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 HaiderSchool of Resource and Environmental ManagementSimon Fraser UniversityVancouver, Canada

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

The Origin: Carrying CapacityThe maximum level of use an area can sustain as determined by natural factors

XX11

YY11

YY22

XX22

Recreation useRecreation use

Re

sou

rce

and

so

cia

l im

pact

sR

eso

urc

e a

nd s

oci

al i

mpa

cts

AABB

With tourism / recreation, there is an ecological capacity, and a social capacity (the impact on visitor experiences) (Wagar, 1964)

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’

This leads to mgt frameworks, all of which contain This leads to mgt frameworks, all of which contain evaluative criteria and include societal valuesevaluative criteria and include societal values

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)

Visitor Management Frameworks

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

ROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

Classes (6)Mgt. factors(examples)

Primitive Semi-prim.Non-mot.

Semi-prim.Mot.

Semi-dev.natural

Developednatural

Highly developed

Very difficultVery difficult

DifficultDifficult

Moderately difficultModerately difficult

PhysicalPhysical

accessaccess

ROS - classesROS - classesEach class is defined with respect to a combination of setting characteristicsEach class is defined with respect to a combination of setting characteristics

Moderate regimentationModerate regimentation

Min. regimentationMin. regimentation

Strict regimentationStrict regimentation

Managerial

No regim.No regim.

ROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

No / few contactsNo / few contacts

Moderate contactsModerate contacts

Many contactsMany contacts

SocialSocial

encountersencounters

ROS - mapROS - mapROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM Product: a zoned landscape, based on established criteria

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 (> 15 acres) Small natural (< 15 acres) Facilities (e.g. baseball field)

ROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

The need for a more site-specific decision tool became The need for a more site-specific decision tool became obvious obvious

The LAC frameworkROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

1 – 1 – identify areasidentify areas of concern and issues of concern and issues

2 – define and describe management 2 – define and describe management objectives objectives

3 – select 3 – select indicatorsindicators of resource and of resource and social conditionssocial conditions

4 – 4 – inventoryinventory resource and social resource and social conditions conditions

5 – specify 5 – specify standardsstandards for resource and for resource and social conditions social conditions

6 – specify 6 – specify alternatives alternatives

7 – identify 7 – identify management actionsmanagement actions for for each alternative each alternative

8 – evaluate and 8 – evaluate and selectselect an alternative an alternative

9 – 9 – implementimplement actions and actions and monitormonitor conditionsconditions

In a participatory context

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

ROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

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

ROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

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

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

ROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

First application in Finland in protected areasFirst application in Finland in protected areas

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

ROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

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)

ROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

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

ROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

Tourism Optimisation Management Model

Market Opportu-nities

Experiential conditions

TOMM – indicators, evaluation and monitoringROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

Social condi-tions for resi-dents

TOMM – indicators, evaluation and monitoring

ROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

ROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

TOMM – indicators, evaluation and monitoring

VAMP Core: visitor activity profiles

Market research focus (connect a particular activity with the social and demographic characteristics of participants with the activity’s setting requirements and with trends affecting the activity)

E.g. cross-country skiingE.g. cross-country skiing- Recreation day-use skiing- Recreation day-use skiing- Fitness skiing- Fitness skiing- Competitive skiing- Competitive skiing- Backcountry skiingBackcountry skiing

Each specialization requires Each specialization requires different levels of service and has different levels of service and has different standardsdifferent standards

ROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

ROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

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)

ROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

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

** ** ***

after: Newsome et al, 2002Comparing the frameworksComparing the frameworksROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

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

ROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

GO AND EXPERIMENT WITH IT GO AND EXPERIMENT WITH IT

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)

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]

ROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

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

ROSROS

LACLAC

VAMPVAMP

VIMVIM

VERPVERP

TOMMTOMM

Thank You !