WolfgangHaiderPresentation OPENspace Research Centre by dominic.cecilia

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 28

									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
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 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)
Resource and social impacts




                                                 A
                                                     B

                              Y2

                              Y1



                                     X1 X2

                                    Recreation use
    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
      evaluative criteria and include societal values
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)
ROS    The ROS – main features
        Acknowledges the diversity of recreation
LAC      opportunities
        The 3 key components of recreation mgt. are
          Setting (opportunity)
VIM       Activity
          Experience
      6 land classes
VERP
      A tool for landscape / regional recreation
       planning (~ zoning)
TOMM  Occasionally used as a research framework


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


VIM                       Very difficult
       Physical
                                           Difficult
       access
                                                                    Moderately difficult
VERP                   Strict regimentation
                                     Moderate regimentation
        Managerial
                                                       Min. regimentation
TOMM
                                                                                    No regim.

                           No / few contacts
VAMP   Social
                                            Moderate contacts
       encounters                                                             Many contacts
ROS
       ROS - map

LAC


VIM


VERP


TOMM        Product: a zoned landscape,
            based on established criteria

VAMP
ROS    The ROS – discussion

LAC     Suitability for EU
             Additional challenge of large scale homogenous landscapes
             Classes are too coarse
             Most of EU lacks the remote end of the spectrum
VIM          The generic concept itself might be useful
                e.g. TOS (Tourism Opportunity Spectrum)
                if access criterion is differentiated much more subtly
VERP
        Similar problem has been recognized in the US:
           ROS now for private land in NE-US
              The class “HIGHLY DEVELOPED” has been split into:
TOMM                Large natural (> 15 acres)
                    Small natural (< 15 acres)
                    Facilities (e.g. baseball field)
VAMP
                  The need for a more site-specific decision tool became
                  obvious
ROS    The LAC framework
       1 – identify areas of concern and issues
LAC    2 – define and describe management
       objectives
       3 – select indicators of resource and
VIM    social conditions
       4 – inventory resource and social
       conditions
VERP   5 – specify standards for resource and
       social conditions
       6 – specify alternatives
TOMM
       7 – identify management actions for
       each alternative
       8 – evaluate and select an alternative     In a
VAMP
       9 – implement actions and monitor          participatory
       conditions                                 context
ROS    Indicators           (Measures of resource or social
       conditions)

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



VAMP
ROS    Standards         (A level beyond which change
       is unacceptable)
         Standards may vary between opportunity classes
LAC       (ROS) or other zoning / regions
         May reflect existing conditions or future targets
         Monitoring and evaluation provide means for revision
VIM       and improvement

        Indicator               Standard
VERP
        Number of encounters No more than 1 [6] encounter
        with other parties   with another party per day

TOMM    People at one time at   No more than 20 people on a 50m
        selected sites          section of trail

VAMP    Exposed tree roots      No more than 4 trees per target
                                campsite
ROS    LAC – discussion
       Suitability for Europe
        Positive arguments
LAC        Adequate attention towards management of biophysical and
            social conditions
           Included monitoring of resource conditions and effectiveness
            of management actions
VIM        Allows zoning as means of protecting pristine qualities
           Good trackability and explicitness of protected areas decision
            making
           Encourages innovative approaches to citizen participation
VERP
        Critical arguments
           There are cost associated with adapting such a general fw
TOMM       Lack of attention to experiential knowledge
           Compartmentalization of functions
           Pragmatism vs. rigid framework (much planning in EU
            seems to follow the LAC logic intuitively)
VAMP       Ability to react timely to newly arising problems

                 First application in Finland in protected areas
ROS    VIM
         Very similar to LAC - built specifically for
LAC       the US Parks Service
            More prescriptive, management oriented
            lack of participation
VIM
         No successful implementations
         the original publication (1990) contains
            a good ‘catalogue’ of impacts
VERP
            a good ‘catalogue’ of inventorying and monitoring tools



TOMM     Suitability for Europe
            Suitable if public participation is not an issue
            Catalogues as background

VAMP
ROS    VERP
         Very similar to LAC - built specifically for the US
LAC       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
VIM          for the most part more formal)
                  Scoping comments
                  Comments on EA and EIS (Environmental Impact Statements)
                  General comments
                  Stay involved (web-site, superintendent)
VERP        Standards set for zones within the park, or for special sites
            5 applications

TOMM     Suitability for Europe
            Suitable for single purpose agencies (i.e. protected areas)


VAMP
ROS    TOMM – main features

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

TOMM

               Tourism Optimisation Management Model
VAMP
       TOMM – indicators, evaluation and
ROS    monitoring
       Market
       Opportu-
LAC    nities




VIM


VERP   Experienti
       al
       conditions


TOMM


VAMP
ROS    TOMM – indicators, evaluation and
       monitoring
LAC

       Social
VIM    condi-
       tions
       for
       resi-
VERP   dents



TOMM


VAMP
ROS    TOMM – indicators, evaluation and
       monitoring
LAC


VIM


VERP


TOMM


VAMP
ROS    VAMP
         Core: visitor activity profiles
LAC          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)
VIM


        E.g. cross-country skiing
VERP        - Recreation day-use skiing
            - Fitness skiing
            - Competitive skiing
            - Backcountry skiing
TOMM
             Each specialization requires
            different levels of service and has
VAMP        different standards
ROS


LAC


VIM


VERP


TOMM


VAMP
ROS    VAMP

LAC
         To develop a national position regarding
          an activity
VIM      Influence on criteria selected for
          Appropriate Activity Assessment (AAA)
VERP     Attempt to tie the framework to already
          established processes of Parks Canada
          during the dual mandate eara
TOMM     No successful implementation (despite
          occasional other claims)
VAMP
ROS    Comparing the frameworks                              after: Newsome et al, 2002


       Evaluative criteria          ROS   LAC   VIM   VERP   TOMM VAMP

       Suitable for regional        ***    *          ***       ***            ***
LAC    planning (multiple
       areas)
       Provides info on                    **   ***    **       ***
       impacts of visitor use
VIM    needed for mgt
       Makes explicit provision           ***          **       ***
       for inclusion of
VERP   stakeholders
       Responsibility /                    **   **              ***
       discretion for action left
       to managers
TOMM   Readily integrated with      **     *     *     **         *              **
       other forms of planning
       (e.g. mgt. or tourism
       plans)
VAMP
       Results in a                        **   **              ***
       publishable, stand-
       alone document
ROS    Summary
        Over past 2 decades, agencies in North
LAC      America have experimented with several
         different recreation mgt processes
VIM     The LAC concept has proven to be a [the
         most] successful concept / formula
          Very generic  flexible
VERP      Participatory (by coincidence rather than design)
          VERP - adaptation to specific agency requirements
          TOMM - adaptation to different use / culture /
TOMM       administrative setting
          Mostly on site-specific and local scales, except when
           linked with another framework, e.g. ROS)

VAMP    ROS – a framework for large scale
                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)
ROS    Suggestions
        When thinking about adopting and adapting any of
         the visitor mgt frameworks, one should consider the
LAC      following
           Planning is a process, not necessarily a product
               Challenge: keep it as process; avoid that it slips into rigid
                format of application (cookbook)
VIM        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
VERP           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
TOMM        yet well developed
           Rethink the frameworks from the current knowledge base
            (mgt sciences, social sciences)
               [see next slide]
VAMP
ROS    Opportunities & Challenges
        Be cognizant of the culture (paradigm)
LAC      driving these frameworks
             Training of future managers and researchers
             Create an international publication platform for
VIM           exchange and dissemination of ideas
             Rethink these positions periodically
             Adopt the concept of ‘adaptive management’
VERP
        Particular challenges for research, e.g.
             If the desire is to “make trade-offs and values
              explicit”
TOMM             Use state-of-the-art research methods (decision
                  analysis, multivariate trade-off methods)
             Data capturing and analysis
VAMP             Operate both deductively and inductively
Thank You !
ank You !

								
To top