bush at Chester Pass Road on
Organised Tour 4 (Source: S.Mason 2005)
The information provided by the tour guides on the environmental impacts of visitors on
an area varied in terms of detail. These observations illustrated the importance of the
role of the tour guide in managing the movement of visitors through the bush to
minimise the trampling of vegetation. These observations further illustrated that
trampling of vegetation is an issue of concern in the interaction between visitors and
natural parks.
23
Chapter 3: Trampling
_______________________________________________________________
3.1 Introduction
Virtually no published data exist regarding how the shrub dominated vegetation
communities of SWA respond to human trampling. Accordingly there is an urgent need
to gain information about the effects of human trampling in these vegetation
communities to add to the global store of knowledge of biodiversity hotspots. Therefore
two different trampling studies were conducted on the vegetation communities of LNP,
FRNP and SRNP. The first study focused on trampling of vegetation as a result of
visitors leaving an established path during the wildflower season using plot based
surveys. The second study focused on trampling experiments where different levels of
trampling were experimentally applied to the vegetation to measure the resistance and
resilience of the vegetation. Both studies found that the shrub-dominated communities
of the three national parks had low resistance and resilience to human trampling. These
findings are of importance as managers of these protected areas need to be aware of how
vulnerable these vegetation communities are to human trampling and ensure the
trampling impact is effectively managed.
Trampling is one of the most visible forms of disturbance to vegetation from tourism
and recreational use (Ballantyne and Pickering 2013; Cole 2004; Kelly et al. 2003;
Monz et al. 2010a; Pickering and Hill 2007). The trampling of vegetation and soils can
occur when a visitor leaves an established trail to take a photo, investigate a flower or to
create an informal trail for other purposes (Ballantyne and Pickering 2012; Barros et al.
2013; Leung and Marion 2000; Newsome et al. 2013; Pickering and Hill 2007).
Observations of the visitors to the three national parks found that visitors left an
established trail and as a result trampled the vegetation (Chapter 2).
There have been many studies worldwide which have examined the impacts that
trampling has on vegetation and soils (Barros et al. 2013; Buckley 2005; Cole 1987a;
24
Cole and Monz 2002; Cole and Monz 2003; Leung and Marion 2000; Liddle 1997;
Malmivaara-Lamsa et al. 2008; Monz 2002; Pescott and Stewart 2014; Pickering and
Hill 2007; Torn et al. 2009). The trampling studies conducted in North America and
Europe have been in various vegetation types ranging from temperate to mountain
communities (Cole 1987b; Cole and Monz 2002; Cole and Trull 1992; Gallet and Roze
2002; Kissling et al. 2009; Kuss and Hall 1991; Leung and Marion 2000; Malmivaara-
Lamsa et al. 2008; Monz 2002; Ros et al. 2004; Torn et al. 2009; Waltert et al. 2002).
Australian studies have focused on trampling in mountain, subtropical and tropical areas
(Hill and Pickering 2009; Pickering and Growcock 2009; Pickering et al. 2010; Talbot et
al. 2003; Whinam and Chilcott 1999; Whinam and Chilcott 2003). There have been no
studies conducted on the impact of human trampling in shrub-dominated communities of
the Southwest Australia biodiversity hotspot. The only relevant study conducted in the
Southwest Australia biodiversity hotspot was on the impact of horse riding on the
vegetation communities found in the D’Entrecasteaux National Park (Phillips and
Newsome 2002).
The impacts of walkers/hikers on vegetation has been studied and examples of the
vegetation types range from bogs to grasslands, mountains to tropical rainforests (Cole
2004; Gallet and Roze 2002; Growcock 2006; Hamberg et al. 2010; Hill and Pickering
2006; Kim and Daigle 2012; Lucas-Borja et al. 2011; Malmivaara-Lamsa et al. 2008;
McDougall and Wright 2004; Monz 2002; Monz et al. 2000; Rusterholz et al. 2011;
Talbot et al. 2003; Whinam and Chilcott 1999). Limited studies have assessed the
impacts of trampling in shrub-dominated communities worldwide (Ballantyne et al.
2014a; Bayfield 1979; Cole and Spildie 1998; Kim and Daigle 2012; Marion and
Linville 2000; McDougall and Wright 2004). There have been no studies on the impacts
of trampling by walkers/hikers on shrub-dominated communities of the SWA.
Trampling experimental studies can determine the vegetation’s resistance and resilience
to trampling (Cole and Bayfield 1993; Hill and Pickering 2009). The resistance of the
vegetation in these communities is defined as the “ability of the vegetation type to resist
being altered by trampling” (Cole and Bayfield 1993 p213). The resilience of the
25
vegetation in these communities is defined as the “ability of the vegetation to recover
from damage caused by trampling once trampling has ceased” (Cole and Bayfield 1993
p214). Both resistance and resilience are important in understanding how a vegetation
community responds to human trampling.
A resistance index is a common measure used to compare the resistance of different
vegetation communities (Cole and Bayfield 1993). A resistance index can be defined as
the number of passes required to cause a 50% decline in vegetation cover (Cole and
Bayfield 1993; Liddle 1997). In Australia the resistance indices vary and the range is
from 12 passes in a Eucalyptus subtropical understory to 1,475 passes in a mixed forest
ground cover community in a subtropics region of Australia (Hill and Pickering 2009;
Liddle 1997; Pickering et al. 2010). No such studies have been undertaken in Lesueur
National Park, Fitzgerald River National Park and Stirling Range National Park.
The trampling of vegetation has primary and secondary effects on the environment
(Figure 3.1). The primary effects on the environment are abrasion of vegetation;
abrasion and loss of organic matter; and soil compaction (Figure 3.1). The primary
effect focused on in this study was the abrasion of vegetation. The abrasion of
vegetation is when the plant is crushed, bruised, sheered off or uprooted by trampling
(Cole 2004). This can lead to a reduction of leaf area, stem and plant height (Liddle
1997). The reduction in plant surface area affects the ability of the plant to
photosynthesize causing the secondary effect of the reducing the plant’s vigour and
reproduction (Liddle 1997). The end results can be a change in species composition
and/or a reduction in vegetation cover (Figure 3.1) (Cole 2004). The abrasion of
vegetation can also cause a reduction in the number of plants flowering and a reduction
in the number of heads per plant and seed production. This in turns affects the ability of
the plant to reproduce, causing a reduction in vegetation cover (Liddle 1997).
26
Figure 3.1: The effects of visitors trampling on the environment (Source: Cole 2004)
3.2 Factors influencing a plant’s response to trampling
The factors influencing a plant’s response to trampling are plant characteristics,
disturbance and environmental factors (Figure 3.2). The plant characteristics include the
morphology, anatomy and physiological aspects of the plant. The disturbance factors
include the amount of use, type of use, size of group, visitor behaviour and season of
use. The environmental factors include the climate, elevation and aspect, and soil type.
All of these factors need to be considered when exploring the interaction between
trampling and a vegetation community (Figure 3.2).
Trampling
Reduction in soil
macropores
(Secondary effect)
Reduction in litter
cover
(Secondary effect)
Increase in
runoff and
erosion
Change in
soil biota
Reduction in plant
reproduction
(Secondary effect)
Reduction in plant
vigour
(Secondary effect)
Reduction in
vegetation
cover
Change in
species
composition
Abrasion of
vegetation
(Primary effect)
Abrasion and loss of
organic matter
(Primary effect)
Soil compaction
(Primary effect)
27
3.2.1 Plant characteristics
Various studies have examined the relationship between a plant’s morphology and its
response to trampling (Figure 3.2) (Bernhardt-Romermann et al. 2011; Cole 1995a; Sun
and Liddle 1993a; Sun and Liddle 1993b; Sun and Liddle 1993c; Sun and Liddle 1993d;
Yorks et al. 1997). The important morphological aspects that need to be considered are
the protection of the vegetative bud, the type of life form and the height of the plant
(Bernhardt-Romermann et al. 2011; Cole 1995a; Kuss 1986; Liddle 1991; Yorks et al.
1997). The protection of the vegetative bud means the plant has a better chance of
surviving trampling (Cole 1995a). The protection can be afforded by a protective
structure, the bud being buried under the surface of the ground or the plant growing on
uneven ground (Liddle 1991; Liddle 1997).
The life form of a plant can determine its resistance and resilience to trampling (Hill and
Pickering 2009; Liddle 1997; Yorks et al. 1997). Shrubs tend to be less resistant and
less resilient to trampling when compared to graminoids, trees, cryptophytes/forbs and
thallophytes lifeforms (Kuss 1986; Liddle 1997; Malmivaara-Lamsa et al. 2008;
McDougall and Wright 2004; Yorks et al. 1997). The vegetation communities of the
national parks used in this study are dominated by shrubs (Appendix 3.1).
Plant height is very sensitive to trampling and the change in plant height is a reliable
indicator of the impact of trampling (Cole and Bayfield 1993; Growcock and Pickering
2011; Sun and Liddle 1993a; Yorks et al. 1997). Various studies have shown that tall
erect plants are less tolerant than prostate plants (Leung and Marion 2000; Pickering and
Growcock 2009; Sun and Liddle 1993c). Some of the shrubs found in the vegetation
communities of the national parks were erect plants and therefore may be more sensitive
to trampling (Appendix 3.1).
28
Figure 3.2: Factors influencing a plant’s response to trampling
(Sources: Ballantyne et al. 2014a; Bernhardt-Romermann et al. 2011; Cole 1995a; Cole
1995b; Cole and Monz 2003; Growcock 2006; Hamberg et al. 2010; Hammitt and Cole
1998; Kuss 1986; Leung and Marion 2000; Liddle 1997; McDougall and Wright 2004;
Monz 2002; Monz et al. 2010a; Monz et al. 2013; Newsome et al. 2013; Pickering 2010;
Pickering and Hill 2007; Pickering et al. 2010; Yorks et al. 1997)
Factors
influencing
plant’s response
to trampling
Plant characteristics
Disturbance
Environmental
Morphology
Anatomy
Soil type
Season of use
Physiological
Amount of use
Type of use
Size of group
Visitor behaviour
Elevation & aspect
Climate
29
Anatomical characteristics that play an important role in a plant’s ability to survive
trampling are the size of the stem cells and the flexibility of the stem and leaves (Figure
3.2) (Liddle 1991). Small stem cells can withstand greater compressive force from
trampling than larger or hollow stem cells (Liddle 1991). The more flexible the stem
and leaves the greater the chance it has to withstand the effects of trampling (Liddle
1991; Sun and Liddle 1993c). The more woody the stem the more vulnerable the plant is
to trampling (Liddle 1997; Sun and Liddle 1993c). Some of the shrubs found in the
three national parks had woody stems which means they may be more vulnerable to
trampling (Appendix 3.1).
The physiological characteristics that affect a plant’s response to trampling can include
the growth rate and primary productivity of the plant (Figure 3.2) (Liddle 1975; Liddle
1997). A plant’s tolerance to trampling is increased if it has a rapid growth rate
(Bernhardt-Romermann et al. 2011; Cole 1987a; Liddle 1997). Some of the shrubs
found in the three national parks were slow growing suggesting they may be more
sensitive to trampling (Appendix 3.1). The relationship between primary productivity of
vegetation and its ability to tolerate trampling has been studied (Liddle 1975; Liddle and
Thyer 1986). A previous study of the ground flora of a subtropical dry sclerophyll forest
was found to be vulnerable to trampling due to the due low primary productivity of the
vegetation (Liddle and Thyer 1986).
3.2.2 Disturbance factors
The disturbance factors that influence the response of vegetation to trampling are the
amount of use, type of use, size of group, visitor behaviour and season of use (Figure
3.2) (Cole 1987a; Growcock 2006; Hill and Pickering 2009; Monz et al. 2010a;
Newsome et al. 2002; Pickering et al. 2010). In the past the relationship between the
amount of use and the amount of an impact was thought to be curvilinear in nature (Cole
1987a; Cole 1995b; Hammitt and Cole 1998). These relationships (models) of ecological
response to recreation disturbances have been re-examined and additional models
proposed (linear, exponential and step function) based on research in other fields to
account for all possible use-impact relationships (Monz et al. 2013).
30
The type of use will affect the response of vegetation to trampling (Figure 3.2). The
types of use can include walking/hiking, camping, horse-riding, mountain bike riding,
off-road vehicles, skiing and motorbikes (Cole and Monz 2003; Cole and Spildie 1998;
Hill and Pickering 2009; Newsome and Davies 2009; Newsome et al. 2002; Pickering
and Growcock 2009; Pickering and Hill 2007; Pickering et al. 2010; Pickering et al.
2011; Torn et al. 2009; Whinam and Chilcott 2003). The type of use studied in this
research is visitor trampling on the vegetation of LNP, SRNP and FRNP during the
wildflower season.
The size of the group will affect the impact of trampling on the vegetation (Figure 3.2)
(Cole 1987a) . The larger the group the more potential the group has to cause damage
(Cole 1987b). A camping study conducted in the Eucalypt forest of Warren National
Park, Western Australia found that larger groups at campsites caused more damage than
smaller groups (Smith and Newsome 2002). The damage was in the form of reduced
vegetation cover and tree seedlings, damage to trees, soil compaction, soil erosion,
degradation to riverbanks and more foot pads (Smith and Newsome 2002).
The behaviour of the visitor will affect the intensity of the trampling impact (Figure 3.2)
(Cole 2004; Growcock 2006). A visitor’s behaviour to move off a formal trail or to
create an informal trail could result in the trampling of the vegetation (Ballantyne and
Pickering 2012; Barros et al. 2013; Marzano and Dandy 2012; Monz et al. 2010b;
Pickering and Hill 2007). The season in which a particular activity is occurring also has
an influence on the resistance and resilience of the vegetation (Figure 3.2) (Gallet and
Roze 2002). If the activity is occurring when the plants are reproducing and growing
(i.e. spring) or when there is limited time for the vegetation to recover before winter (i.e.
autumn) this may result in a significance disturbance (Hammitt and Cole 1998; Hartley
2000). The wildflower visitors visited the three national parks during spring when the
plants are in the process of reproducing and growing. This is likely to affect the
vegetation’s sensitivity to trampling.
31
3.2.3 Environmental factors
The environmental factors of climate, elevation and aspect, and soil type influence the
vegetation’s response to trampling (Figure 3.2). Vegetation occurring in different
climates will respond differently to trampling (Figure 3.2) (Cole and Monz 2003;
Growcock 2006; Kuss 1986; Pickering and Hill 2007; Talbot et al. 2003; Whinam and
Chilcott 2003). The resilience of vegetation is largely dependent on the growth rate of
the plant which is directly connected to the climate (temperature and moisture) of the
area (Bernhardt-Romermann et al. 2011). But even within a single climate zone
different vegetation communities will respond differently to trampling (Pickering and
Hill 2007; Turton et al. 2000). For example a study conducted in the Wet Tropics of
Queensland found that three vegetation communities (rainforest, littoral and wet
sclerophyll forest) differed in their response to day use trampling (Turton et al. 2000).
The climate of the SWA is described as a Mediterranean climate where the vegetation is
near temperature and rainfall thresholds (Hopper and Gioia 2004; Laurance et al. 2011).
This area has been recognised as highly vulnerable to slight environmental changes such
as a change in temperature and rainfall and habitat reduction (Laurance et al. 2011). The
predominantly winter rainfall ranges between 300 and 1500 mm yr-1
(Hopper and Gioia
2004). The evidence for climate change and predictions for a continual decline in winter
rainfall for southwest Western Australia (Dai 2013; Stott et al. 2010; Watson et al. 2013)
is an additional factor that exacerbates the sensitivity of this vegetation to damage from
tourists and other visitors.
Elevation plays a role in the vegetation’s tolerance to trampling (Figure 3.2). The inter-
relationship of trampling, elevation and aspect is complex and generalisations cannot be
broadly applied (Cole 1987a). The major effect of an increase in elevation is a decrease
in the length of the growing season (Growcock 2006; Marion and Linville 2000).
Accordingly vegetation at higher elevation could be more sensitive to the effects of
trampling (Cole 1987a). An important exception to this was trampling experiments
conducted in five high-elevated plant communities in the Wind River Mountain area
which found vegetation communities dominated by different types of ground cover
32
differed in their sensitivity to the effects of trampling (Cole and Monz 2002). The
elevations (metres above sea level) of the study sites taken using a GPS were: LNP
approximately 240m; FRNP between 80 and 120m; and SRNP around 230m (except the
peaks of the mountains) which are all relatively low elevations.
The type of soil a plant species or community grows in will affect how the plants
respond to trampling (Figure 3.2). A Finnish study found the tolerance of vegetation
increased with increasing fertility of the soils (Malmivaara-Lamsa et al. 2008). The soils
of SWA are nutrient-deficient with low levels of nutrients such as nitrogen and
phosphorous resulting in low fertility (Hopper and Gioia 2004). This could affect the
tolerance of the vegetation communities to human trampling
3.3 Methods for the two trampling studies
The first trampling study used plot based surveys which compared used and unused sites
in all three national parks. This type of study was selected to determine the impact
visitors have on the vegetation when they leave an established path and trample the
vegetation over the wildflower season. This comparison relied on the establishment of
corridors and quadrats at sites in the three national parks where wildflower tourism
activities were evident. The objectives of the plot based survey were to determine the
effects on vegetation height and cover as a result of visitors trampling the vegetation
over the wildflower season. A similar study conducted in the Shenandoah National Park,
USA used plot based surveys to determine the changes in vegetation occurring along
trails as a result of trampling (Hall and Kuss 1989).
The second trampling study used a trampling procedure (trampling experiment)
developed by Cole and Bayfield (1993) in all three national parks. This trampling
experiment is used worldwide to determine the effects of trampling on vegetation
communities (Hamberg et al. 2010; Hill and Pickering 2009; Leung and Marion 2000;
Malmivaara-Lamsa et al. 2008; Pickering and Growcock 2009; Pickering et al. 2011).
The trampling experiment determines the relationship between amount of use and the
intensity of the impact on the vegetation. The objectives of this second study were to
33
determine the effects of trampling on the vegetation height and cover (as a measure of
resistance) and recovery of height and cover over a 12 month period (as a measure of
resilience). An application was submitted to DPaW for approval to conduct fieldwork in
Lesueur National Park, Fitzgerald River National Park and Stirling Range National Park.
The approval was granted on the 3rd
of July 2006 to conduct the fieldwork (Issue No
CE001387 & SW010927).
3.3.1 Study sites
The research locations for each national park were illustrated in Chapter 2 (Figure 2.2).
At each research location the sites for the plot based surveys and trampling experiments
were determined in consultation with DPaW staff. At the plot based survey sites,
corridors or quadrats were established where wildflower tourism activities were evident.
At the trampling experiment sites, corridors were located some distance from the plot
based survey sites to ensure there was no interference from visitors but ensuring the
vegetation type and typography were as similar as possible (Figure 3.3). The sites for the
three national parks and their vegetation communities and typical genera are outlined in
Table 3.1 and the locations are shown in Figure 3.3.
At SRNP, in consultation with DPaW staff, due to the presence of the Dwarf Spider
Orchid at the plot based survey site (Pay Station at Bluff Knoll), the trampling
experiment site was located further away at a site South of Paper Collar Bridge (i.e. SE1
Figure 3.3b). The trampling experiment site was located in the same vegetation
community as the plot based survey site but no Dwarf Spider Orchids were found there.
Only one experimental site was selected at SRNP due to restricted access.
34
Table 3.1: Research locations, plot based surveys and trampling experiment sites
National Park Research
locations
Plot based
survey
Trampling
experiment
Plant community & typical genera
Lesueur
National Park
Lesueur Day
use area
LD3: Lesueur
Day Use Area
LE1: Near Lesueur
Day Use Area
Dominated by shrubs including Hakea, Acacia,
Eucalyptus, Melaleuca, Grevillea, Daviesia,
Darwinia, Thysanotus, Tetratheca and Petrophile
genera
Information
Bay
LD4:
Information
Bay
LE2: Near
Information Bay
Dominated by shrubs including Astroloma,
Leucopogon, Cryptandra , Daviesia,
Gastrolobium, Synaphea Lechenaultia, Olearia,
Leptospermum and Lomandra genera
Fitzgerald
River
National Park
East Mt Barren
Carpark 1
FD3: East Mt
Barren
Carpark 1
FE1: Near East Mt
Barren Carpark 1
Dominated by shrubs including Eucalyptus,
Banksia, Acacia, Calothamnus, Stylidium,
Leucopogon, Hakea, Melaleuca, Verticordia and
Schoenus genera
East Mt Barren
Carpark 2
FD4: East Mt
Barren
Carpark 2
FE2: Near East Mt
Barren Carpark 2
Dominated by shrubs including Eucalyptus,
Leucopogon, Banksia, Jacksonia, Adenanthos,
Calothamnus, Lasiopetalum, Sphenotoma,
Hibbertia and Acacia genera
Stirling Range
National Park
Pay Station at
Bluff Knoll
SD2: Pay
Station at Bluff
Knoll
SE1: South of
Papercollar Bridge
Dominated by shrubs including Acacia, Hakea
Stylidium, Banksia, Kunzea, Petrophile, Astroloma,
Leucopogon, Melaleuca and Verticordia genera
(Sources: CALM 1995a; Newbey 1995; Paczkowska and Chapman 2000; Thomson et al. 1993)
* Recorded genera for each site from NatureMap website: http://naturemap.dec.wa.gov.a
35
Figure 3.3 (a): The location of sites for plot based surveys and trampling
experiments within Lesueur National Park
Figure 3.3 (b): The location of sites for plot based surveys and trampling
experiments within Stirling Range National Park
36
Figure 3.3 (c): The location of sites for plot based surveys and trampling
experiments within Fitzgerald River National Park
The dominant plant genus found at two or more of the national parks were Hakea,
Acacia, Eucalyptus, Melaleuca, Leucopogon, Banksia, Stylidium and Verticordia.
Some species of the Hakea, Acacia, Eucalyptus, Melaleuca, Leucopogon, Banksia and
Verticordia plant genus were shrubs with an erect woody stem that tend to grow slowly.
These plant characteristics may result in the plant being more sensitive to trampling. The
Stylidium species was a non-woody herb. Other species had an erect form and were slow
growing (Appendix 3.1).
3.3.2 Vegetation parameters measured
To assess the effects of trampling on the vegetation the parameters measured were
vegetation height and vegetation cover for both studies. These two parameters are
scientifically credible, monitored with relative ease, cost-effective and can be easily re-
measured (Cole and Bayfield 1993; Hamberg et al. 2010; Pickering and Growcock 2009;
Pickering et al. 2011). Previous studies have shown that changes in physiognomic
37
parameters (vegetation cover and vegetation growth/height) occur more quickly than
changes in floristic parameters (vegetation composition) (Cole and Bayfield 1993;
Whinam and Chilcott 1999). Due to the nature of this study, time constraints and
widespread use of the preceding parameters in trampling research elsewhere the change
in floristic parameters were not measured.
The method used to measure vegetation height and cover was the point intercept frame
with pins. This method is reliable and can be used to measure different vegetation
height and cover on level and uneven ground (Kent and Coker 1992). According to
Kent and Coker (1992), the vegetation height is measured as the distance between the
initial species hit and the ground using the calibrated pins from the point intercept frame.
If the pin hits bare ground or dead material the vegetation height is recorded as zero. In
this study the vegetation cover was measured by recording the living material hit by the
pin. If the pin hit non-living material, that was recorded as either bare ground or dead
matter.
3.3.3 Plot based survey set-up
Corridors were used for the LNP (two sites) and FRNP (two sites) sites, with quadrats
used at SRNP (one site). For LNP and FRNP, each site was comprised of three used
(presence of visitors) corridors and one control corridor (no visitors present). The use of
corridors is a popular approach in vegetation surveys (Kent and Coker 1992). The
layout of the recreational use corridors was determined after observing wildflower
visitors in the natural environment. Observation of the wildflower visitors in the 2006
wildflower season indicated that they tended to radiate out from a central access point.
These observations support earlier research by Andres-Abellan et al. (2005) which found
visitors radiated outwards from the most degraded and used point. Given this
observation the recreational use transects were arranged to radiate out from a central
access point to account for the typical wildflower visitors’ movements. The location of
recreational use corridors were in areas of interest and points of focus (i.e. exposed
rocks, views of valleys, location of significant flowering plants) and were located off
formal paths. The control transect was located in an area where there was no visitor
38
access. The corridors were measured out and reference pegs installed on both sides at
intervals of one metre and GPS readings taken.
The dimensions of the transect corridors were 1m wide (to enable use of point intercept
frame) and 7m long (to account for visitors moving off a path). Cross sections were
located at 1m intervals within each transect corridor to measure vegetation parameters
(vegetation height and cover). The transect corridor had eight cross sections at 0m, 1m,
2m, 3m, 4m, 5m, 6m & 7m and at each cross section the point intercept frame took 20
measurements from the pins (Figure 3.4a). The total number of measurements taken in
each transect corridor was 160.
Figure 3.4(a): Size and approximate layout of transect corridors
At Stirling Range National Park transect corridors were not used at the plot based survey
site. After consultation with DPaW staff at SRNP the use of the point intercept frame at
the Pay Station at Bluff Knoll (SD2) was deemed not appropriate due to the presence of
the threatened Dwarf Spider Orchid (Caladenia bryceana subsp. bryceana). The impact
of the base plates of the frame and the number of reference pegs was potentially too
significant a risk to the Dwarf Spider Orchid. In consultation with DPaW staff the
method chosen to measure the vegetation parameters was a 1m square quadrat. The
square quadrat had a plastic frame and cross-wires to facilitate measuring the vegetation
parameters. The square was based on the conventional 1m square with 10cmx10cm
subdivisions (Kent and Coker 1992). Four quadrats were placed along pads which were
formed as a result of visitors going off formal paths. These quadrats were to measure the
change of the vegetation parameters over the study. A control quadrat was positioned
7m
Measurements taken at each cross section using the point intercept frame
1m
39
further away with no formal access to its location and used to provide a control site.
Within the quadrat there were 100 squares (10cm x 10cm area) in which the vegetation
cover was estimated visually as a percentage and the plant heights were measured using
a ruler. The reference points for the 1m x 1m quadrat were two pegs at opposing sides
and GPS readings taken.
For all the plot based survey sites (LD3, LD4, FD3, FD4 & SD2) the vegetation
parameters (height and cover) were measured at the beginning and the end of the
wildflower season to ascertain if there was a change in vegetation parameters as a result
of visitors trampling the vegetation during the season. Due to the fire occurring at FRNP
the FD3 and FD4 data were not included in the results section. Thus, a total of three sites
(LD3, LD4 and SD2) provided the basis for the first trampling study
The timing of plot based survey measurements corresponded with the trampling
experiment measurements due to the long distances to the national parks from Perth.
The timing of measurements for each plot based survey site within the national parks
was:
LNP - LD3 & LD4: Initial measurement 20/07/2006 and final measurement
28/10/2006;
FRNP - FD3 & FD4: Initial measurement 08/09/2006 and no final measurement
taken as sites were burnt in October 2006 before final measurements taken; and
SRNP- SD3: Initial measurement 10/10/2006 and final measurement 09/12/2006.
3.3.4 Plot based survey analysis
The vegetation height and vegetation cover data recorded in the field was entered into
Microsoft Excel 2010 for the transect corridors at LNP, FRNP and SRNP. The average
vegetation height was determined for each transect corridor at the beginning of
wildflower season (initial measurements) and the end of wildflower season (final
measurements). The average of the vegetation cover for each lifeform was determined
for each transect corridor at the beginning of wildflower season (initial measurements)
40
and the end of wildflower season (final measurements). The averages of the differences
were determined and the standard error calculated.
3.3.5 Trampling experiment set-up
A total of four sites (LE1, LE2, FE1 and SE1) provided the basis for the second
trampling study as FE2 was burnt in a fire. The trampling experiment comprised of 5
treatment lanes at each of the study sites, with each lane 1m x 7m with a cross sectional
measurement undertaken every 0.5m (Figure 3.4b). The dimensions of the treatment
lanes were modified from Cole and Bayfield (1993) 0.5m x 1.5m lane dimensions to
account for the nature of the vegetation communities (shrub dominated vegetation), to
enable effective use of the point intercept frame (1m wide) and to enable each treatment
lane to provide three replicates (Figure 3.4b). Two studies conducted in alpine
environments in Tasmania used treatment lanes that were 1.5m wide for their trampling
experiments (Whinam and Chilcott 1999; Whinam and Chilcott 2003). Therefore in
Australia a range of widths of treatment lanes have been used. Each replicate is shown
in a different colour in Figure 3.4b.
Figure 3.4(b): Size and approximate layout of treatment lanes for trampling
experiments
The point intercept frame was positioned at each cross section and 20 measurements
(number of frame pins) for vegetation height and cover were recorded. In each
replication 100 measurements were taken. The number of recorded measurements taken
Replicate 1 (0.0m to 2.0m) Replicate 2 (2.5m to 4.5m) Replicate 3 (5.0m to 7.0m)
7m
Measurements taken at each cross section using the point intercept frame
1m
41
for the whole treatment lane (all three replications) was 300 measurements. These
treatment lanes at each site were positioned according to the following:
Areas of homogeneous vegetation (Cole and Bayfield 1993);
Located on flat ground where possible or where not possible the long axis of the
lane is perpendicular to the slope (Cole and Bayfield 1993);
No formal visitor activity;
Vegetation not in the shade of trees which will affect the ability of the
vegetation to recover after the trampling treatments applied;
No obvious drainage patterns which will affect the ability of the vegetation to
recover; and
The height of the vegetation was less than one metre as the point intercept frame
can only measure vegetation height up to one metre.
These criteria were met at each site without compromises. The lanes were positioned,
measured out and reference markers installed every 0.5m to ensure correct positioning of
the point intercept frame at the cross sections. The treatment lanes had a one metre
buffer between them (Figure 3.4b).
In this study the treatment passes initially selected were 0, 30, 100, 200 and 500.
Previous Australian trampling studies (pre 2006 as this study was conducted in 2006)
had a range of trampling intensities including 0, 25, 30, 75, 100, 200, 300, 500 and 700
passes (Growcock 2006; Liddle and Thyer 1986; Phillips 2000; Whinam and Chilcott
1999; Whinam and Chilcott 2003). The heath and low woodland communities of this
study were expected to have a low to moderate resistance to trampling due to the
communities being dominated by shrubs. The range selected was initially 0 to 500
passes. After applying 500 passes to the two sites at LNP (LE1 & LE2) the data were
analysed. The results indicated that 300 passes caused more than a 50% loss in
vegetation cover as per standard procedure. This resulted in the maximum number of
passes for the sites at FRNP and SRNP to be reduced to 300 passes rather 500 passes.
A series of photographs of the treatment lanes was taken before and after trampling
treatments were applied (see Appendix 3.2). These photo series were incorporated into
42
the social survey conducted at each National Park to determine the acceptable change in
vegetation as a result of trampling (see Chapter 4).
The procedure for the application of the treatments to each lane was in accordance with
Cole and Bayfield (1993):
The number of treatment passes was randomly assigned to the treatment lanes;
The weight of the walker was between 65-75kg;
The pass comprised of walking up and down the treatment lane to ensure
uniform trampling;
The walker turned 1m beyond the end of the treatment lane to ensure uniform
trampling;
Use of a counter to record the number of passes to ensure an accurate count;
The starting location of the walker staggered across the width of the lane to
ensure uniform trampling;
Application of treatments during spring as that is when wildflower visitors visit
these national parks; and
All applications of treatments were on the same day as per standard Cole and
Bayfield procedure (1993).
The data for vegetation height and vegetation cover were collected before trampling, two
weeks, six weeks and one year after trampling as per Cole and Bayfield’s (1993)
procedure. The data for vegetation height were also collected immediately after
trampling applied but were not collected immediately after for vegetation cover as per
Cole and Bayfield’s (1993) procedure. The dates of data collection for the sites at each
National Park are found in Table 3.2 below.
43
Table 3.2: Trampling experiment data collection dates at LNP, FRNP and SRNP
sites
Sites Before
trampling
applied
Immediately
after
trampling
applied
Two weeks
after
trampling
applied
6 weeks
after
trampling
applied
One year
after
trampling
applied
LNP- LE1 21/07/2006 21/07/2006 04/08/2006 31/08/2006 21/07/2007
LNP- LE2 19/07/2006 19/07/2006 03/08/2006 30/08/2006 21/07/2007
FRNP-FE1 06/09/2006 06/09/2006 20/09/2006 16/10/2006 31/08/2007
FRNP-FE2 07/09/2006 07/09/2006 21/09/2006 **n/a **n/a
SRNP-SE1 10/10/2006 10/10/2006 24/10/2006 21/11/2006 08/10/2007
** A fire at FRNP burnt FE2 site on 16/10/2006.
3.3.6 Trampling experiment analysis
Vegetation height and percentage cover values recorded in the field are known as
absolute values. These absolute values were utilised in analyses. Relative values are
defined as the ‘proportion of initial conditions (height or cover) with a correction factor
applied to account for spontaneous changes on the control plots’ (Cole and Bayfield
1993p. 211). Absolute values rather than relative values are being used increasingly in
the analysis of trampling data (e.g.Hamberg et al. 2010; Pickering and Growcock 2009;
Pickering et al. 2011). To address distributional assumptions underlying the statistical
analyses utilised, vegetation heights were transformed using a square root
transformation, and percentage vegetation cover values were transformed using the
arcsine square root transformation.
To ascertain the effects of trampling on vegetation height, cover and recovery across the
sites, linear mixed effect models (LMEM) were used. The data collected in each of the
three replications were used in the analysis of the vegetation cover using the LMEM.
The data collected for the whole treatment lane were used in analysis of the vegetation
height using the LMEM. The model assumes that every pin drop (data point) is an
independent event. To account for spatial correlation in vegetation heights across the
various point intercept frame locations for a given site and lane, an exponential isotropic
variogram model was applied (Cressie 1993). Vegetation height data were analysed
using two different LMEM and fit using R (R Development Core Team 2013) and the
“nlme” package of R (Pinheiro et al. 2013). The first model compared the pre- and post-
44
trampling vegetation height data. Fixed effects included an indicator for whether the
measurement was taken before or after trampling, number of passes, site, and all
possible interactions among the three variables. Random effects were included for lanes
for given sites. A second model examined the post-trampling vegetation height data and
vegetation recovery over time, also using a LMEM. Fixed effects included the initial
vegetation height, number of passes, site, weeks since initial trampling, and an
interaction between number of passes and weeks since initial trampling. Random effects
and an exponential isotropic variogram were specified in the same manner as for the first
model.
Post-trampling vegetation cover (as represented through percentage of living matter
versus non-living plant matter) was analysed using a LMEM that included fixed effects
for the number of passes, site, weeks since initial trampling, and an interaction between
number of passes and number of weeks since initial trampling. The linear mixed effect
model takes into account random effects for the transect within the site. The model
assumes percentage vegetation cover for an individual transect within and between lanes
is independent from those of other transects. Therefore independent replication is taken
as a given. Given the small variation in life form categories and low prevalence of living
matter across all lanes post-trampling, instructive analyses incorporating individual life
forms were not possible, so the focus was restricted to analyses comparing living matter
versus non-living matter.
The resistance index for each site was calculated. The index is the number of passes
required to cause a 50% reduction in the original vegetation cover (Liddle, 1997).
Rainfall data for the three parks for the study period (12 months) were obtained from the
Bureau of Meteorology.
3.4 Plot based survey results
In the plot based surveys the mean vegetation height at all three sites declined in the
corridors/quadrats used by tourists, while vegetation height in the un-used
corridors/quadrats increased (Figure 3.5).
45
Figure 3.5: Change in vegetation heights at plot based survey sites
In the corridors/quadrats used by tourists the mean vegetation heights over the sampling
period declined as follows:
LD3: 16.2cm to 15.05cm with a decline of 1.15cm (+0.43);
LD4: 10.79cm to 9.56cm with a decline of 1.23cm (+ 0.36); and
SD2: 3.71cm to 2.81cm with a decline of 0.90cm (+0.15) (Figure 3.5).
In contrast the vegetation heights for the controls at LD3, LD4 and SD2 increased over
the sampling period:
LD3: 10.62cm to 11.28cm with an increase of 0.66cm (+ 0.11);
LD4: 14.58cm to 15.20cm with an increase of 0.62cm (+ 0.13); and
SD2: 7.14cm to 7.35cm with an increase of 0.21cm (+ 0.22) (Figure 3.5).
46
Mean percentage cover of living material at all three sites declined in the
corridors/quadrats used by tourists, with mean percentage cover in the un-used (control)
corridors either remaining unchanged or declining across the sampling period (Figure
3.6).
Figure 3.6: Change in percentage cover of living material at plot based survey sites
The mean percentage of living material cover at the used sites over the sampling period
declined as follows:
• LD3: 47.92% to 47.71% with a decline of 0.21% (+ 0.91);
• LD4: 51.67% to 48.33% with a decline of 3.34% (+2.09); and
• SD2: 19.44% to 15.44 with a decline of 4.00% (+1.19) (Figure 3.6).
Shrubs were the dominant living matter at the used sites of LD3 (80.42% of living
material) and LD4 (89.51% of living material). At SD2 grasses were the dominant
living material (93.57% of living material). Non-living material dominated the used sites
and provided 52.08% of the percentage initial cover at LD3, 48.33% at LD4 and 80.56%
at SD2. The mean percentage vegetation cover at the control sites remained unchanged
at LD3 and LD4 and declined by 1.5% at SD2 (Figure 3.6).
47
3.5 Trampling experiment results
3.5.1 Effects of trampling on the pre and post (immediately after)
vegetation height measurements
The pre- and post-trampling vegetation height data for all sites were compared using a
LMEM to determine the effects of trampling on vegetation height. Conditional F-tests
were used to determine the significance of individual terms for the model (Table 3.3),
showing the pre- versus post-trampling variable (“Pre- versus post-trampling”) to be
highly statistically significant (p-value < 0.001) and the trampling variable (“Passes”) to
be statistically significant (p-value = 0.0020). Examination of variable coefficients for
the model demonstrated a significance reduction in vegetation height post-trampling and
showed that vegetation height decreases with increased trampling (see Table 3.4: refer
specifically to coefficients including “Pre- vs post-trampling”, “Passes” and all
interaction effects).
Table 3.3 Conditional F-tests for individual terms in the model assessing the
difference between pre- and post-trampling vegetation heights.
Variable Num. df Den. df F-value Sig.
Pre- vs. post-trampling 1 24 105.4938 < 0.0001
Passes 1 24 11.9604 0.0020
Site 3 24 10.3544 0.0001
Pre- vs. post-trampling *
Passes
1 24 29.8635 < 0.0001
Pre- vs. post-trampling *
Site
3 24 2.2473 0.1087
Passes * Site 3 24 1.6595 0.2022
Pre- vs. post-trampling *
Passes * Site
3 24 5.6194 0.0046
48
Table 3.4 Parameter estimates, standard errors, and p-values for linear mixed
effects model assessing the difference between pre- and post-trampling vegetation
heights.
Variable Coefficient (SE) t-value Sig.
Pre- vs. Post-trampling -0.2098859
(0.3341879)
-0.628040 0.5359
Passes 0.0031834
(0.0014077)
2.261430 0.0331
Site: Near Lesueur Day use area
(LE1)
-0.6334236
(0.3175151)
-1.994940 0.0575
Site Near Information Bay (LE2) -0.1162316
(0.3175151)
-0.366066 0.7175
Site: South of Papercollar Bridge
(SE1)
-1.1488627
(0.3342305)
-3.437337 0.0022
Pre- vs. post-trampling * Passes -0.0105661
(0.0019908)
-5.307571 < 0.0001
Pre- vs. post-trampling * Site (LE1) -0.3294392
(0.4490342)
-0.733662 0.4703
Pre- vs. post-trampling * Site (LE2) -0.5762841
(0.4490342)
-1.283386 0.2116
Pre- vs. post-trampling * Site (SE1) 0.2139973
(0.4726432)
0.452767 0.6548
Passes * Site (LE1) -0.0034634
(0.0016519)
-2.096572 0.0468
Passes * Site (LE2) -0.0032789
(0.0016519)
-1.984866 0.0587
Passes * Site (SE1) 0.0010465
(0.0019909)
0.525635 0.6040
Pre- vs. post-trampling * Passes *
Site (LE1)
0.0078925
(0.0023362)
3.378352 0.0025
Pre- vs. post-trampling * Passes *
Site (LE2)
0.0085012
(0.0023362)
3.638912 0.0013
Pre- vs. post-trampling * Passes *
Site (SE1)
0.0035279
(0.0028154)
1.253063 0.2223
From the results in the tables it may not be obvious that for all trampling intensities there
is a dramatic decline in vegetation post trampling as illustrated in Figure 3.7. The
coefficient for the “Passes” variable (Table 3.4) is statistically significant and positive
suggesting increased vegetation height with increased trampling. Note, however, that
the effect of trampling must account for the interaction effects including “Passes,” and
the negative coefficient for the interaction effect between number of passes and whether
the measurement was taken pre- or post-trampling (“Pre-/post-trampling*Passes”) more
than offsets any positive coefficients (such as “passes”), resulting in a net effect that is
49
negative for each site. Figure 3.7 also illustrates for all the intensities of trampling (30,
100, 200 and 300/500) a dramatic decline in vegetation heights post trampling.
50
Figure 3.7(a): Mean vegetation heights (and corresponding standard errors, represented as vertical bars) for the LE1 and LE2 sites
during trampling experiment before trampling, immediately after trampling, and 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 52 weeks after trampling.
Number of passes
Number of passes
51
Figure 3.7(b): Mean vegetation heights (and corresponding standard errors, represented as vertical bars) for the FE1 and SE1 sites
during trampling experiment before trampling, immediately after trampling, and 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 52 weeks after trampling.
Number of passes
Number of passes
52
3.5.2 Effects of trampling on the recovery of vegetation height post
trampling over a 12-month period
The second LMEM, which focuses on vegetation heights post-trampling and vegetation
recovery over time, confirmed the result of the first model in terms of trampling leading
to a significant reduction in vegetation height. A conditional F-test of number of passes
showed the number of passes to be highly statistically significant (see Table 3.5, p-value
< 0.0001). The coefficient for the “Passes” variable was highly statistical significant and
negative, and the coefficient for the interaction effect (“Passes*weeks”) including
number of passes was also negative (see Table 3.6), consistent with vegetation height
decreasing with increased trampling. At the same time, however, vegetation height post-
trampling was not significantly related to weeks since initial trampling (see Table 3.5, p-
value = 0.9582), a result consistent with what was observed in Figure 3.8, where lines
corresponding to post-trampling time periods all lie in very close proximity to each
other. Consequently, the results show no significant recovery. Note that Figure 3.8
contains the same data as Figure 3.7. The only difference is the x axis.
Table 3.5 Conditional F-tests for individual terms in the model assessing post-
trampling vegetation height by number of passes and number of weeks since initial
trampling.
Variable Num. df Den. df F-value Sig.
Passes 1 73 149.5651 < 0.0001
Weeks 1 73 0.0028 0.9582
Site 3 73 1.8340 0.1485
Passes * Weeks 1 73 0.3341 0.5650
Table 3.6 Parameter estimates, standard errors, and p-values for linear mixed
effects model assessing post-trampling vegetation height by number of passes and
number of weeks since initial trampling.
Variable Coefficient (SE) t-value Sig.
Initial Height 0.2546271 (0.0051148) 49.78245 < 0.0001
Passes -0.003871 (0.0003965) -9.763 < 0.0001
Weeks 0.0011503 (0.00316292) 0.36367 0.7172
Site (LE1) -0.0804366 (0.13890964) -0.57906 0.5643
Site (LE2) 0.0766594 (0.13882101) 0.55222 0.5825
Site (SE1) -0.2335296 (0.13828217) -1.68879 0.0955
Passes * Weeks -0.0000087 (0.00001505) -0.57801 0.565
53
Figure 3.8(a): Mean vegetation heights (and corresponding standard errors, represented as vertical bars) for LE1 and LE2 sites
during trampling experiment for varying levels of trampling and at various time points.
Time points Time points
54
Figure 3.8(b): Mean vegetation heights (and corresponding standard errors, represented as vertical bars) for FE1 and SE1 sites
during trampling experiment for varying levels of trampling and at various time points.
Time points Time points
55
3.5.3 Effects of trampling on vegetation cover post trampling over a 12
month period
In all four sites (LE1, LE2, FE1 & SE1), all intensities of trampling (30, 100, 200 and
300/500 passes) caused the percentage cover of living matter to decrease, as illustrated
in Figure 3.9 and Figure 3.10. A conditional F-test shows a significant relationship
between the percentage of living matter and the number of passes (Table 3.7, “Passes”
p-value < 0.0001) with increased trampling associated with a reduction in the percentage
of living matter (Table 3.8, statistically significant negative coefficients for “Passes,”
non-significant interaction effect for “Passes*Weeks” with net negative effect). This is
in line with what is observed in Figure 3.10. After 30 passes the percentage of living
vegetation cover decreased from 53.33% to 37.33% at LE1, 68.0% to 27.67% at LE2
and from 62.0% to 47.67% at FE1 post trampling. A much smaller decrease was
recorded for SE1 (40.34% to 39.0%) at 30 passes but after 100 passes the percentage of
living vegetation cover decreased from 54.0% to 34.99%.
Table 3.7 Conditional F-tests for individual terms in the model assessing post-
trampling percentage vegetation cover by number of passes and number of weeks
since initial trampling.
Variable Num. df Den. df F-value Sig.
Passes 1 165 244.911 < 0.0001
Weeks 1 165 2.994 0.0854
Site 3 8 1.800 0.2251
Passes * Weeks 1 165 0.284 0.5949
56
Figure 3.9(a): Percentage cover of living matter (and corresponding standard deviations, represented as vertical bars) for LE1 and
LE2 sites during trampling experiment before trampling, 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 52 weeks after trampling.
Number of passes
Number of passes
57
Figure 3.9(b): Percentage cover of living matter (and corresponding standard deviations, represented as vertical bars) for FE1 and
SE1 sites during trampling experiment before trampling, 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 52 weeks after trampling.
Number of passes
Number of passes
58
Figure 3.10(a): Percentage cover of living matter (and corresponding standard errors, represented as vertical bars) for LE1 and
LE2 sites during trampling experiment for varying levels of trampling and at various time points.
Time points Time points
59
Figure 3.10(b): Percentage cover of living matter (and corresponding standard errors, represented as vertical bars) for FE1 and SE1
sites during trampling experiment for varying levels of trampling and at various time points.
Time points Time points
60
Table 3.8: Parameter estimates, standard errors, and p-values for linear mixed
effects model assessing post-trampling percent vegetation cover by number of
passes and number of weeks since initial trampling.
Variable Coefficient (SE) t-value Sig.
Passes -0.0009134 (0.000075081) -12.1652
< 0.0001
Weeks 0.0004542 (0.000519213) 0.87484
0.3829
Site (LE1) -0.044417 (0.027659929) -1.60583
0.147
Site (LE2) -0.0130105 (0.027752223) -0.46881
0.6517
Site (SE1) 0.0179287 (0.027752223) 0.64603
0.5363
Passes * Weeks 0.0000013 (0.00000247) 0.53272
0.5949
Similarly to changes in the vegetation height in response to trampling, the relationship
between the percentage cover of living matter and number of weeks since trampling is
non-significant (see Table 3.7, “Weeks” p-value = 0.0854), although the p-value in this
case is substantially lower.
The living matter in the treatment lanes comprised of shrubs, grasses, herbaceous
species, sedges, ferns, mosses and liverworts. Characterisation of the major living life
forms at each trampling experiment site showed that shrubs dominated all four
vegetation communities. Prior to trampling, the proportion of the shrubs (averaged
across all the lanes) and grasses (averaged across all the lanes) accounted for:
LE1: shrubs (52.87%) and grasses (5.60%);
LE2: shrubs (59.40 %) and grasses (5.73%);
FE1: shrubs (49.60 %) and grasses (16.67%); and
SE1 shrubs (35.20%) and grasses (18.27%).
61
While the proportion of non-living material (averaged across all the lanes) accounted
for:
LE1: dead material and bare ground (41.20%);
LE2: dead material and bare ground (34.07%);
FE1: dead material and bare ground (33.73%); and
SE1: dead material and bare ground (46.53%).
3.5.4 Resistance index
A resistance index is the number of passes required to cause a 50% reduction in the
original value of vegetation cover (Liddle 1997). The index was determined by
analysing the vegetation cover data for each national park and determining when there
was a 50% reduction in the original value of the vegetation cover for each site (Table
3.9).
Table 3.9: Resistance indices for national park sites
National Park Site Vegetation Community Resistance Index
(number of passes)
Lesueur National
Park
LE1 Shrub-dominated
community
100
LE2 Shrub-dominated
community
30
Fitzgerald River
National Park
FE1 Shrub-dominated
community
100
Stirling Range
National Park
SE1 Shrub-dominated
community
300
3.6 Rainfall data
The rainfall for the 12-month study period was below the long-term average for two of
the national parks – LNP was 213.5mm below the average and SRNP was 73.8mm
below the average (Table 3.10). For FRNP rainfall was 22.1mm above average but it is
important to note that 115mm of rainfall was recorded in January 2007 when the long
term average for January was only 21.6mm (Table 3.10).
62
Table 3.10: The rainfall at the closest weather station to each national park during
the trampling experiment study period (2006-2007)
National
Park and
Site
Closest Weather
Station from the
Bureau of
Meteorology
Rainfall (mm)
during trampling
experiment
Long term
annual
average
rainfall (mm)
Difference in
Rainfall
Lesueur
National Park
(LE1 & LE2)
Warradarge
(Number 8278)
July 06 to June 07
333.2mm
July to June
546.7mm
213.5mm
below the
average
Fitzgerald
River
National Park
(FE1)
Hopetoun
(Number 9557)
Sept 06 to Aug 07
525.8mm*
Sept to August
503.7mm*
22.1mm
above the
average*
Stirling
Ranges
National Park
(SE1)
Amelup
(Number 10502)
Oct 06 to Aug 07
271.1m**
Oct to Aug
344.9mm**
73.8mm
below the
average
(Accessed www.bom.gov.com on 17/04/2013) (* The rainfall data for Jan 2007 was
115mm and the average rainfall during this time is 21.6mm which accounts for the
above average rainfall**No rainfall data recorded for Sept 2007 at Amelup station so the
long term annual average didn’t include Sept either)
3.7 Discussion
The plot based surveys and trampling experiment studies results from this study provide
much needed data on the effects of trampling on the shrub-dominated communities that
form a critical part of the Southwest Australia biodiversity hotspot. National parks
provide an obvious point for research focus given they are a nexus between high
biological values and increasing attention from the tourism industry. No previous studies
have determined the effects of trampling by tourists in this international biodiversity
hotspot and its national parks. This biome is considered highly vulnerable to disturbance
because of high plant specialisation to nutrient deficient soils, a high degree of
endemism and restricted population sizes occurring in a Mediterranean climate (Hopper
and Gioia 2004; Hopper 2009).
3.7.1 Resistance of vegetation height to trampling
This study has shown that at low levels of trampling there was a considerable decrease
in vegetation height in the three shrub-dominated communities of LNP, FRNP and
SRNP. All trampling intensities (30, 100, 300 and 300/500 passes) (Figure 3.7) caused a
63
significant decrease in vegetation height immediately following trampling for all three
communities. The results also showed the decline in vegetation height was greater for
the higher intensities and that these shrub-dominated communities have a low resistance
to trampling by visitors.
The low resistance of these three shrub-dominated communities can be explained by the
characteristics of the plants found in these areas. The plant characteristics of the
dominant genus (Hakea, Acacia, Eucalyptus, Banksia, Melaleuca, Leucopogon and
Verticordia) found in at least of the two national parks were:
1. Shrub lifeform (plant morphological) leading to sensitivity to trampling
(Ballantyne et al. 2014a; Bayfield 1979; Cole and Spildie 1998; McDougall and
Wright 2004; Pickering and Growcock 2009; Pickering and Hill 2007; Specht
and Specht 1999);
2. Erect growth form (plant morphological) leading to low resistance (Cole and
Spildie 1998; Liddle 1997; Pickering and Growcock 2009; Pickering and Hill
2007; Specht and Specht 1999; Sun and Liddle 1991); and
3. Woody stem (plant anatomy) leading to low resistance (Pickering and Growcock
2009; Pickering and Hill 2007; Specht and Specht 1999; Sun and Liddle 1993b;
Yorks et al. 1997)
In summary these shrub lifeforms have an erect growth form with a woody stem which
when trampled by humans they are substantially crushed, bruised, sheered off and/ or
uprooted. This leads to a significant reduction in stem and plant height resulting in a low
resistance of the plants to trampling (Cole 2004). Another Australian study conducted in
shrub-dominated communities was located in the feldmark vegetation of Kosciuszko
National Park. In this study McDougall and Wright (2004) found shrubs were more
susceptible to trampling (they had low resistance) than the other life forms supporting
the results of this study.
Worldwide there have been few studies conducted on the impacts of trampling on shrub-
dominated communities. For example a study in Lolo National Forest (USA) found the
64
shrub-dominated community was more resistant than the forb-dominated community
(Cole and Spildie 1998). In the USA vegetation has evolved in the presence of hard
hoofed animals resulting in vegetation communities being more resistant to trampling
damage than the shrub-dominated plant communities in Australia which have evolved in
the absence of hoofed native herbivores (Newsome et al. 2002; Pickering and Hill 2007).
This observation demonstrates the importance of conducting experimental trampling
studies in shrub-dominated communities worldwide.
3.7.2 Resistance index (vegetation cover)
It is evident from this study (Figure 3.10) that even at low levels there was a substantial
change in vegetation cover, which is in accordance with studies undertaken elsewhere
(Bernhardt-Romermann et al. 2011; Hamberg et al. 2010; Kuss and Hall 1991). The
resistance index at Stirling Range National Park study site (300 passes) was the most
robust out of the three national parks. One reason could be that the vegetation
community at SRNP had the highest proportion of grasses and non-living material
relative to the other two national parks. Previous studies have indicated that the grass
lifeform is more resistant and resilient to trampling than shrub lifeforms (Hill and
Pickering 2009; Liddle 1997; Sun and Liddle 1993c; Whinam and Chilcott 1999; Yorks
et al. 1997). Grasses tend to have basally-fixed meristems, flexible cells, papery
sheaths, increased tiller production and reduced height and leaf size which enable them
to resist and recover better from trampling (Hill and Pickering 2009; Liddle 1997; Sun
and Liddle 1993c). This could account for the larger resistance index at SRNP when
compared to LNP (30 & 100 passes) and FRNP (100 passes).
Resistance indices for different vegetation, as compiled by Liddle (1997), show a wide
range of responses from 12 passes to 1,412 passes required to reduce the vegetation
cover by 50%. The resistance indices for Western Australia shrub-dominated
communities were low (30-300 passes) when considering the possible range. Other
vegetation communities which have a low resistance indices to human trampling include
the Eucalyptus woodland in Brisbane (12 passes), Snow-bank community in the Snowy
Mountains (44 passes), Spuce woodland ground flora in Finland (48 passes) and the
65
sand dune grassland in Scotland (119 passes) (Liddle 1997; Newsome et al. 2013). It is
important to note that there is variation in the resistance index for shrub-dominated
communities and this is evident when examining the resistance indices from this study
(Hill and Pickering 2009).
3.7.3 Resilience (recovery) of vegetation (cover and height) to trampling
The experimental work conducted over the period of this study indicated that resilience
(recovery) of the vegetation was poor. As time increased recovery indicators (plant
height and proportion of living material) either decreased or remained flat across all
three national parks (Figure 3.7 and 3.9). The time variable was determined to have a
non-significant influence on vegetation recovery. In essence there was virtually no
regrowth, such as an increase in vegetation height over the control and treatment lanes
post trampling. The minimal resilience (recovery) of the vegetation height and cover
over the sampling period, which included the growing season, might be attributed to a
combination of factors including plant characteristics (slow growing), climatic
conditions (lower than average rainfall) and soil types (availability of nutrients) in the
national parks.
In this study the slow or absence of growth of dominant plant genera (Hakea, Acacia,
Eucalyptus, Banksia, Melaleuca, Leucopogon and Verticordia) (Appendix 3.2) evident
over the 12-month period is most likely a reflection of the propensity for plant growth to
be severely limited by availability of nutrients and water (Hopper and Gioia 2004;
Specht and Specht 1999; Yorks et al. 1997). Lambers et al. (2010) points out that in the
nutrient deficient landscape of the South Western Australia the low availability of plant
nutrients constraints plant productivity. Such soil conditions mean that it could take a
long time for species to recover from disturbance due to them being slow growing
(Lambers et al. 2010).
The climate conditions during the sampling period could affect the resilience (recovery)
of the vegetation height and cover in the treatment lanes and controls. For example
Bernhardt-Romermann et al. (2011) reported that resilience is largely dependent on plant
66
growth which is directly connected to climate (Bernhardt-Romermann et al. 2011). The
three national parks are located in the Mediterranean climate with a wet winter and a dry
summer (Beard 1990; Hopper and Gioia 2004). The rainfall data (Table 3.10) showed
that LNP (213.5mm below the average) and SRNP (73.8mm below the average) had
lower than average rainfall. The lower than average rainfall could have affected the
growth and ability to recover post trampling resulting in minimal growth of the
vegetation cover and height. At FRNP there was a significant rainfall event during the
summer period in January (115mm) which when compared to the average January
rainfall (21.6mm) was well above the average. However, this rainfall fell outside of the
growing season and would have had a minimal positive effect on plant community
growth and ability to recover post-trampling.
3.7.4 Vegetation responses to visitor behaviour
The plot based surveys at LNP and SRNP showed a reduction in vegetation cover and
height in the used corridors/quadrants over the wildflower season. The reason for the
reduction was the visitors going off the trail and trampling the vegetation. The
vegetation communities of LNP and SRNP were also sensitive to the effects of visitor
trampling due to the nature of the vegetation communities and the visitors trampling the
vegetation during spring (growing period).
The visitors to the national parks were observed going off track and trampling the
vegetation during the participant observation study (Chapter 2). This further supports
the known behaviour of visitors to move off an established path causes the vegetation to
be trampled and creates and spreads informal trails (Barros et al. 2013; Leung et al.
2011; Wimpey and Marion 2011). The number of people going off track cannot be
determined for each used transect/quadrant but the decrease in vegetation height and
cover in the used sites can be attributed to visitors trampling the vegetation. The
estimated number of visitors during 2005-2006 was 1,705 at LNP and 54,674 at SRNP
(Luisa Liddicoat, DPaW, pers. Comm., 2006).
67
The vegetation community of LNP was dominated by shrubs which include Hakea,
Acacia, Eucalyptus, Melaleuca, Leucopogon, Banksia and Verticordia. The plant
characteristics of these genera (shrub lifeform, erect and woody stem) result in the plants
being more sensitive to trampling (Appendix 3.1). The increased sensitivity to
trampling resulted in a reduction in vegetation height and cover at the LNP used sites
due to human trampling.
The vegetation community of SRNP was also dominated by shrubs except in the used
quadrats which were heavily damaged from previous human trampling (81% of cover
was non-living). The small percentage of living matter in the used quadrats consisted of
grasses (19%). The plant characteristics of grass mean they are less sensitive to
trampling. Grasses tend to have basally-fixed meristems, flexible cells, papery sheaths,
increase in tiller production and reduced height and leaf size which enable them to resist
and recover better from trampling (Hill and Pickering 2009; Liddle 1997; Sun and
Liddle 1993c). Taking into consideration the greater number of visitors to SRNP
compared with LNP during the wildflower season also helps explains the difference in
the change in vegetation height and cover at the two national parks. As well when
comparing the resistance indices from the trampling experiments LNP indices were 30
and 100 passes while SRNP indice was 300 passes meaning the vegetation community
of SRNP was more resistant to human trampling which could help explain the
difference.
The plot based surveys were conducted over spring. Previous studies have shown that
the presence of visitors during the spring (flowering period) will cause more damage to
the vegetation than during the non-reproductive period (Barros et al. 2013; Liddle 1997).
Therefore the presence of visitors at other times of the year may not have the same
damage to the vegetation as measured in this study which was conducted over spring.
68
3.8 Conclusion
The trampling experiments and plot based survey have shown that these shrub-
dominated communities of LNP, FRNP and SRNP have a low resistance and resilience
to human trampling. The findings of low resistance and low resilience are of great
importance as these three national parks were highly vulnerable and under threat
(Hopper and Gioia 2004; Myers et al. 2000). To ensure the vegetation communities of
these three national parks are not significantly affected by human trampling the
trampling impact needs to be effectively managed even at low levels of use. The
management implications of these findings are discussed in Chapter 5 (Conclusion).
69
Chapter 4: Perceptions
_______________________________________________________________
4.1 Introduction
There is limited published data on wildflower visitors to national parks and their
associated values and knowledge regarding the biodiversity of the park they visit.
Accordingly, there is an urgent need to gain information about how biodiversity is
valued by these visitors and their knowledge of it, collectively referred to in this thesis
as visitor perceptions of biodiversity, in protected areas in a global biodiversity hotspot.
Therefore a comprehensive visitor survey was conducted across the three national parks
to collect this information. The findings from the visitor survey revealed the visitors to
be older, educated and of local origin (within Australia). These visitors valued
biodiversity for its intrinsic and non-use values, and particularly being able to ‘bequest’
biodiversity to future generations. Visitors were clustered based on how they valued
biodiversity and other key variables into two types of visitors, separated largely by
activities, with one group focused on walking and the other on appreciating nature and
scenery. These findings are important for managers of protected areas, in achieving
desired conservation and park management goals, as they need to be aware of the values
and knowledge of visitors to the national parks they manage.
Research has shown that the different activities will influence a person’s perceptions
(Atauri et al. 2000; Priskin 2003b). One study found a clear relationship between the
visitors’ activities (alpine skiing, high mountain, naturalism and picnicking) and the way
the landscape was perceived in Sierra de Guadarrama, Spain (Atauri et al. 2000).
Another study conducted in the Central Coast Region of Western Australia found that
the activities the visitor undertook (fishing, sandboarding, four-wheel driving and
sightseeing) were related to the visitors’ perceptions of environmental degradation
caused by nature based tourism activities (Priskin 2003b). In this study understanding
wildflower visitors’ perceptions of biodiversity in protected areas in a global
biodiversity hotspot will add to this body of knowledge.
70
Perceptions can be defined in many different ways (Gibson et al. 2000; Kolasa 1969;
Robbins and Judge 2009). In this study it is defined as “the process by which an
individual gives meaning to the environment. It involves organising and interpreting
various stimuli into psychological experience” (Gibson et al. 2000 p97). The perceptual
process of an individual can be influenced by many elements including the individual’s
values, knowledge, intelligence, experiences, emotions, needs, personality, education
and personal background (Ben-Ze'ev 1993; Gibson et al. 2000; Kolasa 1969; Lussier
2005). The elements described and measured in this study were how visitors value
biodiversity and their knowledge about biodiversity in protected areas in a global
biodiversity hotspot. It is important to understand these two elements as they both play
a meaningful role in the perception process (Alessa et al. 2003; Dorwart et al. 2010;
Higham and Carr 2002; Ravlin and Meglino 1987).
In the past, research has found understanding visitors’ values to be a useful concept in
understanding and managing visitors (Higham and Carr 2002; Van Riper et al. 2012;
Winter 2005a). Describing and measuring how biodiversity is valued by visitors can
provide new insight for managers when attempting to align management strategies with
public expectations (Ford et al. 2009). Particularly though the emergence of ecosystem
management where the values of people associated with a particular place or landscape
(visitors to the three national parks during spring) need to be taken into consideration in
management strategies (Brown and Raymond 2007).
Previous research has also found understanding visitors’ knowledge of impacts to the
environment in national parks can provide valuable information to managers (Chin et al.
2000; D'Antonio et al. 2012; Farrell et al. 2001; Floyd et al. 1997; Lynn and Brown
2003; Manning 2011; Manning et al. 2004; Manning et al. 1996; Noe et al. 1997; White
et al. 2001). As well as understanding how visitors perceive and recognise threats to the
environment (biodiversity) (Hillery et al. 2001; Orsini and Newsome 2005).
Accordingly understanding visitors’ knowledge of biodiversity and the associated
impacts and threats form an important part of this study.
71
4.1.1 Values
Values are an important part of the perception process and understanding the values of
visitors helps with the management of visitors to natural areas (Brown and Reed 2000;
Higham and Carr 2002; Lockwood 2011; Winter and Lockwood 2004). Values are the
foundation of a person’s core and a person bases their decisions on their own values
(Gibson et al. 2000; Reser and Bentrupperbaumer 2005; Rokeach 1973). For the purpose
of this study values were defined as “held values are principles or ideas that are
important to people, such as notions of liberty, justice or responsibility [and] assigned
values are values that people attach to things, whether they are goods such as timber,
activities such as recreation, or services such as education” (Lockwood 1999 p.382).
The general view is held values form the basis for assigned values (Brown 1984;
Lockwood 1999).
With respect to values for natural areas (including national parks) there are various ways
to categorise individual values (Brown 2013; Brown and Reed 2000; Brown et al. 2014;
Lockwood 1999; Lockwood 2011; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005b; Raymond
and Brown 2006; Winter and Lockwood 2004; Worboys et al. 2005). For the purpose of
this study visitor values were categorised into intrinsic value, non-use value, use (non-
recreation) value and use (recreation) value according to Winter and Lockwood (2004)
(Figure 4.1).
72
Figure 4.1: Categories of individual values towards natural areas
(Winter and Lockwood 2004)
Intrinsic value of a natural area is the value it has for its own sake and an end in itself
(Leung and Catts 2013; O'Neill 1992; Winter and Lockwood 2004). The use and non-
use values of a natural area are known as instrumental values (Winter and Lockwood
2004). The use values are further categorised into non-recreation and recreation uses
(Adamowicz 1995; Winter and Lockwood 2004). The use (non-recreational) values are
defined as the values the humans extract from the natural area (e.g. medicine, timber,
water) (Adamowicz 1995; Winter and Lockwood 2004). The use (recreational) values
are defined as the on-site activities such as recreation that humans extract from the
natural environment (Adamowicz 1995; Winter and Lockwood 2004) (Figure 4.1).
The instrumental non-use values that humans extract from the natural environment
include the idea of bequesting the area for future generations (Cicchetti and Wilde 1992;
Winter and Lockwood 2004). It also includes the idea of knowing the area is preserved
in a certain condition irrespective of its current or potential use (Brookshire et al. 1983;
Walsh et al. 1984; Winter and Lockwood 2004) (Figure 4.1).
Values towards nature
Intrinsic Instrumental
Use value Non-use
Non-recreation
Recreation
73
Winter and Lockwood (2004) developed a Natural Area Value Scale (NAVS) which can
measures and distinguish between an individual’s values to nature. This scale was
adapted and used in this study as part of the survey. The 20 item NAVS can be used in
studies to measure and gauge the relative strength (using a 7 point Likert scale) of an
individual’s intrinsic, non-use, use (non-recreation) and use (recreation) values for
nature. The NAVS has been used in three studies. The first study measured campers on
the Murray River Australia values towards nature (Winter 2005a). The second study
measured farmers, environmentalists and the general public in regional and metropolitan
centers in Australia values towards for forests and wetlands (Winter 2005b; Winter and
Lockwood 2005). The third study measured natural area visitors and the general public
in Brisbane values towards nature (Winter 2007).
Another way of categorising values for protected areas can includes three primary
categories: direct use; indirect use and non-use values (Lockwood 2011). The direct use
values can include nature-based recreation, personal development, maintenance of
public facilities, and education and research (Lockwood 2011). The indirect use values
can include ecological processes indirectly used by everyone such as filtering of air and
water. The non-use (existence) values can include appreciating the existence of
protected areas and the bequest value they hold for future generations (Lockwood 2011).
A further expansion of these categories was the division of direct use values into
consumptive and non-consumptive values (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005b).
The consumptive values can include harvesting of food products, medicinal products
and timber for fuel and construction (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005b). The
non-consumptive values can include enjoying recreational activities such as bird
watching and water sports that do not require harvesting of a product (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment 2005b).
The Lockwood (2011) and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b) value categories
were not used in this study given the ready availability of the NAVS scale and its
previous application to campers, farmers, environmentalists, natural area visitors and the
general public in various locations in Australia (Winter 2005a; Winter 2005b; Winter
74
2007). The value categories of the NAVS (intrinsic value, non-use value, use (non-
recreation) value and use (recreation) value) offer researchers an effective means of
assessing an individual’s values for natural areas (Winter and Lockwood 2004). NAVS
value categories provide data on the relative importance of the four value components
within this study as well as allowing a comparison with the findings from other studies
(Winter 2005a; Winter 2005b; Winter 2007; Winter and Lockwood 2004; Winter and
Lockwood 2005). The relationship between visitor characteristics (e.g. gender,
education level) and visit characteristics (e.g. first-time versus repeat visitors) and the
values (data from the NAVS) these wildflower visitors hold for biodiversity can be
explored (Winter 2005a; Winter 2005b; Winter 2007).
4.1.2 Knowledge
Knowledge forms part of the perception process and understanding the visitor
knowledge of biodiversity concepts and issues helps with the management of visitors to
natural areas (Alessa et al. 2003; Dorwart et al. 2010; Gibson et al. 2000). This study
explored visitors’ knowledge of defining biodiversity as a concept. It also explored how
visitors perceive threats and impacts as part of efforts to understand the knowledge they
have of these issues surrounding biodiversity.
The visitors’ knowledge of threats to Western Australia’s biodiversity within the
national parks was explored in this study. The potential threats to biodiversity in
Western Australia include clearing of large areas of native vegetation, plant disease (e.g.
dieback), pastoralism, introduced animals (e.g. rabbits and foxes), mineral exploration
and mining, weeds, fishing, salinity, animal diseases, human-induced climate change,
urban development and tourism/recreation (CALM 2005; Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment 2005a; Shearer et al. 2004). In the SWA up to 2,800 species of plants are
susceptible to dieback disease caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi (Shearer et al. 2004).
In the SRNP dieback disease is present along the walk trails and in FRNP along access
roads so the risk of further spread as a result of wildflower tourism access is very real
(Barrett and Yates 2014; Buckley et al. 2004; Newsome 2003).
75
Previous studies have explored how visitors perceive and recognise threats to the
environment (Hillery et al. 2001; Orsini and Newsome 2005). A study conducted at 10
study sites in Central Australia asked the respondents if there were any major threats to
the environment and only 45% of the respondents (tourists) identified problems (threats)
directly related to tourism (Hillery et al. 2001). A study exploring the interaction
between visitors and seas lions from Carnac Island, Western Australia revealed that
visitors did not recognise (have an awareness of) that they themselves could disturb seas
lions even though they witnessed incidental disturbance by other visitors (Orsini and
Newsome 2005).
In this study the visitors’ knowledge of their impacts on the biodiversity of the three
national parks was investigated. Previous research has found that visitors’ perceptions of
their impacts varied (Chin et al. 2000; D'Antonio et al. 2012; Dorwart et al. 2010; Farrell
et al. 2001; Floyd et al. 1997; Lynn and Brown 2003; Manning 2011; Manning et al.
2004; Manning et al. 1996; Moore et al. 2012; Noe et al. 1997; White et al. 2001). Due
to the varied nature of research in this area it is important to conduct more research in
this area to add to the body of knowledge.
Some studies found that visitors with higher education levels were more likely to find
recreation impacts as being unacceptable but the authors expressed caution about this
link because other studies had found that levels of environmental concern were evenly
distributed across educational levels (Deng et al. 2003; Dietz et al. 1998; Lynn and
Brown 2003). Some studies found gender and age affected the visitors’ perception of
impacts to the environment (Chen et al. 2009; Priskin 2003a). These studies were
conducted on tourists in central coast region of Western Australia (Australia) and on the
visitors to Sun Moon Lake National Scenic area (Taiwan) (Chen et al. 2009; Priskin
2003a). In contrast other studies found respondents’ gender and age did not significantly
affect respondents’ perceptions of environmental impacts (Deng et al. 2003; Lynn and
Brown 2003). These studies were conducted on visitors to Zhangjiajie National Forest
Park (China) and on visitors to Starkey Hill site, west of Toronto (Canada) (Deng et al.
2003; Lynn and Brown 2003).
76
Some research studies demonstrated that past (prior) experience influences a visitors’
perceptions of environmental impacts (Van Riper and Manning 2010; White et al. 2008).
Two of these studies were conducted on visitors to the summit of Cascade Mountain,
New York (USA) and on visitors to Molalla River Recreation Corridor and Table Rock
Wilderness, Oregon (USA) (Van Riper and Manning 2010; White et al. 2008). In
contrast other research studies revealed past experience had no significant influence on
the perception of impacts by visitors (Lynn and Brown 2003; Monz 2009). Two of these
studies were conducted on visitors to Starkey Hill site, west of Toronto (Canada) and on
climbers to Giant Mountain Wilderness in Adirondack Park, New York (USA) (Lynn
and Brown 2003; Monz 2009). As already noted due to the contrasting results of
research in this area it is important to continue to conduct research in this area.
4.2 Methods
4.2.1 Survey research
In this study the researcher gave the survey directly to the respondent and it was handed
back on site upon completion. This method was selected as it can be conducted by one
researcher, has a high response rate, low cost involved, respondent’s anonymity
maintained and avoids personal influence and bias by the researcher (Frankfort-
Nachmias and Nachmias 1996; Neuman 2006; Newsome et al. 2013). Survey research is
the most commonly used method to collect data in social sciences (Babbie 2005;
Neuman 2006). This type of research was also selected as it provided information about
the respondent’s characteristics, activities, values and knowledge of biodiversity
(Neuman 2006; Newsome et al. 2013).
4.2.2 Survey structure and content
The visitor survey had three parts (Appendix 4.1). The first part focused on respondents’
activities and characteristics of their visit to the national park using closed-ended
questions. The second part questioned the respondents’ biodiversity knowledge
(defining biodiversity; identifying threats and identifying impacts), values, support for
management actions and acceptability of change in vegetation as a result of trampling.
The third part obtained information about the respondents’ characteristics such as origin,
77
age group, gender and education level using closed-ended questions. The first and third
parts of the visitor survey are more straightforward and can be accessed in Appendix
4.1. The questions relating to the second part of the survey are described below.
Knowledge (defining biodiversity)
Respondents were asked using a closed-ended question if they were familiar with the
term biodiversity. If they ticked “yes” the respondents were asked, using an open-ended
question, “What does the term biodiversity mean to you?”.
Knowledge (identifying threats to biodiversity)
Respondents were also asked which factors might contribute to the loss of biodiversity
(knowledge) using closed-ended questions. The factors included were: clearing of large
areas of native vegetation; plant disease (e.g. dieback); pastoralism; introduced animals
(e.g. rabbits and foxes); mineral exploration and mining; weeds; fishing; salinity; animal
diseases; human-induced climate change; urban development; and tourism/recreation
(CALM 2005; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a; Shearer et al. 2004).
Knowledge (identifying impacts to biodiversity)
The respondents were asked which impacts they observed at each national park and
which ones they felt had the potential to affect biodiversity. The impacts included
picking of plants, small scale physical impacts (e.g. trampling of plants), presence of
weeds, evidence of plant disease (e.g. dieback), evidence of introduced animals (e.g.
rabbits, foxes), wildlife being disturbed by humans, land clearing as part of development
and pollution (e.g. litter). The impacts on vegetation were identified in Chapter 2
(Research Design). The impacts on the wildlife (evidence of introduced animals and
wildlife being disturbed by humans) were identified from the literature (Monz et al.
2010a; Newsome et al. 2005; Newsome et al. 2013; Van der Duim and Caalders 2002).
Values
Respondents were asked using a closed-ended question if it is important to conserve
biodiversity. If they ticked “yes” the respondents were asked, using an open-ended
78
question, “Please explain why it is important to conserve biodiversity?”. Respondents
were also asked to respond to a series of 20 statements about biodiversity (values) using
the NAVS developed by Winter and Lockwood (2004) with a 7point Likert Scale where
1 is strongly disagree and 7 is strongly agree (Winter and Lockwood 2004).
Support for management actions
The respondents were asked to respond to potential management actions to deal with
tourism impacts on biodiversity using a 5point Likert Scale. The management actions
included: increase frequency of ranger visits; provide more biodiversity information;
provide minimum impact use information; provide more display shelters; provide self-
guided walks with signs; provide visitor centre; improve walk trail conditions; improve
design of trails; restrict pedestrian access to certain areas; close areas for conservation of
biodiversity; and charge entry fees (Morin et al. 1997; Smith and Newsome 2002).
Acceptability of change in vegetation as a result of trampling
The respondents were asked to look at a series of photo pairs of changes in vegetation
due to trampling and then to indicate if the change from the left hand photo to the right
hand photo was acceptable or not using a 7point Likert Scale. In each photo pair the
photo on the left was the vegetation before trampling and the photo on the right was the
vegetation after trampling (Figure 4.2).
79
Photo 1: Original vegetation Photo 2: Changes due to trampling
Figure 4.2: The first photo pair from Fitzgerald River National Park as an example
The photo pairs for each national park were: Photo 1 and 2 (related to 30 passes); Photo
3 to 4 (related to 100 passes); Photo 5 to 6 (related to 200 passes); Photo 7 to 8 (related
to 300/500 passes). For each national park there were four photo pairs and each pair was
displayed on an A3 sheet and kept in a file for the respondent to view.
The series of paired photographs were viewed from the least number of passes (30
passes) to the highest number of passes (300/500). The number of trampling passes was
omitted from the photographs so as not to bias the respondent. The photo pairs were
specific to the vegetation communities of each national park and the photographs were
taken as part of the trampling study (see Appendix 3.2). An example of the complete set
of the photo pairs used at Fitzgerald River National Park are found in Appendix 4.2.
In the past visual research methods (including slides and photographs) have been used to
measure litter impacts, trail erosion and campsite conditions (D'Antonio et al. 2013;
80
Hammitt and Cole 1998; Manning 2011; Manning and Freimund 2004; Manning et al.
2004; Manning et al. 1996; Van Riper et al. 2011). The use of visual images is
advantageous in situations where describing the impact is difficult using narrative and
numerical formats (Manning and Freimund 2004). Visual research methods
(photographs) were selected as the trampling impact is difficult to describe in narrative
or numerical formats (Manning and Freimund 2004).
Prior to distribution a pilot study was conducted of the visitor survey. This was to
identify any potential misunderstanding of the questions and the format of the survey. In
2007, two university academics, two doctorate students and seven laypersons were given
the survey to complete and comment on. Some anomalies were found with the questions
and adjustments made to correct them.
The final survey was submitted to the Human Ethics Committee at Murdoch University
for approval. The survey gained approval on 7th
June 2007 (Permit No: 2007/151).
4.2.3 Sampling strategy and distribution
At each national park visitors were sampled onsite. The sampling frame were visitors
visiting the research areas in each national park. The research locations were:
LNP: Lesueur day use area
FRNP: East Mt Barren carpark 1 & 2
SRNP: Pay station and carpark at Bluff Knoll (see Figure 2.2).
The sampling was conducted every day during day light hours (0730-1730) and the
sampling period was:
LNP: 17 days during the wildflower season of 2007 ;
FRNP: 27 days during the wildflower season 2007; and
SRNP: 10 days during the wildflower season 2007.
81
The sampling periods were longer at LNP and FRNP due to the lower number of visitors
to those parks. For each national park the estimated annual visitation (between 2001-
2006) was LNP (1,700), FRNP (44,000) and SRNP (60,000) (Liddicoat 2007). The time
spent sampling at LNP was reduced due to unforeseen circumstances. After consultation
with DPaW staff a display panel with a mounted self-service survey distribution box was
installed at Lesueur Day Use Area on the 4 August 2007 and removed on the 17
November 2007. The display panel explained the nature of the visitor survey and asked
visitors to complete surveys. The DPaW rangers maintained the survey process by
collecting completed surveys and restocking the distribution box with blank surveys and
pens. This action was taken to compensate for the researcher having limited time to
spend in LNP.
All the visitors were approached in the study areas during the time of survey and asked
to fill in a short 15-20 minute survey by the researcher. The study population included
people over 18 years old visiting the study areas. The response rate for each National
Park for research distributed surveys was 94% (LNP), 99% (FRNP) and 66% (SRNP).
The number of respondents for each National Park was: LNP 60 (researcher) and 112
(display panel); FRNP 165; and SRNP 265.
4.2.4 Data analysis
The survey data were collated and analysed using Microsoft Excel (2010) and SPSS
version 21 for Windows. Analysis of the data involved descriptive and analytical
statistics presented in both tabular and graphic form.
NAVS data analysis
The means for each value statement and for the four types of value groups (intrinsic,
non-use, use and recreation) were calculated using Microsoft Excel (2010). To
understand the sample further a k-mean cluster analysis was carried out on responses to
the twenty statements relating to biodiversity using the “NbClust” package (Charrad et
al. 2014) for R (R Development Core Team 2013). Undertaking a cluster analysis
without the a priori assumption of the existence of four clusters, as per Winter’s and
82
Lockwood (2004) intrinsic, non-use, use and recreation value clusters (Winter and
Lockwood 2004), is at variance with this previous researcher’s approach. The less
constrained exploratory design choice guiding this study was made to allow clusters to
emerge a posteriori using the full 20 item statement set. As no latent constructs (e.g.
intrinsic value) were investigated in this study, scale reliability for these constructs was
not measured and reported. Selected variables were used to differentiate between the
clusters identified using chi-square tests for differences between the two emergent
clusters at an =0.5 level and Bonferroni adjustments to p-values. The key variables
were demographic characteristics (gender, age, origin and education), site (LNP, FRNP
or SRNP), activities and first visit to park.
4.3 Results
The results of the data were presented in two ways: individual parks (LNP, FRNP and
FRNP) and aggregated across the three national parks. The exception was the data for
the values statements about biodiversity (Question 9 of the visitor survey). A k-mean
cluster analysis was carried out on responses to these twenty statements relating to
biodiversity and the identified clusters did not differ from each other significantly in
regards to site/ national park. Therefore the data relating to this question were
aggregated across the three national parks.
4.3.1 Visitor characteristics
Across the three national parks the overall gender ratio was 47% male to 51% female.
The remaining 2% of the respondents ticked both male and female as the respondents
were couples completing the survey together (Table 4.1).
83
Table 4.1: Visitor characteristics of respondents visiting LNP, FRNP and SRNP
Variable (%) Lesueur National
Park (n=172) (%)
Fitzgerald River
National Park
(n=165) (%)
Stirling Range
National Park
(n=265) (%)
Gender
Male (47) 79 (46) 86 (52) 118 (44)
Female (51) 84 (49) 78 (47) 146 (55)
Ticked both (2) 9 (5) 1 (1) 1 (1)
Age (years)
18-24 (3) 8 (5) 7 (4) 4 (2)
25-39 (17) 35 (20) 17 (10) 51 (19)
40-59 (34) 62 (36) 61 (37) 83 (31)
60 and over (46) 67 (39) 80 (49) 127 (48)
Origin
Local (8) 14 (8) 25 (15) 7 (3)
Perth Metro Region (28) 64 (37) 16 (10) 87 (33)
Other part of WA (12) 14 (8) 30 (18) 29 (11)
Interstate (41) 57 (33) 85 (52) 109 (41)
Overseas (11) 23 (14) 9 (5) 33 (12)
Group Type
By yourself (4) 9 (5) 6 (4) 9 (3)
Friends (18) 22 (13) 43 (26) 41 (15)
Spouse or partner (40) 81 (47) 96 (58) 66 (25)
Family (21) 38 (22) 20 (12) 67 (26)
Club (2) 7 (4) 0 (0) 5 (2)
Tour group (15) 13 (8) 0 (0) 77 (29)
Other (0) 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Education
Primary school (1) 2 (1) 2 (1) 4 (1)
Secondary school (20) 28 (16) 41 (25) 52 (20)
Technical/TAFE (13) 14 (8) 27 (16) 34 (13)
Trade (9) 6 (4) 24 (15) 26 (10)
Higher education (56) 122 (71) 71 (43) 145 (55)
Left Blank (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (1)
84
The respondents were predominantly 40 years and over (80%) and travelling with their
spouse/partner (40%) or family (21%). The majority of the respondents were from
Australia (89%) with the remainder (11%) being overseas visitors. Of the Australian
visitors 41% were from interstate and 48% from within Western Australia. Over half of
the respondents (56%) had a higher education degree (Table 4.1).
4.3.2 Visit characteristics
For the majority of the respondents to LNP, FRNP and SRNP it was their first visit to
that particular park. Across the three national parks the length of stay of three quarters of
the respondents was less than a day (Table 4.2)
Table 4.2: Visitor characteristics of respondents visiting LNP, FRNP and SRNP
Variable (%) Lesueur National
Park
(n=172) (%)
Fitzgerald
River National
Park
(n=165) (%)
Stirling Range
National Park
(n=265) (%)
Is this your first visit to Park
Yes (67) 132 (77) 101 (61) 169 (64)
No (33) 40 (23) 64 (39) 96 (36)
Length of stay
Less than half a day (41) 103 (60) 63 (38) 83 (31)
Half a day to a day (34) 63 (36) 77 (47) 65 (25)
1 night (4) 3 (2) 5 (3) 14 (5)
2-3 nights (18) 2 (1) 17 (10) 86 (33)
4-5 nights (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 14 (5)
Other (1) 1 (1) 3 (2) 3 (1)
4.3.3 Participation in recreational activities
The respondents were asked to identify which activities they participated in during their
visit to the national park (Figure 4.3). Across all three national parks the most frequently
recorded recreation activities were appreciating nature and scenery (91%), viewing
wildflowers (89%) and photography (73%) (Figure 4.3). A very low number (less than
85
10%) of respondents undertook water based activities at FRNP. There was no camping
at LNP as there were no camping facilities available at that time.
Figure 4.3: Percentage of respondents participating in each type of activity at LNP,
FRNP and SRNP
4.3.4 Knowledge about biodiversity
The respondents were asked ‘Are you familiar with the term biodiversity?’ and more
than three-quarters (79%) of the respondents were familiar with the term. For each
national park the percentage of respondents familiar with the term were 87% at LNP,
73% at FRNP and 78% at SRNP. Of those that responded yes, another question was
asked ‘If you ticked yes what does the term biodiversity mean to you?’ Their responses
were divided into three categories assigned by the author (Table 4.3).
86
Table 4.3: Respondents definitions of biodiversity
Definition of biodiversity based on three elements*
Illustrative survey
responses
Element One: terms
that relate to
variability of
biodiversity
Across parks (91%)
LNP (96%)
FRNP (87%)
SRNP (90%)
**
Element two: terms
that relate to
sources of
biodiversity
Across parks (47%)
LNP (46%)
FRNP (48%)
SRNP (46%)
**
Element three: terms
that relate to
ecological elements
of biodiversity
Across parks (86%)
LNP (83%)
FRNP (89%)
SRNP (85%)
**
Variety Environment
Living things Variety of living things that
make up the environment
Range and types
Area Plants and animals The range and types of
plants and animals in an
area
Range Area Animal, plants,
microflora, fauna and
bacteria
The whole range of life
forms including animal,
plant, microflora, fauna,
bacteria and fungi of a
particular area
Diversity World
Area
Life forms It’s a term referring to the
diversity of life forms in a
given area of the world in
general
Variability Nominated location
(any size)
Life forms Bio=Life (forms) Diversity
= variability. The total
variability of life forms in a
nominated location (any
size).
Inter-relation
between
Mother Earth
Different areas
Plants and animals
Life
The inter-relation between
life and plants, animals and
mother earth and how
different areas produce
different plants and animals
Intertwined - Flora and fauna All inclusive flora, fauna,
natural way all intertwined
to survive
Range Region/Area Animal/plant The range of animal/plant
life in a given region/area.
Also the need for each life
form to fit into the whole
chain. *Biodiversity defined as “the variability among living organisms from all sources including inter alia,
terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part: this
includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystem” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
2005a p18) ** The numbers per category sum to less than 100% as some respondents didn’t include all of
the elements in their definitions.
87
The categories assigned were: variability of biodiversity; ecological elements of
biodiversity; and source of biodiversity (Table 4.3). The reason these three categories
were selected were because they are the three themes found in the definition of
biodiversity used in this study: “the variability among living organisms from all
sources including inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the
ecological complexes of which they are part: this includes diversity within species,
between species and of ecosystem” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a p18).
The majority of the respondents included variability (91%) elements in their definition
of biodiversity. Less than half of the respondents included the source (47%) element in
their definition of biodiversity. The majority of respondents included ecological (86%)
element in their definition of biodiversity. Respondents were also asked to ‘Draw a
diagram or symbol representing your idea of biodiversity’. Only 31% of the
respondents attempted this question so the results were not included.
The respondents were asked to identify which factors (if any) contribute to the loss of
biodiversity in Western Australia (Figure 4.4).
88
Figure 4.4: Percentage of respondents identifying factors that contribute to the loss
of biodiversity in Western Australia across LNP, FRNP and SRNP
The top three factors identified by respondents as contributing to the loss of biodiversity
were: clearing of large areas (93%); introduced animals (89%); and plant disease (80%).
The lowest three factors identified by respondents that contribute to the loss of
biodiversity were animal disease (50%), tourism/recreation (42%) and fishing (37%)
(Figure 4.4).
4.3.5 Perceptions of impacts
Respondents were asked to identify which impacts they had observed in the national
park they were visiting and which impacts they felt had the potential to affect the
biodiversity in that park (Table 4.4).
89
Table 4.4: Visitors’ perceptions of observed and potential environmental impacts at
LNP, FRNP and SRNP
Impact
LNP
(n=172) (%)
FRNP
(n=165) (%)
SRNP
(n=265) (%)
Observed
(Yes)
Potential
(Yes)
Observed
(Yes)
Potential
(Yes)
Observed
(Yes)
Potential
(Yes)
Picking of plants 5 (3) 129 (76) 10 (6) 115 (71) 16 (6) 200 (77)
Small scale
physical impacts
(e.g. trampling of
plants)
82 (48) 115 (68) 61 (37) 104 (64) 132 (51) 182 (70)
Presence of weeds
45 (27) 127 (75) 49 (30) 125 (77) 89 (34) 191 (73)
Evidence of plant
disease (e.g.
dieback)
39 (23) 135 (80) 45 (28) 128 (78) 88 (34) 206 (79)
Evidence of
introduced
animals (e.g.
rabbits, foxes)
31 (18) 134 (79) 53 (32) 131 (80) 62 (24) 208 (80)
Wildlife being
disturbed by
humans
21 (12) 110 (65) 20 (12) 93 (57) 55 (21) 160 (61)
Land clearing as
part of
development
57 (34) 124 (73) 29 (18) 124 (76) 69 (26) 192 (74)
Pollution (e.g.
litter)
37 (22) 126 (75) 55 (34) 131 (80) 90 (34) 193 (74)
The respondents identified all the potential impacts at the national park as more likely
than the observed impacts (Table 4.4). Across the three national parks almost half of the
respondents (46%) observed small scale physical impacts (e.g. trampling of plants) and
68% indicated small scale physical impact had the potential to impact the biodiversity of
the national parks.
90
4.3.6 Acceptability of change in vegetation due to trampling
Respondents were asked to look at a series of photo pairs (changes in vegetation due to
trampling) and indicate if the change was acceptable or not at each national park using a
7 point Likert scale (very acceptable to very unacceptable). The results were analysed to
determine the percentage of respondents that found the change in vegetation due to
trampling acceptable (Figures 4.5 to 4.7). Importantly, this approach was taken to
enable comparison of the results from the social survey regarding the acceptability of the
change in vegetation due to trampling, with the resistance indices determined in the
trampling study (Chapter 3).
The results regarding acceptable change in vegetation due to trampling were interpreted
using the 50% standard of acceptable change (Roggenbuck et al. 1993). Researchers
have used this 50% standard of acceptable change, including studies in Walpole-
Nornalup National Park, Australia (Morin et al. 1997); Cape Range National Park,
Australia (Moore and Polley 2007); and Cohutta, Caney Creek and Upland Island
Wilderness areas, USA (Watson et al. 1992). In these studies if the impact was
acceptable to 50% of visitors then managing to meet the expectations of at least half of
the visitors ensured some level of satisfaction (Morin et al. 1997; Roggenbuck et al.
1993).
91
Figure 4.5: Acceptability of the change in vegetation due to trampling at LNP
Figure 4.6: Acceptability of the change in vegetation due to trampling at FRNP
92
Figure 4.7: Acceptability of the change in vegetation due to trampling at SRNP
For the acceptable change in vegetation due to trampling, the 50 percentage standard
was 100 passes for LNP, 30 passes for FRNP and 30 passes for SRNP (approximately).
This means that the impact on the vegetation after 30 passes at FRNP and SRNP, and
after 100 passes at LNP was unacceptable to 50 per cent of the visitors.
4.3.7 Biodiversity values
The respondents were asked ‘Is it important to conserve biodiversity’ and almost all of
the respondents indicated yes (98%) with the remainder saying they don’t know (2%).
For each national park the percentage of respondents indicating ‘yes’ were 97% at LNP,
96% at FRNP and 99% at SRNP. Of those that responded yes, another question was
asked ‘If you ticked yes please explain why it is important to conserve biodiversity?’
Their responses were assigned into one of four categories by the author with these
categories provided by Winter and Lockwood (2004) (Table 4.5). The respondents
valued biodiversity for its intrinsic (55%) and non-use value (44%). A small percentage
of respondents included the use-non recreation value (7%) and use-recreation value (5%)
93
in their responses as to why they considered it was important to conserve biodiversity
(Table 4.5).
The respondents were asked to respond to a series of statements about biodiversity using
a Likert Scale. A k-mean cluster analysis was carried out on responses to these twenty
statements relating to biodiversity and the identified clusters did not differ from each
other significantly in regards to site/national park. Therefore the data relating to this
question were aggregated across the three national parks. The means were calculated for
each value statement and also for the four value (intrinsic, non-use, use and recreation)
groups using the response for each relevant item across the three national parks (Table
4.6). Winter and Lockwood (2004) reverse coded all the intrinsic items in their
calculation which was also done in this study. Therefore the statements with the
strongest support from the respondents were non-use value (5.97) and intrinsic value
(5.13) followed by use-recreation value (4.94) and use-non recreation value (3.31)
(Table 4.6).
94
Table 4.5: Values identified in respondents’ responses to why it is important to
conserve biodiversity
Values identified in responses
Percentage of
responses
Examples of illustrative
survey responses
Intrinsic value
(Value for its own sake. An end
in itself)
Across the parks
(55%)
LNP (60%)
FRNP (55%)
SRNP (50%)
Each species has its intrinsic
right to live per se. Our world
is richer for every other
species.
All things in nature have a
place.
Due to the intrinsic right that
every species has to exist.
Non - use value
(Bequest to future generations)
Across the parks
(44%)
LNP (38%)
FRNP (42%)
SRNP(49%)
For future generations
So that future generations can
enjoy the beauty of nature
To keep the wonders of nature
for future generations
Use - non recreation value
(e.g. science, medicines)
Across the parks
(7%)
LNP (8%)
FRNP (9%)
SRNP (5%)
From a selfish point of view,
humans may come to get
medicines and foods from
flora not yet discovered
Use - recreation value Across the parks
(5%)
LNP (8%)
FRNP (4%)
SRNP (4%)
To be able to see all the
lovely plants and little
animals
95
Table 4.6: Value statement means
Item Mean
Intrinsic Value* 5.13
The value of biodiversity only depends on what it does for humans. 4.96
The value of biodiversity exists only in the human mind. Without
people biodiversity has no value.
4.97
The only value that biodiversity has, is what humans can make from it. 5.13
Places like swamps have no value and should be cleaned up. 5.42
Ugliness in biodiversity indicates that an area has no value. 5.39
Only humans have intrinsic value – that is, value for their own sake. 4.90
Non-use value 5.97
We have to protect biodiversity for humans in the future, even if it
means reducing our standard of living today.
5.79
Biodiversity areas are valuable to keep for future generations of
humans.
6.29
I need to know that untouched areas of biodiversity exist. 6.06
I’m seeing areas of biodiversity that the next generation of children may
not see, and that concerns me.
6.20
Even if I don’t go to biodiversity areas, I can enjoy them by looking at
books and seeing films.
5.53
There are plenty of areas of biodiversity areas that are not very nice to
visit but I’m glad they exist.
5.96
Use – non recreation value 3.31
Forests are valuable because they produce timber, jobs and income for
people.
4.28
To say that biodiversity has value just for itself is a nice idea but we just
cannot afford to think that way: the welfare of people has to come first.
2.67
All plants’ and animals’ lives are precious and worth preserving but
human needs are more important than all other beings.
2.89
Our children will be better off if we spend money on industry rather
than on preserving biodiversity.
2.00
It is better to test new drugs on animals than humans. 3.79
I don’t like industries such as mining destroying parts of biodiversity,
but it is necessary for human survival.
4.24
Use – recreation value 4.94
Biodiversity areas are important to me because I use them for
recreation.
5.05
Biodiversity areas must be protected because I might want to use them
for recreation in the future.
4.84
*All intrinsic items were reverse coded as per Winter and Lockwood (2004).
**Items were measured using a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree); 2 (disagree); 3 (slightly disagree);
4 (undecided); 5 (slightly agree); 6 (agree); 7 (strongly agree)
96
As previously mentioned, a k-mean cluster analysis was carried out on responses to the
twenty statements relating to biodiversity using the “NbClust” package (Charrad et al.
2014) for R (R Development Core Team 2013). This analysis identified two clusters
(Table 4.7). In the k-mean cluster analysis the intrinsic items were not reversed coded as
was done in the value statement means.
Table 4.7: Value type means for cluster analyses (k-means)
Value type Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Combined sample
n 367 221 588
Non-use 5.96 5.97 5.97
Intrinsic 1.98 1.62 1.88
Use-non recreation 3.43 3.02 3.32
Use- recreation 5.85 2.68 4.94
Selected variables were used to differentiate between the two clusters using chi-square
tests for differences between two clusters at an =0.5 level and using a Bonferroni
adjustments to p-values. The key variables were demographic characteristics (gender,
age, origin and education), site (LNP, FRNP or SRNP), activities and first visit to park.
The two clusters did not differ significantly in regard to gender, age, origin, education,
site and whether it was the respondent’s first visit to the park. The two clusters did
differ in terms of the activities undertaken. Cluster One had a significantly higher
percentage of people who use the national parks for walking (p-value = 0.0438) and
appreciating nature and scenery (p-value = 0.0289).
4.3.8 Management issues
The respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for certain management
actions. The responses for ‘support’ and ‘strongly support’ were combined for each
management action for each national park (Table 4.8).
97
Table 4.8: Level of support from respondents for management actions at each
national park
Management action
Level of support from respondents (%)
LNP FRNP SRNP
Improve design of trails 38 53 46
Improve walk trail conditions 36 62 51
Close areas for conservation of
biodiversity
80 77 79
Restrict pedestrian access to
certain areas
75 70 80
Provide visitor centers 43 68 65
Provide more display shelters 70 74 60
Provide self-guided walks with
signs
93 89 86
Provide more minimum
impact use information
91 91 85
Provide more biodiversity
information
93 95 90
Increase frequency of ranger
visits
69 79 78
Charging entry fees
29 61 57
The education and information strategies had the highest level of support. Across the
three national parks these strategies included: providing more biodiversity information
(91%); self-guided walks with signs (88%); and more minimum impact use information
(87%). Other management actions that had a high level of support across the three
national parks were closing areas for conservation of biodiversity (79%) and restricting
pedestrian access to certain areas (76%).
4.4 Discussion
The main activities of the spring visitors to these three national parks were viewing
wildflowers and appreciating nature and scenery. These findings support previous
research that states the flowering plant diversity of Western Australia during spring is a
major draw card for wildflower visitors (Agafonoff et al. 1998; Priskin 2003a; TWA
2011). The results from this study also showed that 46% of the visitors were over 60
years old which is consistent with other studies which found wildflower visitors tend to
be older in age (Kruger et al. 2013; Loubster et al. 2001; Priskin 2003a).
98
This study found the majority of the visitors were from Australia. This result supports an
earlier study conducted in the Central Coast area of Western Australia, which found the
majority of visitors in spring were from Australia and a small percentage from overseas
(Priskin 2003a). The study in Namaqua National Park South Africa also found the
majority of the visitors were local (from South Africa) (Loubster et al. 2001). The reason
they gave for the low number of overseas visitors was the unpredictable nature of wild
flowers due to their dependence on rain which could also explain the low number of
overseas visitors in this study (Loubster et al. 2001). The education levels of the visitors
were consistent with other studies on the wildflower tourism industry which found more
than half of the visitors had higher education (Kruger et al. 2013; Loubster et al. 2001;
Priskin 2003a).
The findings from this research support the idea that wildflower tourism is a niche
market where the tourists tend to be older and educated (James et al. 2007; Kruger et al.
2013; Priskin 2003a). The profile and needs of these particular tourists visiting areas to
view wildflowers would be expected to differ in some respects from those of other
nature tourists (Kruger et al. 2013). Importantly, this research has identified the specific
characteristics of this niche group. Previously wildflower touring and viewing events
have been an un-researched field in nature-based tourism (Priskin 2003a).
A recent study conducted in protected areas in Western Australia segmented the visitors
into four clusters (Nature Experience Seekers, Passive Experiencers, Nature Explorers
and Relaxing Socialisers) based on the purpose of their visit and the activities which
visitors engaged in (Smith et al. 2014). In this study, based on the activities undertaken
by the visitors, size of travelling group and age of visitors, the visitors to the three
national parks were categorised as Nature Explorers (Table 4.9).
99
Table 4.9: Characteristics of Nature Explorers and visitors in this study
Characteristics of Nature Explorers
(Smith et al. 2014)
Characteristics of visitors in this study
Participate in more passive activities Majority of visitors participate in passive
activities including viewing of wildflowers
and appreciating nature and scenery
Generally travelling as couples or small
groups
Majority of visitors travelled as couples or
families
Older in age (57% over 55 years of age) Majority of visitors were older (46% over
60 years of age)
The relative importance of 23 different park attributes relating to services and facilities
were determined for the Nature Explorers (Smith et al. 2014). The ‘ability to enjoy
nature’ was the attribute with the highest level of importance, followed by ‘others
visitors well behaved’, ‘clean and well-presented toilet facilities’, ‘useful roads signs in
park’, ‘useful visitor guides/map in park’ and ‘feeling safe in park’ (Smith et al. 2014).
Understanding the importance of these different park attributes to visitors will help
management agencies with their strategic planning and future management by ensuring
the services and facilities match the desired experience of visitors to these three national
parks during spring (i.e. Nature Explorer) (Smith et al. 2014).
In this study visitors were familiar with the term biodiversity (79% across the three
national parks). Given the level of education and knowledge of visitors suggests
relatively sophisticated interpretation can be provided. The provision of more
biodiversity information as a management action was supported (91%) by the visitors
and will further educate the visitors on the importance of biodiversity and what
constitutes biodiversity.
The identification of plant disease (dieback) by visitors as an impact on biodiversity
across the three national parks was high (80%). This is an important finding on the level
of awareness of dieback by visitors as up to 2,800 species of plants in the SWA are
susceptible to dieback disease (Shearer et al. 2004). The presence of visitors to national
parks can contribute to the spread of the pathogen which constitutes a major risk for
biodiversity in the region (Barrett and Yates 2014; Shearer et al. 2004).
100
In the future climate change is the most threatening process for biodiversity worldwide
in all regions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a). Only 67% of the visitors to
the three national parks identified human-induced climate change as a factor that
contributes to the loss of biodiversity in Western Australia. This highlights the
importance of continuing to provide information on climate change as a threatening
process on biodiversity to educate and inform visitors.
The majority of the visitors to the national parks did not recognise tourism/recreation as
a factor that contributes to biodiversity loss. The lack of recognition of
tourism/recreation (42% of respondents) as a threat to biodiversity is consistent with a
study in Central Australia which found only 45% of all the respondents identified
tourism as a threats to the environment (Hillery et al. 2001). Another study on Carnac
Island, Western Australia also found that visitors tended not to recognise themselves as a
threat through the tourism activities they are undertaking (Orsini and Newsome 2005).
The visitors were knowledgeable in identifying the potential environment impacts that
could occur in the national parks. This finding is consistent with recent research
suggesting that visitors are becoming more aware of the environmental impacts caused
by recreation and tourism (D'Antonio et al. 2012; Manning 2011). The visitors
identified the potential environmental impacts as being greater than the actual observed
impacts. This finding is consistent with another study by Chin et al. (2000) which found
that visitors believed the environmental impacts in Bako National Park were likely to
worsen in the future.
Generally the visitors had limited capacity to observe environmental impacts that were
present at the sites. The most commonly identified environmental impact across the
three national parks was small scale physical impacts (e.g. trampling of plants) which
were observed by 46% of respondents. The researcher conducted an on-site impact
assessment at each national park and all the observed impacts were identified including
the trampling of plants (see Chapter 2 Table 2.3). One reason to explain the limited
101
capacity of the visitors to identify all of the environmental impacts could have been
because for the majority (67%) of the visitors to the three national parks it was their first
visit. A previous study conducted in the Bear Lake Corridor of Rocky Mountain
National Park, Colorado, USA found that first time visitors may not recognise (observe)
the impacts such as trampling of vegetation as it was their first visit to the park
(D'Antonio et al. 2012).
To determine the acceptability of the change in vegetation due to trampling using
photographs taken from trampling experiment studies (photographs relating to the
number of passes) has not previously been conducted. These findings make an original
contribution in both methodology and understanding that the visitors to these three
national parks have a low acceptance (30 passes for SRNP and FRNP and 100 for LNP)
to changes in vegetation due to trampling (using the 50% acceptability standard).
Visitors to the three national parks valued biodiversity for its intrinsic value namely that
“each species has its [own] intrinsic right to live” and its non-use (bequest) value namely
that “to keep the wonders of nature for future generations’ (Table 4.5). The results from
the 20 value statements revealed the strongest support (6.29) for the non-use (bequest)
value statement “biodiversity areas are valuable to keep for future generations of
humans” (Table 4.6). The importance of being able to “bequest” biodiversity to future
generations is a key finding from this study.
A study conducted of campers on the Murray River, Australia, also used the response to
value statements (NAVS) to determine the values of the campers towards natural areas
(Winter 2005a). The strongest value for the Murray River campers towards nature was
non-use, followed by recreation (use), intrinsic and use (non-recreation) values (Winter
2005a). In this study the strongest value for the visitors to the three national parks
towards biodiversity was also the non-use value but it was followed by intrinsic, then
recreation (use) and use (non-recreation) values. The use (non-recreation) value was less
strongly valued in both studies. The difference could be explained by the different user
groups (campers versus wildflower tourists). Past research has found that different user
102
groups can hold different values towards natural areas and biodiversity (Alessa et al.
2008; Van Riper et al. 2012).
In the past Australians have held largely instrumental values (including non-use) and
attitudes towards natural areas (Dargavel 1995; Winter 2005b). In a study of outdoor
recreationists visiting Hinchinbrook Island National Park the intrinsic value of the
ecosystem was ranked sixth out of twelve value types (recreation, biological diversity,
aesthetic, future, therapeutic, intrinsic, economic, historic, learning, life sustaining,
spiritual and cultural) (Van Riper et al. 2012). This study has found that intrinsic value
of biodiversity is important as well as the instrumental non-use (conserve for future
generation) values. Natural resource managers need to take into account different users
values because these values (intrinsic and non-use) will influence how the visitors
behave in the national parks.
The visitors’ values were grouped into two clusters based on their response to the 20
value statements (Table 4.9). The clusters differed in their recreation value but were
similar with respect to their intrinsic, use and non-use values. Cluster One strongly
valued the use (recreation) value of biodiversity. The profiling of the clusters found the
key variable between the clusters was the activities the visitors undertook in the national
park. Cluster One had a significantly higher percentage of people who use the national
parks for walking and appreciating nature and scenery which could explain the strong
use (recreation) value of biodiversity for this group.
The cluster analysis revealed two types of visitors, separated largely by activities, with
one group focused on walking and the other on appreciating nature and scenery. This
typology provides a finer grained analysis to those conducted previously by separating
out these two different types of nature explorers, which to date have been aggregated as
one cluster. The other contribution to Smith et al. (2014) was determining the values that
the two different types of nature explorers have towards biodiversity. The first sub-group
valued biodiversity for its non-use, intrinsic and use (recreation) values (Table 4.7). The
second sub-group valued biodiversity for its non-use and intrinsic value (Table 4.7).
103
There are a variety of visitor management strategies used in protected areas which
include site and visitor management strategies (Hammitt and Cole 1998; Newsome et al.
2013; Worboys et al. 2005). The site management strategies can include locating
facilities, managing facilities and site restoration (Hammitt and Cole 1998; Lucas 1990;
Newsome et al. 2013). The visitor management strategies can include information and
education, fees and regulating visitor use (numbers, group size, length of stay and
enforcement) (Lucas 1990; Newsome et al. 2013). The visitors to these three national
parks strongly supported site management through site restoration (close areas for
conservation of biodiversity and restrict pedestrian access to certain areas). This finding
provides managers with data that site restoration is strongly supported by the visitors to
these three national parks.
The level of support for site restoration by visitors to LNP, FRNP and SRNP was higher
when compared to another study of visitors to Warren National Park (Smith and
Newsome 2002). The visitors to Warren National Park support (strongly support +
support) for the management action to ‘temporarily close areas’ was 66% (Smith and
Newsome 2002). This level of support was lower than the level of support for the
management action of ‘restrict pedestrian access to certain areas’ at LNP (75%), FRNP
(70%) and SRNP (80%).
The visitors to these national parks strongly supported visitor management through
education and information (providing more biodiversity information; self-guided walks
with signs; and more minimum impact use information). This finding will help guide the
extent and focus of interpretive facilities within the three parks. This finding is
supported by other research which has found that information and education approaches
are favoured by recreational visitors (Chin et al. 2000; Manning 2011; Newsome et al.
2013; Roggenbuck 1992; Smith and Newsome 2002; Tonge and Moore 2007; Tonge et
al. 2013). A study conducted on visitors to the Swan Estuary Marine Park, Western
Australia found that visitors strongly supported provision of more information about
water birds (Tonge and Moore 2007). Another study conducted on the visitors to Warren
104
National Park, Western Australia found that visitors most strongly supported educating
users more about minimal impact use and camping techniques (Smith and Newsome
2002). Another study conducted on visitors at remote coastal campsites in Western
Australia found the highest level of support was for providing signs and information to
educate visitors about how to snorkel with minimum impact (Tonge et al. 2013).
4.5 Conclusion
The comprehensive visitor survey undertaken across the three national parks (n=602)
revealed that visitors were knowledgeable regarding threats to biodiversity, although
they seemed to under-estimate the threats they create as tourists. This finding supports
previous research which has found visitors did not recognise tourism as a threat to the
environment (Hillery et al. 2001; Orsini and Newsome 2005). The findings of the visitor
survey showed the importance of intrinsic and non-use values, particularly being able to
‘bequest’ biodiversity to future generations, of the visitors to these national parks. This
finding is in contrast to previous research where the instrumental or use value of
biodiversity has dominated responses (Dargavel 1995; Winter 2005b). Cluster analysis
revealed two types of visitors, separated largely by activities, with one group focused on
walking and the other on appreciating nature and scenery. This typology provides a finer
grained analysis to those conducted previously by separating out these two different
types of nature explorers, which to date have been aggregated as one cluster (Smith et al.
2014).
105
Chapter 5: Conclusion
_______________________________________________________________
5.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the significant contributions to knowledge from this research and
reviews the research questions and objectives and how they were addressed throughout
this thesis. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications for managers of
protected areas where wildflower tourism is occurring.
5.2 Significant contributions to knowledge from this research
There have been limited studies conducted worldwide on wildflower tourism and the
important role it can play in conserving biodiversity, particularly in global biodiversity
hotspots. Only a few studies have been conducted in South Africa and the central coast
region of Australia (Kruger et al. 2013; Loubster et al. 2001; Priskin 2003a). The
findings from this research corroborate the other studies that found wildflower tourists to
be older and educated (Kruger et al. 2013; Loubster et al. 2001; Priskin 2003a).
Accordingly this research will contributes to the limited body of research on the
characteristics of such visitors and their knowledge of biodiversity issues.
Furthermore, this research also adds original findings regarding how wildflower tourists
value the biodiversity of the three national parks. These visitors held strong intrinsic and
non-use (bequest for future generations) values regarding this biodiversity. It would be
interesting to study the values of wildflower tourists in other areas of the world to see if
these values are universally held. These value results also expand on existing research
on the categorisation of visitors and in particular ‘Nature Explorers’ in Western
Australia national parks, as described by Smith et al. (2014). It further expands on the
characteristics of ‘Nature Explorers’ through inclusion of values these visitors held
towards biodiversity.
106
Virtually no published data exist regarding how the shrub-dominated vegetation of the
three national parks responds to human trampling. This research has shown that the
shrub-dominated communities of the SWA have a low resistance and resilience to
human trampling. The resistance indices for the vegetation communities of the three
national parks were low (Table 5.1). These findings are important in minimising the
effects of recreation and tourism on plant communities found in these biodiversity
hotspots through human trampling.
The incorporation of the photographs taken as part of the trampling experiments into the
visitor survey makes an original contribution in methodology and findings. The visitors
had a low acceptance of change in vegetation as a result of trampling using the 50%
acceptance standard (Table 5.1).
Table 5.1: Resistance indices and visitor acceptability of trampling for the parks
National Park Site Resistance
indices
Visitors acceptability of
trampling
LNP LE1 100 passes 100 passes
LE2 30 passes Not assessed
FRNP FE1 100 passes 30 passes
SRNP SE1 300 passes 30 passes
An important finding of this research was the visitor acceptability of trampling at FRNP
and SRNP was lower than the resistance indices determined via experimental studies
(Table 5.1).
5.3 Addressing research questions and associated objectives
Four research questions guided the research and how they were addressed through the
thesis are described below.
1. What are the interactions between visitors and biodiversity in terrestrial protected
areas in biodiversity hotspots?
Objective:
a. Select the tourism activity and protected areas within the biodiversity hotspot
to be used to study the interaction.
107
This objective was addressed in Chapters 1 and 2. The focus of this study was
understanding wildflower tourism in a global biodiversity hotspot and the findings make
an original contribution to the body of knowledge in this area. The global biodiversity
hotspot is located in Southwest Australia and the three protected areas selected were
Lesueur National Park, Fitzgerald River National Park and Stirling Range National Park.
The Southwest Australia biodiversity hotspot is unique and under threat (Hopper and
Gioia 2004; Myers et al. 2000). Tourism can be a means of conserving biodiversity in
this hotspot if the interaction between the visitors and the biodiversity of the national
parks is understood and effectively managed. This research provides new insights in
understanding this interaction as previously there have been few studies worldwide that
have explored wildflower tourism and its potential impacts (Kruger et al. 2013; Loubster
et al. 2001; Priskin 2003a).
2. What are the environmental effects of the interaction?
Objectives:
a. Describe the general environmental effects of the interaction.
b. Describe and measure one or more important environmental effects of
tourism on the vegetation communities within the selected protected areas.
The first research objective (2a, addressed in Chapter 2) involved an exploration of
current literature with an emphasis on understanding the impacts of tourism on the
biodiversity of the three national parks that form the basis of this study. These
interactions can be complex in nature and a multitude of factors interrelate. The focus of
this study was on the direct negative impacts of visitor use and activities on the
vegetation of biodiverse national parks.
In a general sense the direct negative impacts of visitors on the vegetation of national
parks include: disturbance (trampling, soil erosion and compaction); addition of matter
(litter, human waste and hydrocarbons); addition of biota (weeds and pathogens (e.g.
dieback)); withdrawal of matter and biota (alteration and loss of biomass as a result of
108
fire and harvesting) and conversion of natural vegetation to other land uses. Such
impacts have been described in Australia and elsewhere in the world (e.g.Ballantyne and
Pickering 2012; Barrett and Yates 2014; Cilimburg et al. 2000; Eagles et al. 2002; Ells
and Monz 2011; Leung and Marion 1999a; Leung and Marion 2000; Monz et al. 2010a;
Newsome et al. 2013; Pickering and Hill 2007; Pigram and Jenkins 2006; Van der Duim
and Caalders 2002; Vaughan 2000). With increasing tourism and recreation occurring in
South Western Australia a combination of such impacts are also likely to comprise a
suite of disturbance occurring in the parks that form the basis of this study.
Accordingly, the environmental effects of visitors trampling the shrub dominated
vegetation in the three national parks (LNP, FRNP and SRNP) was selected after
conducting a literature review, considering onsite advice from DPaW, following site
visits to national parks, participant observations of visitors in the national parks and
observation of visitors on organised tours (Ballantyne and Pickering 2013; Kelly et al.
2003; Newsome et al. 2013).
The second research objective (2b) was addressed in Chapter 3. Virtually no human
trampling studies have been conducted in the shrub-dominated vegetation communities
of the LNP, FRNP and SRNP and the findings play an importance role in managing the
human -vegetation interactions. The findings described in this research also add to the
limited body of knowledge on how shrub dominated communities worldwide respond to
human trampling (Bayfield 1979; Cole and Spildie 1998; Kim and Daigle 2012; Marion
and Linville 2000; McDougall and Wright 2004). The effect of human trampling on the
vegetation communities was measured using two methods: plot based surveys and
trampling experiments. The important results from trampling studies revealed these
shrub-dominated communities of LNP, FRNP and SRNP have a low resistance and low
resilience to human trampling. The resistance index (number of passes) for each
National Park was low: LNP (30-100 passes); FRNP (100 passes) and SRNP (300
passes). The determined resistance index for the vegetation was low when compared to
other resistance indices that have been determined in Australia, where the range was
from 12 passes in a Eucalyptus subtropical understory through to 1,475 passes in a
109
mixed forest ground cover community in a subtropics region of Australia (Hill and
Pickering 2009; Liddle 1997; Pickering et al. 2010).
3. What are the social effects of the interaction?
Objectives:
a. Describe and measure how biodiversity is valued by visitors and investigate
their knowledge of it, collectively referred to in this thesis as visitor
perceptions of biodiversity, in protected areas in a global biodiversity
hotspot.
b. Describe, categorise and analyse the types of visitors according to how they
value biodiversity and other key variables.
The first objective (3a) was addressed in Chapter 4. This information was collected via a
comprehensive visitor survey undertaken across the three national parks (n=602). The
importance of intrinsic and non-use values, and particularly being able to ‘bequest’
biodiversity to future generations, was a highlight of these findings. This finding is in
contrast to previous research where the instrumental or use value of biodiversity has
dominated responses. Visitors were knowledgeable regarding threats to biodiversity,
although they seemed to under-estimate the threats they create as tourists. They were
also aware of the potential impacts to the environment but had limited ability to observe
(identify) the impacts on site. As previously mentioned the incorporation of the
photographs taken as part of the trampling experiments into the visitor survey makes an
original contribution in methodology and findings (see Table 5.1).
The second objective (3b) was addressed in Chapter 4, also with data collected via the
comprehensive visitor survey undertaken across the three national parks (n=602). The
types of visitors were clustered according to how they value biodiversity and other key
variables. Cluster analysis revealed two types of visitors, separated largely by activities,
with one group focused on walking and the other on appreciating nature and scenery.
This typology provides a finer grained analysis to those conducted previously by
separating out these two different types of nature explorers (Smith et al. 2014), which to
110
date have been aggregated as one cluster. The other important findings of the visitor
characteristics were they were older and well educated. These findings are in accordance
with three other studies conducted on wildflower tourism in South Africa and Australia
(Kruger et al. 2013; Loubster et al. 2001; Priskin 2003a).
4. How can an understanding of these interactions contribute to management of
protected areas in biodiversity hotspots?
Objective:
a. Use the results obtained from a combination of ecological and social studies
to provide recommendations for managing nature-based tourism in
biodiverse regions.
Recommendations for managers are outlined in the following section followed by a brief
conclusion.
5.4 Recommendations for managers
The findings of this study are of great importance given that the national parks are an
interface between biodiversity and tourism and that these environments are highly
vulnerable and under threat (Hopper and Gioia 2004; Myers et al. 2000). Observations
of tourists and the evidence of trampling damage indicate that both independent
travellers and tour operator led groups need management attention. Furthermore
understanding the visitors’ biodiversity values may help managers to identify better
management practices (Fischer and van der Wal 2007; Robinson et al. 2012; Tanner-
McAllister et al. 2014). Further understanding of the visitors and their values (strong
intrinsic and non-use (bequest to future generations)) will help to improve park
management efforts to elicit visitors, support for the park which can then translate into
better support for biodiversity conservation.
Recommendations for managers of national parks are provided below (Table 5.2). While
the recommendations are discussed specifically as they relate to visitors to national
parks in a biodiversity hotspot, they are applicable to managers of any protected area
111
that currently has or is targeted for, tourism. Included in the table are the findings from
the visitor surveys on the level of support for certain management actions across the
three Western Australia national parks.
Protected area managers can benefit from understanding the trampling effects of visitors
on the wildflower communities. These shrub-dominated communities had a low
resistance and resilience to trampling by visitors. This finding needs to be taken into
consideration when determining the use capacity and restrictions of areas for visitor use
and the creation and design of new trails in wildflower communities that are sensitive to
trampling. An additional recommendation (not included in the table) was for future
survey research in national parks which have low visitor numbers is the installation of a
display panel and survey distribution box to conduct visitor surveys as has been
effectively implemented in Lesueur National Park. The estimated annual visitation for
LNP was 1,700 (between 2001 - 2006) and over four months 112 surveys were
completed by visitors using the self-service distribution box which demonstrates it was
an effective way of collecting visitor surveys.
Visitors view wildflowers in the national parks via a trail network. There are a wide
range of trail designs that can be applied depending upon environmental conditions and
the level of visitation (see Newsome et al. 2013). Where trail networks are unsustainable
the risk of visitors leaving trails due to eroded sections and waterlogging increases
(Marion and Leung 2004; Newsome et al. 2013). Tourists leaving formed trails and
crossing barriers that are designed to protect vegetation from trampling can create
constant, year-to-year, low level trampling likely to result in localised site degradation
and the unappealing look of damaged vegetation may displace visitors into more pristine
areas. The significance of such behaviour will depend on the levels of visitation, the
extent to which new areas are visited, presence of other recreational activities that may
damage vegetation and the efficacy of existing trail management practices (Newsome et
al. 2013).
112
Table 5.2: Recommendations for management attention in regard to increasing wildflower tourism in biodiversity hotspots
Management Strategy Supporting references Management action
incorporated into
visitor survey that
relates to the
management strategy
Level of support
(support + strongly
support) for
management action
(n=602)
For managers the sensitivity (low resistance and
low resilience) of the shrub-dominated
communities needs to be taken into consideration
when deciding: where to locate a new track;
whether a particular activity is suitable in an area
and/or if an area needs to be closed to enable the
vegetation to recover from trampling.
(Leung and Marion 1999b;
Newsome et al. 2013; Pickering
2010)
Management action not assessed in visitor survey
Creation and design of new trails and/or
upgrading existing trails.
(Marion and Leung 2001;
Marion and Leung 2004; Marion
and Leung 2011; Marion and
Reid 2007; Marion et al. 2011;
Mende and Newsome 2006;
Randall and Newsome 2008)
Improve design of trails
Improve walk trail
conditions
46%*
50%**
Provision of boardwalks that allow for discovery
and seclusion opportunities while minimising the
movement off formal trails by visitors.
(Newsome et al. 2013; Randall
and Newsome 2008; Walden-
Schreiner et al. 2012)
Management action not assessed in visitor survey
Where appropriate placing physical barriers to
minimise the movement off formal trails.
(Barros et al. 2013; Kim and
Daigle 2012; Roovers et al.
2004)
Restrict pedestrian
access to certain areas
76%
Effective trail signage to minimise visitor
movement off formal trails and the potential
creation of informal trails.
(Marion and Reid 2007;
Newsome et al. 2013)
Provide self-guided
walks with signs
88%
113
Table 5.2: (cont.)
Management Strategy Supporting references Management action
incorporated into
visitor survey that
relates to the
management strategy
Level of support
(support + strongly
support) for
management action
(n=602)
The installation of interpretive panels and/or
display shelters at tourism activity nodes that
highlight the sensitivity of the vegetation and
provide information about the consequences of
trampling on vegetation and especially species of
orchids. This is in addition to conveying
importance about the unique nature of Western
Australia’s biodiversity and the threats to the
biodiversity of the national parks.
(Boon et al. 2008; Cole et al.
1997; Marion and Reid 2007;
Newsome et al. 2013)
Provide more display
shelters
Provide more minimum
impact use information
Provide more
biodiversity
information
66%
87%
91%
Ongoing monitoring with a view to closing some
sites so that there is scope for the recovery of sites
damaged by trampling.
(Leung et al. 2011; Marion et al.
2006; Monz et al. 2010b;
Newsome et al. 2013; Walden-
Schreiner and Leung 2013;
Walden-Schreiner et al. 2012)
Close areas for
conservation of
biodiversity
79%
Increase frequency of ranger visits to the national
parks during peak times.
(Morin et al. 1997) Increase frequency of
ranger visits
75%
Knowledge of the values of visitors can assist in
developing conservation and park management
goals. Consideration of both social and ecological
values of an area can enhance the success of
conservation and park management goals.
(Bryan et al. 2010; Fischer and
van der Wal 2007; Robinson et
al. 2012; Tanner-McAllister et
al. 2014)
Management action not assessed in visitor survey
114
Table 5.2: (cont.)
Management Strategy Supporting references Management action
incorporated into
visitor survey that
relates to the
management strategy
Level of support
(support + strongly
support) for
management action
(n=602)
Educational programs for tour operators that
convey messages about the effects of trampling
and the low resilience and resistance of these
highly valued plant communities.
(Boon et al. 2008; Cole et al.
1997; Littlefair 2004)
Management action not assessed in visitor survey
Further research in shrub-dominated communities
in other biodiversity hotspots to build knowledge
regarding the resilience and resistance of these
communities to trampling and other impacts
associated with tourism.
(Ballantyne et al. 2014b;
Newsome et al. 2013)
Management action not assessed in visitor survey
*The management action of “improve design of trails” only 11% (strongly oppose + oppose) didn’t support with 43% neither supporting nor
opposing the management action. Therefore there was support for this management action from the respondents of the three national parks.
** The management action of “improve walk trail conditions” only 15% (strongly oppose + oppose) didn’t support the action with 35%
neither supporting nor opposing the management action. Therefore there was support for this management action from the respondents of the
three national parks
115
Practices vital to keeping visitors on formed paths include a comprehensive programme
of trail management and monitoring and it is important that resources, expertise and staff
are available to achieve trail sustainability (Leung et al. 2011; Marion and Leung 2011;
Marion and Reid 2007; Marion et al. 2011; Mende and Newsome 2006). Monitoring for
indicators of trail degradation, which can lead to compromised trail trafficability, and
particularly informal trail development are important considerations especially as
informal trails are a measure of off-trail impacts and de-facto trampling of vegetation.
Hardened trail surfaces have proven to be effective in containing trail impacts in
sensitive environments but are expensive to install and maintain (e.g. Hawes and Dixon
2014). However, when planned, installed and maintained trails can be effective in
directing and managing visitor access (Leung et al. 2011; Marion and Leung 2004;
Randall and Newsome 2008).
Educational programs are also widely employed in protected areas to encourage
appropriate tourist behaviours (Boon et al. 2008; Cole et al. 1997; Littlefair 2004;
Marion and Reid 2007; Newsome et al. 2013). In Western Australia this is particularly
important because of the risk of both on and off-trail activity spreading plant pathogens
such as Phytophthora cinnamomi (dieback disease). Phytophthora cinnamomi, for
example, is already present along walk trails in SRNP and along access roads in FRNP
so the risk of further spread as a result of tourism access is real (Buckley et al. 2004;
Newsome 2003). Educational programmes combined with dieback hygiene, involving
the provision of hiking boot-cleaning stations and sometimes trail closures, have been
and are currently, applied in at-risk protected areas in Western Australia (Newsome
2003).
Although educational strategies can be problematic in regard to the attention paid to low
impact messages, Boon et al. (2008) reported greater effectiveness when interpretation
was directed to an individual’s sense of responsibility. Appropriate behaviour modelling
by tour operators, highlighted by Littlefair (2004) and Newsome et al. (2013), is an
especially important consideration given the findings reported in this study. If
monitoring for informal trail development and associated trampling of vegetation data
116
reveal that education is not working, as indicated in some studies (Guo et al. 2015; Park
et al. 2008) park management may have to employ more direct management actions
such as policing by rangers during the peak wildflower tourism season.
5.5 Overall
Given the increasing number of people visiting protected areas in Western Australia, and
the promotion of wildflower tourism overseas, visitors to national parks need to be
effectively managed using the range of management strategies recommended as
described above. It is essential to understand the connection between wildflower tourism
and biodiversity in order to effectively manage and protect these important natural areas
so the very reason the wildflowers tourists are visiting national parks is protected and
conserved now and for the future in Australia and worldwide.
117
References
Adamowicz, V. (1995). Alternative valuation techniques: a comparison and movement
to a synthesis. Environmental Valuation New Perspectives. K. G. Willis and J. T.
Corkindale. Wallingford, UK, CAB International: 144-159.
Agafonoff, A., K. Atkins, A. Brown, P. Brown, R. Buehrig, A. Burbidge, D. Coates, G.
Craig, G. Durell, M. Graham, E. George, R. Hearn, S. Hopper, G. Keighery, A. Kelly,
N. Marchant, M. Mitchell, F. Mollemans, M. O'Donoghue, S. Patrick, C. Robinson, S.
Shea, C. Thomson-Dans and S. van Leeuwen (1998). Western Australia's threatened
flora. Perth, Department of Conservation and Land Management.
Alessa, L., S. M. Bennett and A. D. Kliskey (2003). "Effects of knowledge, personal
attribution and perception of ecosystem health on depreciative behaviors in the intertidal
zone of Pacific Rim National Park and Reserve." Journal of Environmental Management
68: 207-218.
Alessa, L., A. D. Kliskey and G. Brown (2008). "Social-ecological hotspots mapping: a
spatial approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space." Landscape and Urban
Planning 85: 27-39.
Atauri, J., M. Bravo and A. Ruiz (2000). "Visitors' landscape preferences as a tool for
management of recreation use in natural areas: a case study in Sierra de Guadarrama
(Madrid Spain)." Landscape Research 25(1): 49-62.
Babbie, E. (2005). The Basics of Social Research third edition. London, Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
Babbie, E. (2007). The Practise of Social Research eleventh edition, Thomson
Wadsworth USA.
Ballantyne, M., O. Gudes and C. M. Pickering (2014b). "Recreational trails are an
important cause of fragmentation in endangered urban forests: a case study from
Australia." Landscape and Urban Planning 130: 112-124.
Ballantyne, M. and C. M. Pickering (2012). "Ecotourism as a threatening process for
wild orchids." Journal of Ecotourism 11(1): 34-47.
Ballantyne, M. and C. M. Pickering (2013). "Tourism and recreation: a common threat
to IUCN red-listed vascular plants in Europe." Biodiversity Conservation 22: 3027-
3044.
Ballantyne, M., C. M. Pickering, K. L. McDougall and G. T. Wright (2014a).
"Sustainable impacts of a hiking trail on changing Windswept Feldmark vegetation in
the Australian Alps." Australian Journal of Botany 62: 263-275.
118
Barrett, S. and C. J. Yates (2014). "Risks to mountain summit ecosystem with endemic
biota in Southwestern Australia." Austral Ecology 40(4): 432-432.
Barros, A., J. Gonnet and C. M. Pickering (2013). "Impacts of informal trails on
vegetation and soils in the highest protected area in the Southern Hemisphere." Journal
of Environmental Management 127: 50-60.
Barros, A. and C. M. Pickering (2014). "Impacts of experimental trampling by hikers
and pack animals on a high-altitude alpine edge meadows in the Andes." Plant Ecology
and Diversity DOI:10.1080/17550874.2014.893592.
Bayfield, N. G. (1979). "Recovery of four montane health communities on Cairngorm,
Scotland, from disturbance by trampling." Biological Conservation 15: 165-179.
Beard, J. S. (1990). Plant life of Western Australia. Kenthurst, NSW, Kangaroo Press.
Ben-Ze'ev, A. (1993). The perceptual system: a philosophical and psychological
perspective. New York, Peter Lang Publishing.
Bernhardt-Romermann, M., A. Gray, A. J. Vanbergen, L. Berges, A. Bohner, R. W.
Brooker, L. De Bruyn, B. De Cinti, T. Dirnbock, U. Grandin, A. J. Hester, R. Kanka, S.
Klotz, G. Loucougaray, L. Lundin, G. Matteucci, I. Meszaros, V. Olah, E. Preda, B.
Prevosto, J. Pykala, W. Schmidt, M. E. Taylor, A. Vadineanu, T. Waldmann and J.
Stadler (2011). "Functional traits and local environment predict vegetation responses to
disturbance: a pan-European multi-site experiment." Journal of Ecology 99: 777-787.
Boon, P. I., M. Fluker and N. Wilson (2008). "A ten-year study of the effectiveness of
an educational programme in ensuring the ecological sustainability of recreational
activities in the Brisbane Range National Park, South-Eastern Australia." Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 16(6): 681-697.
Brookshire, D. S., L. S. Eubanks and A. Randall (1983). "Estimating option prices and
existence values for wildlife resources." Land Economics 59(1): 1-15.
Brown, G. (2013). "Relationship between spatial and non-spatial preferences and place-
based values in national forests." Applied Geography 44: 1-11.
Brown, G. and C. Raymond (2007). "The relationship between place attachment and
landscape values: toward mapping place attachment." Applied Geography 27: 89-111.
Brown, G. and P. Reed (2000). "Validation of a forest values typology for use in
National Forest Planning." Forest Science 46(2): 240-247.
Brown, G., D. Weber and K. de Bie (2014). "Assessing the value of public lands using
participation GIS (PPGIS) and social landscape metrics." Applied Geography 53: 77-89.
119
Brown, T. C. (1984). "The concept of value in resource allocation." Land Economics
60(3): 231-246.
Bryan, B. A., C. M. Raymond, N. D. Crossman and D. King (2010). "Comparing
spatially explicit ecological and social values for natural areas to identify effective
conservation strategies." Conservation Biology 25(1): 172-181.
Buckley, R. (2002a). "Tourism and biodiversity in North and South." Tourism
Recreation Research 27(1): 43-51.
Buckley, R. (2002b). "Managing tourism in parks and research priorities of industry
associations and protected area agencies in Australia." Journal of Ecotourism 1(2 & 3):
162-172.
Buckley, R. (2004). Impacts positive and negative: links between ecotourism and
environment. Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism. R. Buckley. Wallingford, CABI
Publishing: 5-14.
Buckley, R. (2005). "Recreation Ecology Research effort: an international comparison."
Tourism Recreation Research 30: 99-101.
Buckley, R. (2010). Conservation Tourism. Wallingford, England, CAB International.
Buckley, R., N. King and T. Zubrinich (2004). The role of tourism in spreading dieback
disease in Australian vegetation. Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism. R. Buckley.
Wallingford, CABI Publishing: 317-324.
Buckley, R. and J. Pannell (1990). "Environmental impacts of tourism and recreation in
national parks and conservation reserves." The Journal of Tourism Studies 1(1): 24-32.
Burbidge, A., S. Hopper and S. Van Leeuwen (1990). Nature Conservation, landscape
and recreation values of Lesueur area. Report to the Environmental Protection Authority
from the Department of Conservation and Land Management Bulletin 424. Perth,
Western Australia, Environmental Protection Authority.
Burgman, M. A., D. A. Keith, S. D. Hopper, D. Widyatmoko and C. Drill (2007).
"Threat syndromes and conservation of the Australian flora." Biological Conservation
134: 73-82.
Butler, R. W. (2000). "Tourism and the environmental a geographical perspective."
Tourism Geographies 2(3): 337-358.
CALM (1995a). Lesueur National Park Management Plant 1995-2005. Perth, Western
Australia, Deparment of Conservation and Land Management.
CALM (1995b). Fitzgerald National Park Management Plan. Perth, Western Australia,
Department of Conservation and Land Management.
120
CALM (1999). Stirling Range and Porongurup National Park Management Plan 1999-
2009. Perth, Western Australia, Department of Conservation and Land Management.
CALM (2005). Towards a biodiversity conservation strategy for Western Australia.
Perth, Government of Western Australia.
Carwardine, J., T. O'Connor, S. Legge, B. Mackey, H. P. Possingham and T. G. Martin
(2012). "Prioritizing threat management for biodiversity conservation." Conservation
Letters 5: 197-204.
Catibog-Sinha, C. (2008). "Visitor impact and biodiversity: a monitoring framework for
protected areas in Southern Highlands, New South Wales, Australia." Asia Pacific
Journal of Tourism Research 13(3): 245-263.
Charrad, M., N. Ghazzali, V. Boiteau and A. Niknafs (2014). "NbClust: An R Packaged
for determining the relevant number of clusters in a data set." Journal of Statistical
Software 61(6): 1-36.
Chen, L., J. S. Chen and C. Basman (2009). "Investigation on visitors' perceptions on
recreation impacts in Sun Moon Lake National Park Scenic Area in Taiwan." Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 14(3): 241-253.
Chin, C. L., S. A. Moore, T. J. Wallington and R. K. Dowling (2000). "Ecotourism in
Bako National Park, Borneo: visitors' perceptions on environmental impacts and their
management." Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8(1): 20-35.
Cicchetti, C. J. and L. L. Wilde (1992). "Uniqueness, irreversibility, and the theory of
non-use values." American Agricultural Economics Association 74(2): 1121-1125.
Cilimburg, A., C. A. Monz and S. Kehoe (2000). "Wildland recreation and human
waste: a review of problems, practises, and concerns." Environmental Management
25(6): 587-598.
Claymore, K. (2005). "Embracing diversity the spice of life." Landscope 20(3): 54-60.
Cole, D. N. (1987a). Research on soil and vegetation in wilderness: a state of knowledge
review. National Wilderness Research Conference: issues, state of knowledge, future
directions. U. F. Services. Odgen USA. Gen Tech Rep. INT 220: 135-177.
Cole, D. N. (1987b). "Effects of three seasons of experimental trampling on five
montane forest communities and a grassland in Western Montana, USA." Biological
Conservation 40: 219-244.
Cole, D. N. (1995a). "Experimental trampling of vegetation II. Predictors of resistance
and resilience." Journal of Applied Ecology 32: 215-224.
121
Cole, D. N. (1995b). "Experimental trampling of vegetation. I. Relationship between
trampling intensity and vegetation response." Journal of Applied Ecology 32: 203-214.
Cole, D. N. (2004). Impacts of hiking and camping on soils and vegetation: a review.
Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism. R. Buckley. Cambridge, CABI Publishing: 41-
60.
Cole, D. N. and N. G. Bayfield (1993). "Recreational trampling of vegetation: standard
experimental procedures." Biological Conservation 63: 209-215.
Cole, D. N., T. P. Hammond and S. F. McCool (1997). "Information quantity and
communication effectiveness: low-impact messages on wilderness trailside bulletin
boards." Leisure Sciences 19(1): 59-72.
Cole, D. N. and C. A. Monz (2002). "Trampling disturbance of high-elevated vegetation,
Wind River Mountains, Wyoming, U.S.A." Antarctic and Alpine Research 34: 365-376.
Cole, D. N. and C. A. Monz (2003). "Impacts of camping on vegetation: response and
recovery following acute and chronic disturbance." Environmental Management 32(6):
693-705.
Cole, D. N. and D. R. Spildie (1998). "Hiker, horse and Ilama trampling effects on
native vegetation in Montana, USA." Journal of Environmental Management 53: 61-71.
Cole, D. N. and S. J. Trull (1992). "Quantifying vegetation response to recreational
disturbance in the North Cascades, Washington." Northwest Science 66(4): 229-236.
Cooper, C., J. Fletcher, A. Fyall, D. Gilbert and S. Wanhill (2005). Tourism principles
and practise 3rd Edition. England, Pearson Education Ltd.
Cressie, N. (1993). Statistics for spatial data. New York, Wiley.
D'Antonio, A., C. A. Monz, P. Newman, S. Lawson and D. Taff (2012). "The effects of
local ecological knowledge, minimum-impact knowledge, and prior experience on
visitor perceptions of the ecological impacts of backcountry recreation." Environmental
Management 50: 542-554.
D'Antonio, A., C. A. Monz, P. Newman, S. Lawson and D. Taff (2013). "Enhancing the
utility of visitor impact assessment in parks and protected areas: a combined social-
ecological approach." Journal of Environmental Management 124: 72-81.
Dai, A. (2013). "Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models."
Nature Climate Change 3: 52-58.
Dargavel, J. (1995). Fashioning Australia's forests. Melbourne, Australia, Oxford
University Press.
122
Deng, J., S. Qiang, G. J. Walker and Y. Zhang (2003). "Assessment on and perceptions
of visitors' environmental impacts of nature tourism: a case study of Zhangjiajie
National Forest Park, China." Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11(6): 529-548.
Denscombe, M. (1998). The good research guide for small scale-social research
problems. Buckingham, UK, Open University Press.
Denzin, N. K. and Y. S. Lincoln (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London,
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Diamantis, D. (1999). "The concept of ecotourism: evolution and trends." Current Issues
in Tourism 2(2&3): 93-121.
Dietz, T., P. C. Stern and G. A. Guagnano (1998). "Social structural and social
psychological bases of environmental concern." Environment and Behaviour 30(4): 450-
472.
Dorwart, C. E., R. L. Moore and Y. Leung (2010). "Visitors' perceptions of a trail
environment and effects of experiences: a model for nature-based recreation
experiences." Leisure Sciences 32: 33-54.
DPaW (2013). Department of Parks and Wildlife strategic directions 2013-14. Perth,
Department of Parks and Wildlife.
Dybas, C. L. (2006). "Biodiversity: the interplay of science, valuation, and policy."
BioScience 56(10): 792-798.
Eagles, P. F., S. F. McCool and C. D. Haynes (2002). Sustainable tourism in protected
areas: guidelines for planning and management. Switzerland and Cambridge, IUCN
Gland.
Ells, M. D. and C. A. Monz (2011). "The consequences of backcountry surface disposal
of human waste in an alpine, temperate forest and arid environment." Journal of
Environmental Management 92: 1334-1337.
Farrell, B. H. and L. Twining-Ward (2004). "Reconceptualizing tourism." Annals of
Tourism Research 31(2): 274-295.
Farrell, B. H. and L. Twining-Ward (2005). "Seven steps towards sustainability: tourism
in the context of new knowledge." Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13(2): 109-122.
Farrell, T. A., T. E. Hall and D. D. White (2001). "Wilderness campers' perception and
evaluation of campsite impacts." Journal of Leisure Research 33(3): 229-250.
Fischer, A. and R. van der Wal (2007). "Invasive plant suppresses charismatic seabird-
the construction of attitudes towards biodiversity management options." Biological
Conservation 135: 256-267.
123
Floyd, M. F., H. Jang and F. P. Noe (1997). "The relationship between environmental
concern and acceptability of environmental impacts among visitors to two U.S. National
Park settings." Journal of Environmental Management 51: 391-412.
Ford, R. M., K. J. Williams, I. D. Bishop and T. Webb (2009). "A value basis for social
acceptability of clearfelling in Tasmania, Australia." Landscape and Urban Planning 90:
196-206.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C. and D. Nachmias (1996). Research Methods in the social
sciences fifth edition. London, Arnold.
Gallet, S. and F. Roze (2002). "Long-term effects of trampling on Altantic Healthland in
Brittany (France): resilience and tolerance in relation to seasonal and meterological
conditions." Biological Conservation 103: 267-275.
Gibson, J. L., J. M. Ivancevich and J. H. Donnelly Jr (2000). Organizations behaviour
structure processes. Boston, Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Gole, C. (2006). The Southwest Australia Ecoregion: Jewel of the Australian Continent.
S. A. E. Initiative. Perth, Western Australia.
Growcock, A. J. (2006). Impacts of camping and trampling on Australian alpine and
subalpine vegetation and soils. School of Environmental and Applied Sciences. Gold
Coast, Griffith University. Doctor of Philosophy.
Growcock, A. J. and C. M. Pickering (2011). "A guilt-free roll in the grass: minimal
short-term impacts from short-term camping in the Australian Alps." Journal of
Ecotourism 10(1): 86-100.
Guba, E. G. and Y. S. Lincoln (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.
Handbook in Qualitative Research, Thousands Oaks, Sage: 105-117.
Guo, T., J. W. Smith, Y. Leung, E. Seekamp and R. L. Moore (2015). "Determinants of
responsible hiking behavior: results from a stated choice experiment." Environmental
Management DOI 10.1007/s00267-015-0513-1.
Hall, C. N. (2010). "Tourism and biodiversity: more significant than climatic change?"
Journal of Heritage Tourism 5(4): 253-266.
Hall, C. N. and F. R. Kuss (1989). "Vegetation alteration along trails in Shenandoah
National Park, Virginia." Biological Conservation 48: 211-227.
Hamberg, L., M. Malmivaara-Lamsa, S. Lehvavirta, R. B. O'Hara and D. J. Kotze
(2010). "Quantifying the effects of trampling and habitat edges on forest understory
vegetation - A field experiment." Journal of Environmental Management 91: 1811-1820.
124
Hammitt, W. E. and D. N. Cole (1998). Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management.
New York, John Wiley.
Harper, J.L. and D.L. Hawskworth (1995). Conceptual aspects of the quantification of
the extent of biological diversity. Biodiversity measurement and estimation. D.L.
Hawksworth, London, Chapman & Hall:13-21.
Hartley, E. (2000). Thirty-year monitoring of subalpine meadow vegetation following
1967 trampling experiment in Logan Pass, Glacier National Park, Montana. Wilderness
science in a time of change conference, Rocky Mountain Research Station Ogden UT
USA.
Hawes, M. and G. Dixon (2014). "A methodology for prioritising management tasks for
an extensive recreational walking track system." Journal of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism 5-6: 11-16.
Henderson, K. A. (2011). "Post-positivism and the pragmatics of leisure research."
Leisure Sciences 33: 341-346.
Higham, J. and A. Carr (2002). "Ecotourism visitor experiences in Aotearoa/New
Zealand: challenging the environmental values of visitors in pursuit of pro-
environmental behaviour." Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10(4): 277-294.
Hill, R. and C. M. Pickering (2009). "Differences in resistance of three subtropical
vegetation types to experimental trampling." Journal of Environmental Management 90:
1305-1312.
Hill, W. and C. M. Pickering (2006). "Vegetation associated with different walking track
types in the Kosciuszko Alpine Area, Australia." Journal of Environmental Management
78: 24-34.
Hillery, M., B. Nancarrow, G. Griffin and G. Syme (2001). "Tourist perception of
environmental impact." Annals of Tourism Research 28(4): 853-867.
Holmes, B. (2005). "Should we seek to save Earth's iconic hotspots?" New Scientist
5 (February).
Hopper, S. and A. Burbidge (1990). Significance of the Lesueur Area. Nature
Conservation, landscape and recreation values of Lesueur area Report to the
Environmental Protection Authority from the Department of Conservation and Land
Management Bulletin 424. A. Burbidge, S. Hopper and S. Van Leeuwen. Perth, Western
Australia, Environmental Protection Authority: 111-115.
Hopper, S. D. (2009). "OCBIL theory: towards an intergrated understanding of the
evolution, ecology and conservation of biodiversity on old, climatically buffered,
infertile landscapes." Plant and Soil 322: 49-86.
125
Hopper, S. D. and P. Gioia (2004). "The Southwest Australian floristic region: evolution
and conservation of the global hot spot of biodiversity." Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 35: 623-650.
Hopper, S. D., M. S. Harvey, J. A. Chappill and A. S. George (1996). Gondwanan
Heritage: past, present and future of the Western Australia biota. Chipping Norton,
NSW, Surrey Beatty & Sons.
Hughes, G. (2002). "Environmental Indicators." Annals of Tourism Research 29(2):
457-477.
Inkson, C. and L. Minnaert (2012). Tourism Management an Introduction. London,
SAGE.
James, I., T. Hoffman, A. Munro, P. O'Farrell and R. Smart (2007). "The economic
value of flower tourism at the Namaqua National Park, South Africa." South African
Journal Of Economic and management sciences 10(4): 442-456.
Jennings, G. (2010). Tourism Research. Queensland Australia, Wiley Milton.
Jepson, P. and S. Canney (2001). "Biodiversity hotspots: hot for what?" Global Ecology
and Biogeography 10: 225-227.
Kareiva, P. and M. Marvier (2003). "Conserving biodiversity coldspots." American
Scientist 91(4): 344-351.
Kelly, C. L., C. M. Pickering and R. Buckley (2003). "Impacts of tourism on threatened
plant taxa and communities in Australia." Ecological Management and Restoration 4(1):
37-44.
Kent, M. and P. Coker (1992). Vegetation description and analysis: a practical approach.
Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.
Kim, M. and J. Daigle (2012). "Monitoring of vegetation impact due to trampling on
Cadillac Mountain Summit using high spatial resolution remote sensing data sets."
Environmental Management 50(5): 956-968.
Kingsford, R. T., J. E. M. Watson, C. J. Lundquist, O. Venter, L. Hughes, E. L.
Johnston, J. Atherton, M. Gawel, D. A. Keith, M. B.G., C. Morley, H. P. Possingham, B.
Raynor, H. F. Recher and K. A. Wilson (2009). "Major conservation policy issues for
biodiversity in oceania." Conservation Biology 23: 834-840.
Kissling, M., K. T. Hegetschweiler, H. Rusterholz and B. Baur (2009). "Short-term and
long-term effects of human trampling on above-ground vegetation, soil density and soil
microbial processes in suburban Beech forests." Applied Soil Ecology 42: 303-314.
126
Kolasa, B. J. (1969). Introduction to Behavioural science for business. New York, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kruger, M., A. Viljoen and M. Saayman (2013). "Who pays to view wildflowers in
South Africa?" Journal of Ecotourism 12(3): 146-164.
Kuss, F. R. (1986). "A review of major factors influencing plant responses to recreation
impacts." Environmental Management 10(5): 637-650.
Kuss, F. R. and C. N. Hall (1991). "Ground flora trampling studies: five years after
closure." Environmental Management 15(5): 715-727.
Lambers, H., M. Brundrett, M. Raven and S. Hopper (2010). "Plant mineral nutrition in
ancient landscapes: high plant species diversity on infertile soils is linked to functional
diversity for nutritional strategies." Plant and Soil 334: 11-31.
Laurance, W. F., B. Dell, S. M. Turton, M. J. Lawes, L. B. Hutley, H. McCallum, P.
Dale, M. Bird, G. Hardy, G. Prideaux, B. Gawne, C. R. McMahon, R. Yu, J. Hero, L.
Schwarzkopf, A. Krockenberger, M. Douglas, E. Silvester, M. Mahony, K. Vella, U.
Saikia, C. Wahren, Z. Xu, B. Smith and C. Cocklin (2011). "The 10 Australian
ecosystems most vulnerable to tipping point." Biological Conservation 144: 1472-1480.
Leung, Y. and G. Catts (2013). "The joy of bioresources: sustainable forest-recreation
connections." BioResources 8(1): 1-2.
Leung, Y. and J. L. Marion (1999a). "Characterizing backcountry camping impacts in
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA." Journal of Environmental Management
57: 193-203.
Leung, Y. and J. L. Marion (1999b). "Spatial strategies for managing visitor impacts in
national parks." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 17(4): 20-38.
Leung, Y. and J. L. Marion (2000). Recreational impacts and management in wilderness:
a state of knowledge review. Wilderness Science in a time of change conference,
Proceedings RMPS-P15-Vol_5, Vol 5: Wilderness visitors, experiences and visitor
management, Missoula, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Leung, Y., T. Newburger, M. Jones, B. Kulm and B. Woiderski (2011). "Developing a
monitoring protocol for visitor-created informal trails in Yosemite National Parks,
USA." Environmental Management 47: 93-106.
Liddicoat, L. (2007). Personal communications,Visitor Information and Statistics Co-
ordinator, Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth, Western Australia.
Liddle, M. J. (1975). "A theoretical relationship between the primary productivity of
vegetation and its ability to tolerate trampling." Biological Conservation 8: 251-255.
127
Liddle, M. J. (1991). "Recreation Ecology: effects of trampling on plants and corals."
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 6(1): 13-17.
Liddle, M. J. (1997). Recreation ecology: the ecological impact of outdoor recreation
and ecotourism. London UK, Chapman & Hill.
Liddle, M. J. and N. C. Thyer (1986). "Trampling and fire in a subtropical dry
sclerophyll forest." Environmental Conservation 13(1): 33-39.
Littlefair, C. J. (2004). Reducing impacts through interpretation, Lamington National
Park. Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism. R. Buckley. UK, CABI Publishing: 297-
316.
Lockwood, M. (1999). "Humans valuing nature: synthesising insights from philosophy,
psychology and economics." Environmental Values 8: 381-401.
Lockwood, M. (2011). Values of Tasmanian protected areas. In: Draft general
management plan for Tasmania's reserves. Unpublished Report, Parks and Wildlife
Service, Department of Primary Industries Park, Water and Environment, Hobart.
Loubster, G. J., P. L. Mouton and J. A. Nel (2001). "The ecotourism potential of
herpetofauna in the Namaqua National Park, South Africa." South African Journal of
Wildlife Research 31(1): 13-23.
Lucas-Borja, M. E., F. Bastida, J. L. Moreno, C. Nicolas, M. Andres, F. R. Lopez and A.
Cel Cerro (2011). "The effects of human trampling on the microbiological properties of
soil and vegetation in Mediterranean Mountain Areas." Land Degradation &
Development 22: 383-394.
Lucas, R. C. (1990). The wilderness experience and managing the factors that influence
it. Wilderness Management. J. C. Hendee, G. H. Stankley and L. R.C. Golden CO, North
American Press: 469-499.
Lussier, R. N. (2005). Human relations in organizations: applications and skill-building
sixth edition. Boston, McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Lynn, N. and R. Brown (2003). "Effects of recreational use impacts on hiking
experiences in natural areas." Landscape and Urban Planning 64: 77-87.
Malmivaara-Lamsa, M., L. Hamberg, I. Lofstrom, I. Vanha-Majamaa and J. Niemela
(2008). "Trampling tolerance of understorey vegetation in different hemiboreal urban
forest site types in Finland." Urban Ecosystems 11: 1-16.
Manning, R. E. (2011). Studies in Outdoor Recreation. Corvallis, Oregon State
University Press.
128
Manning, R. E. and W. Freimund (2004). "Use of visual research methods to measure
standards of quality for park and outdoor recreation." Journal of Leisure Research 36(4):
557-579.
Manning, R. E., S. Lawson, P. Newman, M. Budruk, W. Valliere, D. Laven and J.
Bacon (2004). Visitor perceptions of recreation-related resource impacts. Environmental
Impacts of Ecotourism. R. Buckley. Oxfordshire UK, CABI Publishing: 259-272.
Manning, R. E., D. Lime, W. Freimund and D. Pitt (1996). "Crowding norms of front
country sites: a visual approach to setting standards of quality." Leisure Sciences 18: 39-
59.
Marchese, C. (2015). "Biodiversity hotspots: a shortcut for a more complicated
concept." Global Ecology and Conservation 3: 297-309.
Marion, J. L. and Y. Leung (2001). "Trail resource impacts and an examination of
alternative assessment techniques." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration
19(3): 17-37.
Marion, J. L. and Y. Leung (2004). Environmental sustainable trail management. The
Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism. R. Buckley. UK, CABI Publishing: 229-243.
Marion, J. L. and Y. Leung (2011). "Indicators and protocols for monitoring impacts of
formal and informal trails protected areas." Journal of Tourism and Leisure Studies
17(2): 215-236.
Marion, J. L., Y. Leung and S. K. Nepal (2006). "Monitoring trail conditions: new
methodological considerations." The George Wright Forum 23(2): 36-49.
Marion, J. L. and R. Linville (2000). Trail impacts and their management in Huascaran
National Park, Andes Mountains, Peru. The Mountain Institute and the Virginia TEch
Cooperative Parks Studies Unit. Blackburg, USA: 1-16.
Marion, J. L. and S. Reid (2007). "Minimising visitor impacts to protected areas: the
efficacy of low impact education programmes." Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15: 5-
27.
Marion, J. L., J. Wimpey and L. O. Park (2011). "The science of trail surveys: recreation
ecology provides new tools for managing wilderness trails." Park Science 28(3): 60-65.
Marzano, M. and N. Dandy (2012). "Recreationist behaviour in forests and the
disturbance of wildlife." Biodiversity Conservation 21: 2967-2986.
McDougall, K. L. and G. T. Wright (2004). "The impact of trampling on feldmark
vegetation in Kosciuszko National Park, Australia." Australian Journal of Botany 52:
315-320.
129
Mende, P. and D. Newsome (2006). "The assessment, monitoring and management of
hiking trails: a case study from the Stirling Range National Park, Western Australia."
Conservation Science Western Australia 5(3): 27-37.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a). Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Biodiversity Synthesis. Washington DC, World Resources Institute.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b). Chapter 6: Concepts of ecosystem value
and valuation approaches. Ecosystems and human well-being. A framework for
assessment. M. E. Assessment. Washington, DC, Island Press: 127-147.
Mittermeier, R. A., P. Robles Gil, M. Hoffmann, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks, G. Mittermeier,
J. Lamorcut and G. A. B. da Fonseca (2004). Hotspots revisited. Mexico City, Cemex.
Mittermeier, R. A., W. R. Turner, F. W. Larsen, T. M. Brooks and C. Gascon (2011).
Global biodiversity conservation: the critical role of hotspots. Biodiversity Hotspots. F.
E. Zachos and J. C. Habel. New York, Springer: 3-22.
Monz, C. A. (2002). "The response of two Arctic Tundra plant communities to human
trampling disturbance." Journal of Environmental Management 64: 207-217.
Monz, C. A. (2009). "Climbers' attitudes towards recreation recource impacts in the
Adirondack Park's Giant mountain wilderness." International Journal of Wilderness 15:
26-33.
Monz, C. A., D. N. Cole, Y. Leung and J. L. Marion (2010a). "Sustaining visitor use in
protected areas: future opportunities in recreation ecology research based on the USA
experience." Environmental Management 45: 551-562.
Monz, C. A., J. L. Marion, K. A. Goonan, R. E. Manning, J. Wimpey and C. Carr
(2010b). "Assessment and monitoring of recreation impacts and resource conditions on
mountain summits: examples from the Northern Forest, USA." Mountain Research and
Development 30(4): 332-343.
Monz, C. A., C. M. Pickering and W. L. Hadwen (2013). "Recent advances in recreation
ecology and the implications of different relationships between recreational use and
ecological impacts." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(8): 441-446.
Monz, C. A., T. Pokorny, J. Freilich, S. Kehoe and D. Ayers-Baumeister (2000). The
consequences of trampling disturbance in two vegetation types at the Wyoming Nature
Conservancy's Sweetwater River Project Area. Wilderness Science in a time of change
conference, Proceedings RMPS-P-15-Vol_5, Vol 5: Wilderness visitors, experiences and
visitor management, Missoula, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station.
130
Monz, C. A. and P. Twardock (2004). Campsite impacts in Prince Williams Sound,
Alaska, USA. Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism. R. Buckley. Wallingford, CABI
Publishing: 309-316.
Moore, R. L., Y. Leung, G. Matisoff, C. E. Dorwart and A. Parker (2012).
"Understanding users' perceptions of trail resource impacts and how they affect
experiences: an integrated approach." Landscape and Urban Planning 107: 343-350.
Moore, S. A. and A. Polley (2007). "Defining indicators and standards for tourism
impacts in protected areas: Cape Range National Park, Australia." Environmental
Management 39: 291-300.
Morin, S. L., S. A. Moore and W. Schmidt (1997). "Defining indicators and standards
for recreation impacts in Nuyts Wilderness, Walpole-Nornalup National Park, Western
Australia." CALM Science 2(3): 247-266.
Myers, N. (2003). "Biodiversity hotspots revisited." BioScience 53(10): 916-917.
Myers, N., R. A. Mitterneier, G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca and J. Kent (2000).
"Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities." Nature 403: 853-858.
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods qualitative and quantitative approaches
sixth edition. Boston, Pearson.
Newbey, K. R. (1995). "A biological survey of Fitzgerald area, Western Australia. Part
4: Vegetation and Flora." CALM Science 3: 29-46.
Newsome, D. (2003). The role of an accidentally introduced fungus in degrading the
health of the Stirling Range National Park ecosystem in South Western Australia: status
and prognosis. Managing for healthy ecosystems. D. J. Rapport, W. L. Lasley, D. E.
Rolstonet al. Florida USA, Lewis Publishers.
Newsome, D. and C. Davies (2009). "A case study in estimating the area of informal
trail development and associated impacts caused by mountain bike activity in John
Forest National Park, Western Australia." Journal of Ecotourism 8(3): 237-253.
Newsome, D., A. Milewski, N. Phillips and R. Annear (2002). "Effects of horse riding
on National Parks and other natural ecosystems in Australia: implications for
management." Journal of Ecotourism 1(1): 52-74.
Newsome, D., S. A. Moore and R. K. Dowling (2002). Natural area tourism: Ecology,
Impacts and Management. Clevedon, UK, Channel View Publications.
Newsome, D., S. A. Moore and R. K. Dowling (2005). Wildlife tourism. Clevedon,
Channel View Publications.
131
Newsome, D., S. A. Moore and R. K. Dowling (2013). Natural Area Tourism: Ecology,
Impacts and Management second edition. Bristol, Channel View Publications.
Noe, F., W. Hammitt and R. Bixler (1997). "Park user perceptions of resource and use
impacts under varied situations in three national parks." Journal of Environmental
Management 49: 323-336.
Noss, R. F. (1990). "Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach."
Conservation Biology 4(4): 355-364.
O'Neill, J. (1992). "The varieties of instrinsic value." The Monist 75(2): 119-137.
Orsini, J. and D. Newsome (2005). "Human perceptions of hauled out sea lions
(Neophoca cinerea) and implications for management: a case study from Carnac Island:
Western Australia." Tourism in Marine Environments 2(1): 1-15.
Paczkowska, G. and A. R. Chapman (2000). The Western Australian Flora: a descriptive
catalogue. Nedlands, WA, Wildflower Society of Western Australia.
Park, L. O., R. E. Manning, J. L. Marion, S. Lawson and C. Jacobi (2008). "Managing
visitor impacts in parks: a multi-method study of the effectiveness of alternative
management practises." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 26(1): 97-121.
Pescott, O. L. and G. B. Stewart (2014). "Assessing the impact of human trampling on
vegetation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental evidence." PeerJ
2:e360; DOI 10.7717/peerj.360.
Phillips, N. (2000). A field experiment to quantify the environmental impacts of horse
riding in the D'Entrecasteaux National Park. Environmental Science. Perth, Murdoch
University. Bachelor of Science (Honours).
Phillips, N. and D. Newsome (2002). "Understanding the impacts of recreation in
Australian protected areas: quantifying damage caused by horse riding in
D'Entrecasteaux National Park, Western Australia." Pacific Conservation Biology 7(4):
256-273.
Pickering, C. M. (2010). "Ten factors that affect the severity of environmental impact of
visitors to protected areas." AMBIO 39: 70-77.
Pickering, C. M. and M. Ballantyne (2012). Orchids: an example of charismatic
megaflora tourism. Handbook for Tourism and the Environment. A. Holden and D.
Fennell. London, Routledge: 192-199.
Pickering, C. M. and A. J. Growcock (2009). "Impacts of experimental trampling on tall
alpine herbfields and subalpine grasslands in the Australian Alps." Journal of
Environmental Management 91: 532-540.
132
Pickering, C. M. and W. Hill (2007). "Impacts of recreation and tourism on plant
biodiversity and vegetation in protected areas in Australia." Journal of Environmental
Management 85: 791-800.
Pickering, C. M., W. Hill and K. Green (2008). "Vascular plant diversity and climate
change in the alpine zone of the Snowy Mountains, Australia." Biodiversity and
Conservation 17: 1627-1644.
Pickering, C. M., W. Hill, D. Newsome and Y. Leung (2010). "Comparing hiking,
mountain biking and horse riding impacts on vegetation and soils in Australia and the
United States of America." Journal of Environmental Management 91: 551-562.
Pickering, C. M. and A. Mount (2010). "Do tourists disperse weed seed? A global
review of unintentional human-mediated terrestrial seed dispersal on clothing, vehicles
and horses." Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18(2): 239-256.
Pickering, C. M., S. Rossi and A. Barros (2011). "Assessing the impacts of mountain
biking and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol."
Journal of Environmental Management 92: 3049-3057.
Pigram, J. J. and J. M. Jenkins (2006). Outdoor recreation management. Abingdon,
Routledge.
Pinheiro, J., D. Bates, S. DebRoy, D. Sarkar and R Development Core Team (2013).
nlme: Linear and Nonlinear mixed effects models R package version 3.1-108.
Poiani, K. A., B. D. Richter, M. G. Anderson and H. E. Richter (2000). "Biodiversity
conservation at multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes and networks." BioScience
5(2): 133-146.
Priskin, J. (2003a). "Characteristics and perceptions of coastal and wildflower nature-
based tourists in the Central Coast region of Western Australia." Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 11(6): 499-528.
Priskin, J. (2003b). "Tourist perceptions of degradation caused by coastal nature-based
recreation." Environmental Management 32(2): 189-204.
R Development Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. Vienna, Austria URL http://www.R-project.org/. R Foundation for Statistical
Computing.
Randall, M. and D. Newsome (2008). "Assessment, evaluation and a comparision of
planned and unplanned walk trails in coastal south-western Australia." Conservation
Science Western Australia 7(1): 19-34.
133
Rands, M. R., W. M. Adams, L. Bennun, S. H. Butchart, A. Clements, D. Coomes, A.
Entwistle, I. Hodge, V. Kapos, J. P. Scharlemann, W. J. Sutherland and B. Vira (2010).
"Biodiversity Conservation: challenges beyond 2010." Science 329: 1298-1303.
Ravlin, E. C. and B. M. Meglino (1987). "Effects of values on perceptions and decision
making: a study of alternative work values measures." Journal of Applied Psychology
72(4): 666-673.
Raymond, C. and G. Brown (2006). "A method for assessing protected area allocations
using a typology of landscape values." Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management 49(6): 797-812.
Reser, J. P. and J. M. Bentrupperbaumer (2005). "What and where are environmental
values? Assessing the impacts of current diversity of use of environmental and world
heritage values." Journal of Environmental Psychology 25: 125-146.
Reyers, B., S. Polasky, H. Tallis, H. A. Mooney and A. Larigauderie (2012). "Finding
common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services." BioScience 62(5): 503-507.
Robbins, S. and T. Judge (2009). Organizational behaviour thirteenth edition. New
Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall.
Robinson, L. W., N. Bennett, L. A. King and G. Murray (2012). ""We want our children
to grow up to see these animals:" values and protected areas governance in Canada,
Ghana and Tanzania." Human Ecology 40: 571-581.
Robinson, R., M. Luck and S. Smith (2013). Tourism. Boston, CABI.
Roggenbuck, J. W. (1992). Use of persuasion to reduce resource impacts and visitor
conflicts. Influencing human behavior: theory and application in recreation, tourism, and
natural resources management. M. J. Manfredo, Champaign III Sagamore Publications:
149-208.
Roggenbuck, J. W., D. R. Williams and A. E. Watson (1993). "Defining acceptable
conditions in wilderness." Environmental Management 17(2): 187-197.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York, Free Press.
Roovers, P., K. Verheyen, M. Hermy and H. Gulinck (2004). "Experimental trampling
and vegetation recovery in some forest and healthland communities." Applied
Vegetation Science 7: 111-118.
Ros, M., C. Garcia, T. Hernandez, M. Andres and A. Barja (2004). "Short-term effects
of human trampling on vegetation and soil mircobial activity." Communications in Soil
Science and Plant Analysis 35(11): 1591-1603.
134
Rusterholz, H., C. Verhoustraeten and B. Baur (2011). "Effects of long-term trampling
on the above-ground forest vegetation and soil seed bank at the base of limestone cliffs."
Environmental Management 48: 1024-1032.
Ryan, A. B. (2006). Post-positivist approaches to research. Researching and writing your
thesis: A guide for postgraduate students. M. Antonesa, H. Fallon, A. B. Ryanet al.
Maynooth, Ireland, MACE, National University of Ireland: 12-28.
SAG (2006). Recovery Plan of twelve threatened orchids in the Lofty block region of
South Australia. S. A. Government. Adelaide.
Shearer, B. L., C. E. Crane and A. Cochrane (2004). "Quantification of the susceptibility
of the native flora of the South-West Botanical Province, Western Australia, to
Phytophthora cinnamomi." Australian Journal of Botany 52: 435-443.
Shultis, J. D. and P. A. Way (2006). "Changing conceptions of protected areas and
conservation: linking conservation, ecological integrity and tourism management."
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14(3): 223-237.
Smith, A. and D. Newsome (2002). "An integrated approach to assessing, managing and
monitoring impacts in Warren National Park, Western Australia." Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 10: 343-359.
Smith, A. J., M. Tufflin, R. H. Taplin, S. A. Moore and J. Tonge (2014). "Visitor
segmentation for a park system using research and managerial judgement." Journal of
Ecotourism 13(2-3): 1-17.
Smyth, A.K. and C.D. James (2004). “Characterisitics of Australia’s rangelands and key
Design issues for monitoring biodiversity.” Austral Ecology 29:3-15.
Specht, R. L. and A. Specht (1999). Australian plant communties: dynamics of structure,
growth and biodiversity. Melbourne, Australia, Oxford University Press.
Spenceley, A. (2005). "Nature-based tourism and environmental sustainability in South
Africa." Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13(2): 136-170.
Stott, P. A., N. P. Gillertt, G. C. Hegerl, D. J. Karoly, D. A. Stone, X. Zhang and F.
Zwiers (2010). "Detection and attribution of climate change: a regional perspective."
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change 1: 192-211.
Sun, D. and M. J. Liddle (1991). "Field occurrence, recovery and simulated trampling
resistance and recovery of two grasses." Biological Conservation 57(2): 187-203.
Sun, D. and M. J. Liddle (1993a). "Plant morphological characterisitics and resistance to
simulated trampling." Environmental Management 17(4): 511-521.
135
Sun, D. and M. J. Liddle (1993b). "A survey of trampling effects on vegetation and soil
in eight tropical and subtropical sites." Environmental Management 17(4): 497-510.
Sun, D. and M. J. Liddle (1993c). "Trampling resistance, stem flexibility and leaf
strength in nine Australian grasses and herbs." Biological Conservation 65: 35-41.
Sun, D. and M. J. Liddle (1993d). "The morphological responses of some Australian
tussock grasses and the importance of tiller number in their resistance to trampling."
Biological Conservation 65: 43-49.
Swingland, I. R. (2001). Biodiversity, definitions of. Encyclopedia of biodiversity. S. A.
Levin. San Diego, Academic Press: 377-391.
Talbot, L. M., S. M. Turton and A. W. Graham (2003). "Trampling resistance of tropical
rainforest soils and vegetation in the Wet Tropics of North East Australia." Journal of
Environmental Management 69: 63-69.
Tanner-McAllister, S. L., J. R. Rhodes and M. Hocking (2014). "Community and park
manager's perceptions of protected area management: a Southeast Queensland Study."
Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 21(3): 320-336.
Tate, C. (2002). "The tourism potential of Acacia." Conservation Science Western
Australia 4(3): 158-160.
Thomson, C., G. Hall and G. Friend (1993). Mountains of Mystery: A Natural history of
the Stirling Range. Perth, Department of Conservation and Land Management.
Tonge, J. and S. A. Moore (2007). "Importance-satisfaction analysis for marine-park
hinterlands: A Western Australian case study." Tourism Management 28: 768-776.
Tonge, J., F. J. Valesini, S. A. Moore, L. E. Beckley and M. M. Ryan (2013). "The
relation between place attachment and management preferences of visitors at remote
coastal campsites in Western Australia." Visitor Studies 16(1): 39-58.
Torn, A., A. Tolvanen, Y. Norokorpi, R. Tervo and P. Siikamaki (2009). "Comparing
the impacts of hiking, skiing and horse riding on trail and vegetation in different types of
forest." Journal of Environmental Management 90: 1427-1434.
Tourism Research Australia (2013). Tourism Forecasts Spring 2013. T. R. Australia.
Canberra, Department of Industry.
Turton, S. M., T. Kluck and T. J. Day (2000). Ecological impacts of visitors at day use
and camping areas. Impacts of visitation and use: physiological and biophysical
windows on visitation and use in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. J. M.
Bentrupperbaumer and J. P. Reser, Cooperative Researcn Centre for Tropical Rainforest
Ecology and Management, Cains: 123-134.
136
TWA (2004). "Australia's South West Tourism Perspective." Retrieved 01.03.2005,
2005.
TWA (2005). Western Australian Wildflower Holiday Guide 2005. Perth, Tourism
Western Australia.
TWA (2011). Wildflower Holiday Guide Western Australia 2012. Perth, Tourism
Western Australia.
TWA and CALM (2010). Review of nature-based tourism. Perth, Western Australia.
Van der Duim, R. and J. Caalders (2002). "Biodiversity and tourism impacts and
interventions." Annals of Tourism Research 29(3): 743-761.
Van Oosterzee, P. (2000). "Ecotourism and biodiversity conservation two way track."
Pacific Conservation Biology 6: 89-95.
Van Riper, C. J., G. T. Kyle, S. G. Sutton, M. Barnes and B. C. Sherrouse (2012).
"Mapping outdoor recreationists' perceived social values for ecosystem services at
Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia." Applied Geography 35: 164-173.
Van Riper, C. J. and R. E. Manning (2010). "Perceived impacts of outdoor recreation on
the summit of Cascade Mountains, New York." Adirondack Journal of Environmental
Studies 16.
Van Riper, C. J., R. E. Manning, C. A. Monz and K. A. Goonan (2011). "Tradeoffs
among resource, social and managerial conditions on mountain summits of the Northern
Forest." Leisure Sciences 33: 228-249.
Vaughan, D. (2000). "Tourism and biodiversity a convergence of interests?"
International Affairs 76(2): 283-297.
Walden-Schreiner, C. and Y. Leung (2013). "Spatially characterizing visitor use and its
associaion with informal trails in Yosemite Valley Meadows." Environmental
Management 52: 163-178.
Walden-Schreiner, C., Y. Leung, T. Newburger and B. Woiderski (2012). "Developing
an accessible methodology for monitoring visitor use patterns in open landscapes of
Yosemite National Park." Park Science 29(1): 53-61.
Walsh, R. G., J. B. Loomis and R. A. Gillman (1984). "Valuing option, existence and
bequest demands for wilderness." Land Economics 60(1): 14-29.
Waltert, B., V. Wiemken, H. Rusterholz, T. Boller and B. Baur (2002). "Disturbance of
forest by trampling: effects on mycorrhizal roots of seedlings and mature trees of Fagus
sylatica." Plant and Soil 243: 143-154.
137
Watson, A. E., D. R. Williams, J. W. Roggenbuck and J. Daigle (1992). Visitor
characteristics and preferences for three national forest wildernesses in the south.
Research Paper INT-455. United States Department of Agriculture.
Watson, M., T. Iwamura and N. Butt (2013). "Mapping vulnerability and conservation
adaptation strategies under climate change." Nature Climate Change 3: 989-994.
Weaver, D. B. and L. Lawton (2010). Tourism Management fourth edition. Milton,
Queensland, Wiley Australia.
Whinam, J. and N. Chilcott (1999). "Impacts of trampling on alpine environments in
Central Tasmania." Journal of Environmental Management 57: 205-220.
Whinam, J. and N. Chilcott (2003). "Impacts after four years of experimental trampling
on alpine/sub-alpine environments in Western Tasmania." Journal of Environmental
Management 67: 339-351.
White, D. D., C. N. Hall and T. A. Farrell (2001). "Influence of ecological impacts and
other campsite characteristics on wilderness visitors' campsite choices." Journal of Park
and Recreation Administration 19(2): 83-97.
White, D. D., R. J. Virden and C. J. van Riper (2008). "Effects of place identity, place
dependence, and experience-use history on perceptions of recreation impacts in a natural
setting." Environmental Management 42: 647-657.
Williams, K. J., A. Ford, D. F. Rosauer, N. De Silva, R. A. Mittermeier, R. Bruce, F. W.
Larsen and C. Margules (2011). Forests of east Australia: the 35th biodiversity hotspot.
Biodiversity Hotspots. F. E. Zachos and J. C. Habel. New York, Springer: 295-310.
Wilson, K. A., R. L. Pressey, A. Newton, M. A. Burgman, H. P. Possingham and C.
Weston (2005). "Measuring and incorporating vulnerability into conservation planning."
Environmental Management 35(5): 527-543.
Wimpey, J. and J. L. Marion (2011). "A spatial exploration of informal trails networks
within Great Falls Park, WA." Journal of Environmental Management 92: 1012-1022.
Winter, C. (2005a). "The use of values to understand visitors to natural areas: a study of
campers on the Murray River." Journal of Tourism Studies 16(1): 38-47.
Winter, C. (2005b). "Preferences and values for forests and wetlands: a comparison of
farmers, environmentalists and the general public in Australia." Society and Natural
Resources 18: 541-555.
Winter, C. (2007). "The intrinsic, instrumental and spiritual values of natural area
visitors and the general public: a comparative study." Journal of Sustainable Tourism
15(6): 599-614.
138
Winter, C. and M. Lockwood (2004). "The Natural Area Value Scale: a new instrument
for measuring natural area values." Australasian Journal of Environmental Management
11: 11-20.
Winter, C. and M. Lockwood (2005). "A model for measuring natural area values and
park preferences." Environmental Conservation 32(3): 270-278.
Worboys, G. L., M. Lockwood and T. De Lacy (2005). Protected area management:
principles and practise. South Melbourne, Oxford University Press.
Worboys, G. L., M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary and I. Pulsford (2015). Protected
area governance and management. Canberra, ANU Press.
Yorks, T. P., N. E. West, R. J. Mueller and S. D. Warren (1997). "Toleration of traffic
by vegetation: life form conclusions and summary extracts from a comprehensive data
base." Environmental Management 21(1): 121-131.
139
Appendix 3.1
Morphological, anatomical and physiological characteristics of plant genera
dominating the vegetation community at LNP, FRNP and SRNP research locations
Genus present and dominant at study
sites Plant characteristics
Plan
t gen
us
LN
P
FR
NP
SR
NP
Shru
b life fo
rm
(morp
holo
gical)
Erect p
lant
(morp
holo
gical)
Woody stem
(anato
mical)
Slo
w g
row
ing
(physio
logical)
Hakea
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
Acacia
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
Eucalyptus
√ √ × √ √ √ √
Melaleuca
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
Leucopogon
√ √ √ √ √ √ √
Banksia
× √ √ √ √ √ √
Stylidium
× √ √ ×
(herb)
√ × √
Verticordia
× √ √ √ √ √ √
Sources: http://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au Accessed 03/03/14 (Beard 1990; Hopper and
Gioia 2004; Paczkowska and Chapman 2000)
140
Appendix 3.2
Photos taken at LE1, LE2, FE1 and SE1 before and after trampling for the
different number of passes (30,100,200 and 300/500 passes) in each treatment lane
LE1 LE1 Before trampling
LE1 After trampling
30
passes
100
passes
141
LE1 LE1 Before trampling
LE1 After trampling
200
passes
500
passes
142
LE2 LE2 Before trampling
LE2 After trampling
30
passes
100
passes
143
LE2 LE2 Before trampling
LE2 After trampling
200
passes
500
passes
144
FE1 FE1 Before trampling
FE1 After trampling
30
passes
100
passes
145
FE1 FE1 Before trampling
FE1 After trampling
200
passes
300
passes
146
SE1 SE1 Before trampling
SE1 After trampling
30
passes
100
passes
147
SE1 SE1 Before trampling
SE1 After trampling
200
passes
300
passes
148
Appendix 4.1
Visitor survey
Notes on survey
The font size of the original visitor survey has been reduced to fit in this
document. The original font size was 12 points
In regards to Question 5 which refers to the activities undertaken at the
Park, for Lesueur National Park and Stirling Range National Park the
survey did not include the water based activities listed (swimming,
fishing, diving/snorkeling, canoeing/kayaking, boating and
surfing/windsurfing).
Visitor Survey We value your feedback
Hello, The School of Environmental Science at Murdoch University, in cooperation with the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre, is conducting a survey of visitors to three national parks: Lesueur National Park, Fitzgerald River National Park and Stirling Range National Park. This visitor survey is part of an integrated study that is considering the interaction between tourism and biodiversity. Your feedback will make a valuable contribution in further understanding this interaction. Thank-you for taking the time to fill in this survey form. It should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. This is a purely voluntary survey and you can choose to not answer a question. Feedback on the survey can be obtained. Please complete your details on the feedback sheet, which can be obtained from me. Thankyou, Sally Mason School of Environmental Science Murdoch University South Street, Murdoch WA 6157 Phone: (08) 9360 6079; Email: [email protected] If you have any concerns regarding this survey, please contact Research Ethics Office at Murdoch University, ph. (08) 9360 6677
149
Part 1 – Your visit
1. Is this your first visit to the Park? (Please tick one answer)
Yes………. (Please go to Question 2)
No ……… (Please answer below)
If you answered No to the above question, please answer below, then go to Question 2:
a) What was the year of your first visit to the Park?
____________
b) Approximately how many times have you visited the park?
Number of visits: ____________
c) How many times did you visit the park last year?
Number of times last year: ____________
d) How many times per year, on average, do you
typically visit the Park?
Number of times per year: ____________
2. In total, how long do you intend to stay in the Park during this visit?
(Please tick [] one box only)
Less than half a day
Half a day to a day
1 night
2-3 nights
4-5 nights
Other (please specify): _______________________
3. What type of group are you visiting the park with? (Please tick [] the appropriate box or boxes if more than one applies)
By yourself
With friends
With spouse or partner
With family
With a club
With a tour group (please specify name): _________________________________
Other (please specify): _________________________________
4. How many people are in your group (including yourself)?
Number of people: ____________
150
5. What activities have you/do you intend to participate in during this
visit to the Park? (Please tick [] the appropriate box or boxes if more than one applies)
Appreciating nature & scenery
Viewing wildflowers
Viewing wildlife
Walking/hiking
Photography
Camping
Picnicking
Four wheel driving
Swimming
Fishing
Diving/Snorkelling
Canoeing/Kayaking
Boating
Surfing/Windsurfing
Other (please specify): _________________
Part 2 - Biodiversity
6. Are you familiar with the term biodiversity (Please tick [] the appropriate box)
Yes (please answer below) o No (go to question 7)
If you ticked “Yes” what does the term biodiversity mean to you? __________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
7. Please read the following definition of biodiversity: “Biodiversity means the variety of life. Biodiversity includes all living things and the environment of which they are part”
Is it important to conserve biodiversity? (Please tick [] the appropriate box)
Yes (please answer below)
No (go to question 8)
Don’t know (go to question 8) If you ticked “Yes” please explain why it is important to conserve biodiversity. ________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
8. In your opinion which of the following factor(s) contribute to the loss
of biodiversity in Western Australia (Please tick [] the appropriate box or boxes if more than one applies).
Clearing of large areas of native vegetation
Plant diseases (e.g. dieback)
Pastoralism
Introduced animals (e.g. rabbits, foxes)
Mineral exploration and mining
Weeds
Fishing
Salinity
Animal diseases
Human-induced climate change
Urban development
Tourism/Recreation
Other (please specify): ___________________
151
9. Please respond to each of the following statements about biodiversity. Please tick [] the box which best indicates your response.
Strongly disagree
Disagree Slightly disagree
Undecided Slightly agree
Agree Strongly agree
We have to protect biodiversity for humans in the future, even if it means reducing our standard of living today.
The value of biodiversity only depends on what it does for humans.
The value of biodiversity exists only in the human mind. Without people biodiversity has no value.
The only value that biodiversity has, is what humans can make from it.
Places like swamps have no value and should be cleaned up.
Ugliness in biodiversity indicates that an area has no value.
Only humans have intrinsic value – that is, value for their own sake.
Biodiversity areas are valuable to keep for future generations of humans.
I need to know that untouched areas of biodiversity exist.
I’m seeing areas of biodiversity that the next generation of children may not see, and that concerns me.
Even if I don’t go to biodiversity areas, I can enjoy them by looking at books or seeing films.
There are plenty of areas of biodiversity areas that are not very nice to visit but I’m glad they exist.
Forests are valuable because they produce timber, jobs and income for people.
To say that biodiversity has value just for itself is a nice idea but we just cannot afford to think that way: the welfare of people has to come first.
All plants’ and animals’ lives are precious and worth preserving but human needs are more important than all other beings.
Our children will be better off if we spend money on industry rather than on preserving biodiversity.
It is better to test new drugs on animals than on human
I don’t like industries such as mining destroying parts of biodiversity, but it is necessary for human survival.
Biodiversity areas are important to me because I use them for recreation.
Biodiversity areas must be protected because I might want to use them for recreation in the future
152
10. Which of the following have you observed at this National Park?
(Please tick [] as many boxes as apply)
Picking of plants
Small scale physical impacts (e.g. trampling of plants)
Presence of weeds
Evidence of plant disease (e.g. dieback)
Evidence of introduced animals (e.g. rabbits, foxes)
Wildlife being disturbed by humans
Land clearing as part of development
Pollution (e.g. litter)
Other (please specify): ________________________
11. Which of the following do you feel have the potential to affect the biodiversity of this national park, even if they have no obvious effect at
the present time (Please tick [] as many boxes as apply)?
Picking of plants
Small scale physical impacts (e.g. trampling of plants)
Presence of weeds
Evidence of plant disease (e.g. dieback)
Evidence of introduced animals (e.g. rabbits, foxes)
Wildlife being disturbed by humans
Land clearing as part of development
Pollution (e.g. litter)
Other (please specify): ________________________
12. Please indicate how you feel about each of the following National
Park management actions by ticking [] the appropriate box.
Possible management action
Strongly oppose
Oppose Neither support
nor oppose
Support Strongly support
Increase frequency of ranger visits
Provide more biodiversity information
Provide more minimum impact use information
Provide more display shelters
Provide self-guided walks with signs
Provide visitor centre
Improve walk trail conditions
Improve design of trails
Restrict pedestrian access to certain areas
Close areas for conservation of biodiversity
Charge entry fees
Other: please specify
153
13. Please look at the series of photographs (provided by the researcher) of changes in vegetation due to an increase in trampling.
Please tick [] the box which best indicates your opinion of whether it is an acceptable change or not.
Ve
ry A
cce
pta
ble
Acce
pta
ble
Slig
htly
Acce
pta
ble
Ne
ith
er
Slig
htly
Un
acce
pta
ble
Un
acce
pta
ble
Ve
ry
Un
acce
pta
ble
Photo 1 to Photo 2
Photo 3 to Photo 4
Photo 5 to Photo 6
Photo 7 to Photo 8
14. Please draw a diagram or symbol representing your idea of biodiversity or biological diversity below:
Part 3 – Information about yourself
15. Where do you usually live? (Please tick [] one box)
Local
Perth Metro Region
Other regional part of WA
Interstate (please specify): ________________
Overseas (please specify): ________________ Please enter your postcode: ________________
16. To which age group do you belong?
18-24
25-39
40-59
60 and over
17. Are you: (Please tick [] one box)
Male
Female 18. Which of the following best describes your highest level of
education (Please tick [] one box only)?
Primary school education
Secondary school education
Technical/TAFE education
Trade qualification
Higher education (university) Thank you for your time, your participation is greatly appreciated.
154
Appendix 4.2
Set of photographs used for Question 13 of the visitor survey at Fitzgerald River National Park
Photo 1: Original vegetation Photo 2: Changes due to trampling
155
Photo 3: Original vegetation Photo 4: Changes due to trampling
156
Photo 5: Original vegetation Photo 6: Changes due to trampling
157
Photo 7: Original vegetation Photo 8: Changes due to trampling
