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. A B Y2 Resource and social impacts Y1 X2 X1 Recreation use 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. This leads to mgt frameworks, all of which contain evaluative criteria and include societal values 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. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP 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 LAC VIM Very difficult Physical access Difficult Moderately difficult VERP Strict regimentation Moderate regimentation Managerial TOMM Min. regimentation No regim. No / few contacts VAMP Social encounters Moderate contacts Many contacts ROS - classes Each class is defined with respect to a combination of setting characteristics

8. Product: a zoned landscape, based on established criteria ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP ROS - map

9. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP The need for a more site-specific decision tool became obvious 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)

10. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM In a participatory context VAMP 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. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP 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. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP 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

13. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP First application in Finland in protected areas 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. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP 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. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP 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. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP Tourism Optimisation Management Model 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. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP TOMM – indicators, evaluation and monitoring Market Opportu-nities Experiential conditions

18. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP TOMM – indicators, evaluation and monitoring Social condi-tions for resi-dents

19. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP TOMM – indicators, evaluation and monitoring

20. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP 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 skiing • - Recreation day-use skiing • - Fitness skiing • - Competitive skiing • Backcountry skiing •  Each specialization requires different levels of service and has different standards

21. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP

22. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP 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. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP Comparing the frameworks after: Newsome et al, 2002

24. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP GO AND EXPERIMENT WITH IT 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. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP 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. ROS LAC VIM VERP TOMM VAMP 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 !