1. This document is contained within the Visitor Use Management Toolbox on Wilderness.net. Since other related resources found in this toolbox may be of interest, you can visit this toolbox by visiting the following URL: http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=toolbo xes&sec=vum. All toolboxes are products of the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center. http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=toolbo xes&sec=vum

2. Strategies for managing wilderness recreation: f or quality visitor experiences and minimal biophysical impact David N. Cole

3. Biophysical Impacts of Concern Recreation changes: - vegetation - soil - animals - water - facilities People leave behind - trash - human waste

4. Impacts of pack stock Pack stock cause similar, but more severe, impacts than hikers when traveling on and off trail. They cause unique impacts when confined and when allowed to graze

5. Strategies for managing biophysical impacts What factors determine magnitude of biophysical impact?

6. Frequency of use Compared magnitude of high, moderate and low use campsites in the Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon, 1979 Since then, studied campsites in diverse ecosystems types: Bob Marshall Wilderness (MT), Grand Canyon (AZ) and Delaware Water Gap (PA)

7. Frequency of use

8. Effect of frequency of use on impact has also been studied using experimental trampling studies

9. Type of use Backpacker sites Stock sites Disturbed area (m 2 ) 76456 Damaged trees (#) 556 Trees with exposed roots (#) 125 Relative cover, exotics (%) 543 Increase in mineral soil (%) 59 Vegetation cover loss (%) 2633 Seedling loss (%) 100 Campsites in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, MT, 1981

10. Type of use Compared the impacts of llamas, horses and hikers on established trails in Montana Measured sediment yield from trails after trampling and a simulated rainfall event

11. Type of use Erosion potential of horse traffic much greater than that of traffic by hikers or llamas

12. Type of use Horse trampling eliminated more vegetation cover than trampling by hikers or llamas

13. Type of use: Visitor behavior 1. Unnecessary impacts: can be eliminated 2. Impacts more severe with certain types of use 3. Inevitable impacts of use

14. Timing of use 1.Water-saturated soils 2.Snow 3.Time when animals are weak, vulnerable, movement requires extra effort… 4.Other?

15. Environmental durability

16. NOLS courses camped in previously undisturbed sites in two vegetation types - spruce-fir/grouse whortleberry - subalpine meadow Camped in groups of four - either one or four nights/year - up to three successive years Deschampsia meadow Forest with understory of Vaccinium scoparium

17. MeadowForest 1 night/year 4 nights/year 111122223333 Years of Camping

18. Recreation impacts are often highly localized

19. Strategies for managing impacts on visitor experiences What factors determine magnitude of impact to the visitor experience?

20. Relationship Between Number of Encounters And Solitude Achieved: Grand Canyon National Park

21. Visitor Behavior Makes A Difference

22. Type of Use Makes A Difference

23. Location Makes A Difference

24. Personal Characteristics Make A Difference People differ Trip motivations vary Expectations are important

25. Crowding is often highly localized

26. Strategies for managing recreation impacts FACTORSTRATEGY Frequency of useReduce use Type of useProhibit certain uses Visitor behaviorEncourage low impact practices Timing of useProhibit use at certain times Environmental conditionsModify location of use Environmental conditionsShield or harden site Personal characteristicsModify expectations Spatial use distributionConcentrate/disperse use Deal with the symptomsSite restoration

27. Considerations in selecting management strategies Likely effectiveness Possible side effects Administrative cost Cost to visitors –access –freedom and spontaneity –subtlety

28. Reduce use 1.Limit number of visitors (limited permits) 2.Limit length of stay. 3.Encourage use of some places; discourage use of others. 4.Require certain skills and/or equipment 5.Charge a visitor fee 6.Make access more difficult in some places or easier in other places 7.Provide/improve facilities in some places; remove them in other places

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

30. Permits Can Limit Use to the entire wilderness to particular trailheads (trailhead quotas) to particular zones to particular designated campsites Permits Can Be Allocated Through reservations first come, first served lottery

31. What is your experience with attempts to limit/reduce wilderness use?

32. Modify type of use 1.Confine users with high impact potential to portions of the wilderness -large groups, groups with stock… -particularly effective to prohibit/restrict them in places that are undisturbed, vulnerable and valuable (off-trail) 2. Prohibitions - no dogs - party size limits - no overnight use

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

34. Party size limits - Primary effect of party size limits in popular places in wilderness is to reduce campsite area. - Party size limits are most important for users with higher impact potential - Party size limits must be quite low (<10 at least) to have much ecological effect - Party size limits of most value in lightly used parts of wilderness where dispersal is being practiced - Impacts of larger groups can be minimized if group members spread out and break into small camping units. - Party size limits are inherently subjective - In many cases, rationale for limits is unclear and limits are often unfair

35. Modify Visitor Behavior

36. What is your experience with attempts to modify visitor behavior?

37. Visitor education HikersHorse Users Looked at messages on bulletin board (%) 7127 Time spent looking at messages (sec) 2214

38. Visitor education 2468 Looked at messages (%)53708085 Time spent (sec)9232526 Per-message attention (sec)4.55.74.23.3 Message retention (%)70644943 Number of messages on bulletin board

39. Visitor education Education is a “preventive” stewardship program and is very different from “responsive” visitor management actions Education is not likely to solve specific problems in short periods of time We need BOTH visitor education programs and responsive visitor management programs Educate visitors early and educate them everywhere, but when specific problems have been identified in specific places, implement actions that deal directly with these problems

40. Modify timing of use 1.Encourage use outside of peak use periods 2.Discourage use during times when impact potential is high soils are water-saturated animals are vulnerable

41. What is your experience with attempts to modify time of use?

42. Modify the location of use 1.Require the use of designated campsites located on durable locations 2.Encourage groups to hike and camp on durable surfaces 3.Prohibit hiking or camping in fragile locations

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

44. Modify the location of use Criteria for what constitutes a durable location varies with: management objectives type of use (large or small group, stock or foot) amount of use In popular areas, important criteria might be aesthetics, screening In more remote places, important criteria might be vegetation resistance and animal habitat

45. Hardening/shielding the resource Which is the greater evil in wilderness, built facilities or severe site impact?

46. Hardening/shielding the resource

48. What is your experience with attempts to shield/harden sites?

49. Modify visitor expectations What’s your experience

50. Dispersal vs. concentration of use Appropriateness of either depends on management objectives Dispersal: spreading use and impact over a large area - reduces frequency of use, increases the total area that is impacted and decreases the aggregation of impact Concentration: confining use and impact within a small area - increases frequency of use, decreases the total area that is impacted and increases the aggregation of impact

51. Dispersal vs. concentration of use Aggregate impact generally reduced by concentrating use within and among proximate sites

52. Dispersal vs. concentration of use Dispersal can be effective if: - use levels can be very low - ecosystems are resistant - visitors practice LNT

53. Dispersal vs. concentration of use Concentration becomes increasingly important as environmental fragility increases and as the impact potential of the user increases Off-trail travel is particularly destructive in areas of microbiotic crust Off-trail travel by large groups and groups traveling with stock is a particular concern

54. What is your experience with attempts to disperse or concentrate use?

55. Site restoration Trail restoration techniques are well- developed, effective and expensive Before After

56. Campsite restoration can be more problematic

57. Visitor use management at Grand Canyon National Park Limit use permits and fixed itineraries Length of stay is limited Visitor education—Leave No Trace Campfires prohibited Four management zones

58. Visitor use management at Grand Canyon National Park Transition Zone designated campsites located on long-established sites use concentration large group sites shielding—toilets, food hanging poles education—stay on trail restoration Primitive Zone at-large camping use dispersal education—good locations

59. Conclusions 1. Apply knowledge about factors that influence the magnitude of impact to developing a management program 2. Utilize multiple management strategies and consider zoning 3. Select management techniques that will be effective—then select those that are least costly to visitors 4. Monitor to assess the effectiveness of your management program

60. Useful sources of further information on managing biophysical impacts Newsome, D., S. A. Moore, and R. K. Dowling 2002. Natural Area Tourism: Ecology, Impacts, and Management. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Books. Hendee, J. C. and C. P. Dawson. 2002. Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of Resources and Values. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. Leung, Y. and J. L. Marion. 2000. Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: a state-of-knowledge review. In: Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5: 23-48. Hammitt, W. E. and D. N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management (Second Edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Knight R. L. and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. Washington, DC: Island Press. Liddle, M. J. 1997. Recreation Ecology: The Ecological Impact of Outdoor Recreation and Ecotourism. London, UK: Chapman & Hall. Buckley, R. 2004. Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.