Visitor management frameworks in North America

1
Visitor management frameworks in North America

• COST Action E33
• Forests for Recreation and Nature Tourism
  (FORREC)
• 2nd Management Committee meeting WGs meeting
  Workshop in Edinburgh, Scotland 31 Oct. 2
  Nov., 2004
• Wolfgang Haider
• School of Resource and Environmental Management
• Simon Fraser University
• Vancouver, Canada

2
Goals of presentation

• To briefly present the major North American
  visitor management frameworks for forest
  recreation and protected areas
• To briefly evaluate them
• To initiate a discussion of their relevance and
  applicability in Europe

3
The Origin Carrying Capacity
The maximum level of use an area can sustain as
determined by natural factors
With tourism / recreation, there is an ecological
capacity, and a social capacity (the impact on
visitor experiences) (Wagar, 1964)
4
Carrying Capacity - Limitations

• Impacts on biological and physical resources do
  not help establish carrying capacity
• Different recreation/tourism experiences have
  different carrying capacity
• There is no strong cause-and-effect relationship
  between amount of use and impacts
• Carrying capacity is a product of value
  judgements
• There is NO magic number
• INSTEAD, IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT
• With visitor use, change is inevitable
• The question revolves around acceptable change
• Management approaches depend on objectives

5
Visitor Management Frameworks
1979 ROS (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum)
1985 - LAC (Limits of Acceptable Change)
1985 VAMP (Visitor Activity Management Process)
1990 VIM (Visitor Impact Management)
1993 VERP (Visitor Experience Resource
Protection)
1996 TOMM (Tourism Optimisation Management
Model)
6
The ROS main features

• Acknowledges the diversity of recreation
  opportunities
• The 3 key components of recreation mgt. are
• Setting (opportunity)
• Activity
• Experience
• 6 land classes
• A tool for landscape / regional recreation
  planning ( zoning)
• Occasionally used as a research framework

7
ROS - classes
Each class is defined with respect to a
combination of setting characteristics
Classes (6) Mgt. factors (examples) Primitive Semi-prim. Non-mot. Semi-prim. Mot. Semi-dev. natural Developed natural Highly developed
8
ROS - map
9
The ROS discussion

• Suitability for EU
• Additional challenge of large scale homogenous
  landscapes
• Classes are too coarse
• Most of EU lacks the remote end of the spectrum
• The generic concept itself might be useful
• e.g. TOS (Tourism Opportunity Spectrum)
• if access criterion is differentiated much more
  subtly
• Similar problem has been recognized in the US
• ROS now for private land in NE-US
• The class HIGHLY DEVELOPED has been split into
• Large natural (gt 15 acres)
• Small natural (lt 15 acres)
• Facilities (e.g. baseball field)

10
The LAC framework
1 identify areas of concern and issues 2
define and describe management objectives 3
select indicators of resource and social
conditions 4 inventory resource and social
conditions 5 specify standards for resource
and social conditions 6 specify alternatives
7 identify management actions for each
alternative 8 evaluate and select an
alternative 9 implement actions and monitor
conditions
11
Indicators (Measures of resource or social
conditions)

• Should be measured cost-effectively and
  accurately
• Should reflect some relationship to the
  amount/type of use occurring
• Should be related to user concerns (social
  indicators)
• Must be responsive to management control
• Examples
• Water quality
• Soil compaction
• Vegetation cover
• Number of encounters

12
Standards (A level beyond which change is
unacceptable)

• Standards may vary between opportunity classes
  (ROS) or other zoning / regions
• May reflect existing conditions or future targets
• Monitoring and evaluation provide means for
  revision and improvement

Indicator Standard
Number of encounters with other parties People at one time at selected sites Exposed tree roots No more than 1 6 encounter with another party per day No more than 20 people on a 50m section of trail No more than 4 trees per target campsite
13
LAC discussion

• Suitability for Europe
• Positive arguments
• Adequate attention towards management of
  biophysical and social conditions
• Included monitoring of resource conditions and
  effectiveness of management actions
• Allows zoning as means of protecting pristine
  qualities
• Good trackability and explicitness of protected
  areas decision making
• Encourages innovative approaches to citizen
  participation
• Critical arguments
• There are cost associated with adapting such a
  general fw
• Lack of attention to experiential knowledge
• Compartmentalization of functions
• Pragmatism vs. rigid framework (much planning in
  EU seems to follow the LAC logic intuitively)
• Ability to react timely to newly arising problems

14
VIM

• Very similar to LAC - built specifically for the
  US Parks Service
• More prescriptive, management oriented
• lack of participation
• No successful implementations
• the original publication (1990) contains
• a good catalogue of impacts
• a good catalogue of inventorying and monitoring
  tools
• Suitability for Europe
• Suitable if public participation is not an issue
• Catalogues as background

15
VERP

• Very similar to LAC - built specifically for the
  US Parks Service
• Attempt to make the framework useful and
  efficient for an organization with single purpose
  and mandate
• Includes crucial components of public
  participation (remain for the most part more
  formal)
• Scoping comments
• Comments on EA and EIS (Environmental Impact
  Statements)
• General comments
• Stay involved (web-site, superintendent)
• Standards set for zones within the park, or for
  special sites
• 5 applications
• Suitability for Europe
• Suitable for single purpose agencies (i.e.
  protected areas)

16
TOMM main features

• Very similar to LAC, with focus on overcoming
  lack of stakeholder support for LAC and VIM in
  Australia
• The term impact and limits are perceived as
  discouraging growth by tourism businesses
• Narrow focus on condition of physical environment
  and visitor experience
• Adapt to tourism needs

17
TOMM indicators, evaluation and monitoring
Market Opportu-nities
Experiential conditions
18
TOMM indicators, evaluation and monitoring
Social condi-tions for resi-dents
19
TOMM indicators, evaluation and monitoring
20
VAMP

• Core visitor activity profiles
• Market research focus (connect a particular
  activity with the social and demographic
  characteristics of participants with the
  activitys setting requirements and with trends
  affecting the activity)

• E.g. cross-country skiing
• - Recreation day-use skiing
• - Fitness skiing
• - Competitive skiing
• Backcountry skiing
• ? Each specialization requires different levels
  of service and has different standards

21
(No Transcript)
22
VAMP

• To develop a national position regarding an
  activity
• Influence on criteria selected for Appropriate
  Activity Assessment (AAA)
• Attempt to tie the framework to already
  established processes of Parks Canada during the
  dual mandate eara
• No successful implementation (despite occasional
  other claims)

23
Comparing the frameworks
after Newsome et al, 2002
Evaluative criteria ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP
Suitable for regional planning (multiple areas)
Provides info on impacts of visitor use needed for mgt
Makes explicit provision for inclusion of stakeholders
Responsibility / discretion for action left to managers
Readily integrated with other forms of planning (e.g. mgt. or tourism plans)
Results in a publishable, stand-alone document
24
Summary

• Over past 2 decades, agencies in North America
  have experimented with several different
  recreation mgt processes
• The LAC concept has proven to be a the most
  successful concept / formula
• Very generic ? flexible
• Participatory (by coincidence rather than design)
• VERP - adaptation to specific agency
  requirements
• TOMM - adaptation to different use / culture /
  administrative setting
• Mostly on site-specific and local scales, except
  when linked with another framework, e.g. ROS)
• ROS a framework for large scale

25
Other North American trends in recreation and
landuse management

• Ecosystem (based) management serves as new mgt.
  paradigm for most land and/or recreation mgt.
  agencies
• Established mgt frameworks are frequently
  subordinated to it
• Introduces the concept of adaptive mgt.
  (purposeful research)
• Human use management (Parks Canada)
• Ecological Integrity Panel (1999)
• National Parks Act (2000)
• A new process to deal with ALL human uses in a
  National Park (i.e. Banff NP)
• DOES NOT USE ANY OF THE ESTABLISHED FRAMEWORKS
• Appears to be problem-oriented
• Land and Resource Management Planning (BC)
• example for participatory planning on a large
  regional scale (24 mgt units across the province)

26
Suggestions

• When thinking about adopting and adapting any of
  the visitor mgt frameworks, one should consider
  the following
• Planning is a process, not necessarily a product
• Challenge keep it as process avoid that it
  slips into rigid format of application (cookbook)
• Planning is a political process in a politicized
  setting
• Grounding the process in legislation is critical
• Understanding the institutional context for LAC
  processes is fundamental to planning and
  implementation
• Requires adaptation to European / national /
  regional situations
• Defending decisions requires a trackable/traceable
  process
• Learning is an important objective in the LAC
  process but not yet well developed
• Rethink the frameworks from the current knowledge
  base (mgt sciences, social sciences)
• see next slide

27
Opportunities Challenges

• Be cognizant of the culture (paradigm) driving
  these frameworks
• Training of future managers and researchers
• Create an international publication platform for
  exchange and dissemination of ideas
• Rethink these positions periodically
• Adopt the concept of adaptive management
• Particular challenges for research, e.g.
• If the desire is to make trade-offs and values
  explicit
• Use state-of-the-art research methods (decision
  analysis, multivariate trade-off methods)
• Data capturing and analysis
• Operate both deductively and inductively

28
Thank You !