Jul 1, 1999 - outdoor recreation activities and natural settings present to one another. .... recreational-vehicle use in many locations (Andereck, 1995).
Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resource Management: An Uneasy Alliance By Alan W. Ewert, Ph.D. July 1999 Volume 39 Number 2
Minimum impact. Leave no trace. Take only photographs, leave only footprints. Low-impact camping. These have become commonplace in our lexicon of outdoor recreation. They symbolize the belief that individuals and groups can avoid or minimize the impact on wildlands and other natural areas by using specific techniques and equipment. Also implicit is the underlying reality that outdoor recreation activities such as backpacking, mountain-biking, camping, and horseback riding are inherently dependent upon natural and relatively pristine landscapes. In a deeper sense these beliefs speak to the profound interdependence that outdoor recreation activities and natural settings present to one another. We Are Outdoors People In 1987, the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors suggested that more than 80 percent of the population thought of themselves as "outdoors people" (PCAO, 1987). While no one knows for certain what this 80 percent means, the number of visitors to natural settings is staggering. For example, it is estimated that 75 percent of all Americans ages 16 and older participate in some form of outdoor recreation (ORCA, 1995). The Roper Starch survey of 1994 found that two-thirds of Americans participate in some form of outdoor recreation. And an estimated 94.5 percent of the population reported participating in an outdoor recreation activity at least once in the last 12 months (Cordell et al., 1999). Factors that will positively influence future participation include increasing incomes, mobility, and technology, while the aging of the population and diminished accessibility to public lands will fashion a drop. And although numbers of participants and types of participation in outdoor recreation will fluctuate, participation will generally follow an upward trend (Marcin, 1993; Zinser, 1995). More people enjoying more recreational activities in natural environments spells potential problems from the perspective of natural resource management. And one of the primary trouble spots in this picture will appear in the area of impacts to natural settings. Understanding Resource Impacts Before discussing the impact that outdoor recreationists leave on natural landscapes, several principles should be mentioned.
·
Impacts are multidimensional. While we often simply think of
·
· ·
impact as the trampling of vegetation, or soil erosion on trails, impacts -- and their effects -- can vary in both magnitude (macrovs. micro-level impacts) and persistence. In addition, species can be resilient or resistant to change. Use creates impact. Despite our best educational efforts, people directly and indirectly affect the environment when they visit natural areas for the purpose of outdoor recreation. Direct impacts, immediate results of visitor behavior, include soil compaction and littering. Indirect impacts are more insidious and accumulative, and include the displacement of wildlife, pollution from campfires, and the ecological "cost" of traveling to and from an outdoor recreation site. Use impacts are time-critical. In most situations the majority of use impact, particularly as it relates to impacts from recreation use, occurs in the early stages of use. This is often referred to as the asymptotic curve (Fig. 1). Type of recreational activities. In most cases, the type of activity is just as critical as the number of users. For example, managers of backcountry wildland areas looking to reduce impact would most likely ban open fires and horses.
Using these principles as a basis for understanding the relationship between resource impacts and recreation use, let's briefly examine some of the effects that outdoor recreation has on some selected specific natural resources. Wildlife recreational activities involving wildlife can be clustered into three categories: fishing, hunting, and nonconsumptive wildlife activities (wildlife viewing or photography). A 1997 study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service revealed the following:
· · ·
While the absolute number of anglers and hunters has dropped slightly between 1991 and '96, the overall expenditures have significantly increased. Similarly, expenditures for trips and wildlife-watching equipment have increased by 21 percent, although the overall number of participants has dropped 17 percent. The number and length of fishing and hunting days have significantly increased.
There are four mechanisms by which outdoor recreationists affect wildlife: habitat alteration, disturbance, pollution or the introduction of foreign materials into an animal's environment (plastic beer-can rings), and the actual harvesting of wildlife (fishing or hunting). As depicted in Table 1, these four types of impacts can wage both immediate and long-term effects on wildlife. These impacts may result in changes in behavior (garbage bears), reduced reproductive rates, changes in species composition (increased number of nonrattling rattlesnakes), reduction in species populations or ranges (American bison), or the actual extinction of a species (passenger pigeon).
Vegetation Vegetation can be classified into three general layers: ground cover, shrubs and saplings, and mature trees (Hammitt & Cole, 1998). Ground cover is particularly susceptible to damage from trampling, soil compaction, abrasion and breakage, or loss of organic material. Shrubs are exposed to abrasion and breakage, loss of vigor, or actual removal. And mature trees are most often damaged through mechanical impacts, abrasion of outer layers through stock use, and reduction in tree regeneration. The overall result of these impacts to vegetation is multidimensional and, in part, is dependent upon the resistance and resilience of individual species. Other more indirect impacts from recreational use include reduced plant vigor and reproduction, changes in species composition, amount of vegetation, and overall vegetative health. In addition, impact characteristics for vegetation also follow the asymptotic curve. Impact on Air and Water Quality Although comparatively the cumulative impact of recreational use on air quality tends to be rather insignificant, the concern currently directed at acid rain, ozone depletion, global climate change, and the relationship between human health and air pollution has increased the sensitivity toward all sources of air quality. Moreover, while air pollution from recreational endeavors is usually a relatively localized problem, it can be quite consequential in certain areas. Examples of localized impacts include Yosemite National Park and its campfire smoke issue, degraded visibility through "haze" in many national and provincial parks (Flores, 1998), and increased air pollution through recreational-vehicle use in many locations (Andereck, 1995). Many other phenomena, including increased acidity and toxicity levels in surrounding water and soil, decreased aesthetics from reduced visibility, and decreased plant vigor and growth from increased levels of pollution, can serve a detrimental impact on the recreational experience. Recreational pursuits affect water quality in a number of ways including bacterial contamination from activities such as swimming and wading (Wenger, 1984), nutrient enrichment (fertilizer runoff from golf courses), increased turbidity from walking or driving in streambeds, and temperature and flow alteration. In the latter case, water temperature and flow rates often rise as streams are "channelized" (Castillon, 1992) and overlying vegetation is removed to reduce boating hazards. In addition, with the increased use of personal watercraft, the impact on aquatic resources is yet to be measured. Implications for Practice Several trends are conspiring to increase the effect that outdoor
recreation has on the natural setting. First, it seems clear that outdoor recreational activities will continue to grow in popularity. Second, technology and information, through outlets such as the media, guidebooks, and guide services, will serve to increase the "reach" that participants will exert on natural settings. That is, more people will be reaching more remote, inaccessible areas with the help of technology and increased information. Moreover, the lack of a discernable "land ethic" within our society will serve to exacerbate this problem Given these issues, what can parks and recreation professionals do to mitigate the impacts of recreational use on wildlands and other natural landscapes? First, it is axiomatic that the recreation profession has a vast disposal of techniques, tactics, and strategies at its disposal. In general, these techniques and strategies can be clustered into three components: visitor management, site management, and information management (Table 2). When used properly, these tools can be powerful forces for mitigating the negative aspects of recreation in natural areas. Second, despite this arsenal of strategies, techniques, and tactics, recreation professionals need to recognize that a growing body of academics, scientists, and resource managers equates recreation use of natural areas with timber harvesting, mining, and other extractive services (Oelschlaeger, 1995). This position stems from the belief (much of it true) that outdoor recreation use has resulted in a significant deterioration of our natural landscapes and this trend shows no sign of reversing. Thus, for many, recreation represents a suite of activities that often results in a diminished ecosystem, damaged resources, and diminution of the natural resource base. From the perspective of the recreation professional, we cannot assume that outdoor recreation will automatically be supported or even encouraged by land management agencies and environmental groups. Perhaps a better approach would be to explore the relationship between outdoor recreation and fostering among the public the development of a sense of stewardship regarding the natural environment. Some people suggest that our natural landscapes are being turned into theme parks, areas that are manicured, highly manipulated, and increasingly regimented. While the fun and excitement still exists, the understanding of where and how these environments fit into the larger mosaic of our natural environment is missing. Thus, much of the public may view the natural landscape as a place to enjoy and experience pleasure without the juxtaposed responsibilities of understanding and safeguarding its resources.
As a profession dedicated to serving the public through the provision of recreation and leisure experiences, we must come to grips with several natural resource realities that are intruding upon the well-being of our citizens.
· · ·
The current rate of resource use and habitat destruction is unsustainable for any reasonable future scenario. This fact also includes the likelihood of exceeding the carrying capacity for a growing list of recreational areas and landscapes. Moving toward greater sustainability for the future will mean doing things differently. In outdoor recreation, this may mean banning recreational activities that create a significant impact on our natural resources. Addressing these issues does not require more research. The problem lies in providing political and professional willpower, which must come from the organizations that represent the recreation profession.
The role that the recreation profession will play in addressing these issues is critical in helping formulate public support and understanding. The decisions that the recreation profession makes concerning these natural resource issues remain to be seen. Third, and interwoven with the first two points, is the position that the recreation profession will take regarding the proper use of natural landscapes for recreation. What are appropriate outdoor recreational activities, and what types of activities should the profession not condone? Many authors and scholars have suggested that the most appropriate recreational activities are those that preserve the biological integrity of the area (Leopold, 1949) or promote self-sufficiency among recreationists (Dustin, McAvoy & Beck, 1986). The most appropriate use aside, it is perhaps the interface between the natural environment and the recreational experience where the most profound implications for recreation and natural resources are found. Of all the different types of recreational activities currently available to the public, it is outdoor recreation that usually brings people into the most direct contact with the natural environment. Within the recreation milieu, the outdoor recreation experience is the perfect opportunity with which to raise the public's awareness regarding the impact it precipitates upon our natural resources and the role these natural landscapes play upon our overall lives. Thus, the recreation profession faces at least three salient implications in the interaction between outdoor recreation and natural resource management. Included among these implications is the fact that while recreation and parks professionals are able to control the impact of
recreation use on natural landscapes, a number of professionals and scientists from other disciplines believe that activities should be severely restricted or eliminated from many areas. How the profession will deal with this issue remain to be determined. Finally, it has been said that outdoor recreation's most important contribution is the direct interaction provided between the participant and the natural environment. Ultimately, this direct interaction may result in the development of a greater sense of stewardship. Perhaps in the long run, recreation and park management's ultimate goal will be that of a heightened sense of personal responsibility. References Andereck, K. 1995. "Environmental consequences of tourism: A review of recent research." In S. McCool and A. Watson, Linking Tourism, the Environment, and Sustainability: 77-81. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-323. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Cordell, H.K. 1999. Outdoor recreation in American life: A national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, Ill.: Sagamore Publishing. Dustin, D., L. McAvoy, L., and L. Beck. 1986. "Promoting recreationist self-sufficiency." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 4 (4): 43-52. Flores, M. 1998. "Improving air quality at Big Bend National Park: An international challenge." In N. Munro and J. Willison (eds.), Linking Protected Areas with Working Landscapes Conserving Biodiversity: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas, May 1997. University of Calgary: 395-413. Wolfville, Nova Scotia: Science and Management of Protected Areas Association. Hammitt, W., and D. Cole. 1998. Wildland recreation: Ecology and management. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Knight, R., and D. Cole. 1995. "Wildlife responses to recreationists." In R. Knight and K. Gutzwiller (eds.), Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research: 51-69. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Leopold, A. 1966. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press. Marcin, T.C. 1993. "Demographic change: Implications for forest management." Journal of Forestry (November): 39-45.
Oelschlaeger, M. 1995. "Taking the land ethic outdoors: Its implications for recreation." In R. Knight and K.Gutzwiller (eds.), Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research: 335-50. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. PCAO. 1987. The report of the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors: The Legacy, The Challenge. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Wenger, K., ed. 1984. Forestry Handbook (2nd Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, Washington, D.C. Zinser, C.I. 1995. Outdoor recreation: United States National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Table 1. Recreationists' Impacts to Wildlife Habitat Alteration
· ·
Disturbance/ Harassment
· · · · · · ·
Crowding Feeding of "game Photography trails" Sheltering Changes in Seeking-out habitat result in nests/feeding areas changes in Car impacts wildlife Snowmobile/biking Destruction impacts of Presence of feeding/nesting humans and pets areas Altered water/soil chemistry Loss of sheltering sites
· · ·
Pollution
· · · ·
Plastic Oil/petroleum products Foreign material used by wildlife for food Increased sedimentation
Harvesting
· · · · · · · ·
Collecting Hunting Trapping Fishing Market Subsistence Recreational
Loss of prey or predator species
Table 2. Techniques and Strategies for Mitigating Negative Impacts from Outdoor Recreation Visitor Management
Site Management
Information Management
Monitoring and assessment of visitors and visitor use Length-of-visit restrictions Distribution of use Concentration of use Type-of-use restrictions Rationing techniques Lottery First come, first served Reservation Merit Pricing Group-size limits Seasonal/local conditions regulations
Monitoring and assessment of selected sites and locations Placement of use on selected locations Closures (permanent or temporary) of location or specific activities Site hardening and shielding Propagation of resilient species of vegetation Campfire management Rehabilitation of sites Spatial/barrier influences on use or type of use
Media outreach Radio/television Newspapers Public announcements Education and training Visitor assessment and briefings Visitor information Type of communication Use of incentives or potential punishment Highly specific and explicit information Use of adjuncts to communicate the message
· · · · ·
· · · · · ·
Return to Table of Contents
