selected issues facing bc parks: report to the bc protected areas
TRANSCRIPT
Selected Issues Facing BC Parks: Report to the BC Protected Areas
Research Forum
A report by students in the
ORTM 305: Parks Planning and Management class
Edited by Dr. John Shultis
Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Management Program
University of Northern British Columbia
December 1, 2006
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
i
Table of Contents Preface ii
Chapter 1
Appropriate and Ethical Ecological Restoration in BC Parks …………………………… 1 VANESSA REEVES Chapter 2
The Power of Interpretation …………………………………………………………........ 17 REBECCA BAINES Chapter 3
Shifting Tides: The Marine Protected Areas System in British Columbia ……..………... 29 ADAM LEAVITT
Chapter 4
Managing Mountain Pine Beetle in BC Parks …………………………………………… 43 SARA SUNDIN Chapter 5
Sustainable Tourism and BC Parks ………………………………………………………. 53 SHANNON DAVIES Chapter 6
Recreation Conflict Management in Parks and Protected Areas …………………………. 66 RHONA DULAY Chapter 7
Mechanized Use in BC’s Protected Areas ………………………………………………… 79 JAMES KOTAI
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
ii
Preface
There are no shortages of serious issues facing protected areas around the globe. Some of
these issues are based on local and regional issues and characteristics, but many of the problems facing global protected area systems seem to arise out of national and international issues and trends. While protected areas enjoy a high level of support in Western nations, obtaining adequate funding and political support seems to be a ubiquitous issue. On one hand, most park systems are struggling to properly manage the land and water base due to the lack of funding and associated problems such a slack of scientific capacity and backlogs of maintenance. On the other hand, many parks and park systems are also being forced to deal with issues related to visitor use: crowding, carrying capacity issues, recreation conflicts and displacement are some of the most important issues facing park managers related to visitor management. Managers are also struggling with an inadequate understanding of the ecological and social characteristics of these areas, and attempting to deal with unpredictable external threats (e.g., climate change, beetle infestations).
One approach to dealing with this combination of inadequate funding and capacity and ecological and social impacts has been for parks to look outside their agencies for assistance in dealing with these issues. In British Columbia, the first BC Protected Areas Research Forum, held in December 2006, is the first province-wide attempt to create better and stronger partnerships between park administrators, managers, advocates, academics and other interested stakeholders.
Given this forum, and the increased need for partnerships, it seemed worthwhile for students in the ORTM 305 (Parks Planning and Management) course in the Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Management Program at the University of Northern British Columbia to provide their perspectives on the research needed in BC’s protected areas. These students were not asked to identify the most significant issue facing BC Parks, but rather – given the sheer number of important issues that need to be addressed - to identify the issue that interested them the most, and review the literature and situation in BC of that issue. Vanessa Reeves chose to review the ethical and practical issues in ecological restoration in BC Parks. Rebecca Baines addressed the lack of interpretation in BC Parks, and calls for the re-establishment of interpretation to address the many management issues faced by BC Parks. Adam Leavitt notes the lack of progress made by BC and Canada in creating marine parks, and calls for an increased effort towards marine parks within BC Parks. Sara Sundin, an exchange student from Sweden, addresses the thorny issue of the beetle infestation, and how BC Parks should address this issue. Shannon Davies examines the role of so-called ‘sustainable tourism’ in BC Parks: is it a saviour or a threat? Rhona Dulay examined the issue of recreation conflict, recommending that BC Parks take a more participatory approach to deal with this issue. Finally, James Kotai examined the impacts of mechanized use within protected areas, and also suggests a more participatory, pro-active approach to this issue.
Students had a very short timeline with which to provide feedback on these selected issue, and had to juggle completing these reports with other numerous other course assignments. In editing these chapters, I used a ‘light hand’ in order to ensure that the students’ voices remained in the forefront of the text. All errors and omission are the editors.
On behalf of the students in the ORTM 305: Parks Planning and Management class at UNBC, I would like to dedicate this collection of essays to the precious settings and experiences one can only find in protected areas.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
1
Chapter 1
Appropriate and Ethical Ecological Restoration in BC Parks
Vanessa Reeves
Executive Summary
We are continuously looking for some sort of solution to the problem of environmental
degradation. In recent times restoration has been hailed by environmentalists, governments, and
resource managers as an important potential solution. A hands-off management style is the
preferred approach in parks; however, there is increased recognition that pressures on parks are
debilitating natural processes. There is mention in the literature that the values of preservation
and restoration may be different. As restoration activities are starting to occur in protected areas,
it is important to determine what types of activities are appropriate and ethical.
Ecological terminology is discussed as it is now generally accepted that terms like
‘nature’, ‘ecological health’, and ‘ecological integrity’ are cultural constructs. Problems are
created when these terms are used as scientific terms to describe goals of, or to justify
conducting restoration projects.
An overview of the debate on the ethics of ecological restoration is provided. Although
most researchers offer support for restoration, many admit that there are reasons to be concerned
about it. Many advocate for public and stakeholder involvement in decisions on restoration due
to the subjective nature of these decisions. Brunson (2000) offers a way of using the Limits of
Acceptable Change (LAC) model to aid restoration decisions. Also, the importance of
considering spatial, temporal, and organizational scale in restoration strategies is discussed.
In conclusion, restoration guidelines exist for British Columbia but do not offer
suggestions for parks specifically. However, the guidelines do provide a comprehensive
restoration framework and it is recommended that B.C. Parks follow them while amending who
the key stakeholders are for parks. It is also recommended that B.C. Parks develop a general
policy on restoration and review section 22 of the Park Act to determine if this type of
restoration is ethical. B.C. Parks should develop a code of ethics for restoration activities in
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
2
provincial parks, and restoration projects should use adaptive management techniques. It is also
mended that ecosystem management plans that describe restoration activities be developed for
individual zones in parks. Also, volunteer participation should be included in projects where it is
deemed appropriate.
1.0 Overview
Increasingly it seems that natural areas are confronted by pressures of overpopulation,
human technology, etc. We are continuously looking for some sort of solution to the problem of
environmental degradation. Although ecological restoration is not a new practice, in recent times
it has been hailed by environmentalists, governments, and resource managers as an important
potential solution. With the increase in restoration activities on the landscape in general,
concerns have grown over what is to be restored, who should be making decisions, and when and
how activities should be carried out.
A review of the discussion on the ethics of restoration is important to parks. In the
literature, there are suggestions that the values of restoration and preservation are different
(Light, 2000). The arguments against restoration show support for preserving areas in their
natural state because of the irreplaceable value that ‘true’ nature holds. In the past, parks and
protected area management has complemented this view. Parks adopted a laissez-faire
management style with the belief that natural processes should occur with little or no
management. Although this is still the preferred approach, there is increased recognition that
both internal and external pressures on parks, in the past and present, are debilitating natural
processes. There is greater acceptance that human intervention may sometimes be necessary to
preserve ecological integrity. Restoration projects have been and continue to be conducted in
many parks in B.C.
1.1 Ecological Restoration
Ecological Restoration is its own sub-field now with a Society for Ecological Restoration
(SER) (founded 18 years ago) and journals dedicated to the topic such as Ecological Restoration
and Restoration Ecology (Davis and Slobodkin, 2004). A great deal of the literature is concerned
with specific applications to determine what does and doesn’t work in certain ecosystems or with
specific species. There is also an extensive amount of literature on the philosophy and ethics of
the subject. This is largely the focus of this paper.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
3
The SER (2004, p. 3) primer states that “[e]cological restoration is the process of
assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed”. “An
ecosystem has recovered - and is restored – when it contains sufficient biotic and abiotic
resources to continue its development without further assistance or subsidy” (SER, 2004, p. 3). It
also states that the ecosystem is self-sustaining and resilient to normal ranges of stress and
disturbance.
Dizard (2003) notes that restoration was historically small-scale projects, such as patches
of land. Now that we have realized the importance of ecosystem functions, restoration is
increasingly occurring at large, landscape levels.
1.2 Terminology
Hull and Robertson (2000) point out that environmental decision makers rely on the
terminology to be “precise and valid…[and] powerful and fair” (p.97). They state that
terminology is used by policy analysts to set goals, by scientists to describe nature that did, does,
or could exist, and by the public to imagine possible and acceptable conditions of environmental
quality (Hull and Robertson, 2000). The meaning of “nature” is often discussed in the literature
(Gunn, 1995; Katz, 2000; Helford, 2000; Light, 2002). Hull and Robertson (2000) also discuss
the issues around using the terms “naturalness”, “ecological integrity”, and “ecological health”.
These terms are often used to describe ecological goals of, or to justify conducting restoration
projects (Hull and Robertson, 2000). This is a problem as many researchers agree that the
meanings of these terms are cultural constructs and predominantly value judgments (Hull and
Robertson, 2000; Light, 2002; Helford, 2000).
1.3 Arguments against Restoration
The main arguments against restoration have come from Katz and Elliott. A large part of
Katz’s (2000) argument is based on the value of nature that cannot be replicated by humans. He
calls restored areas “artifacts” that should not be confused with true nature. He suggests that it’s
important to distinguish between artificial and true nature since we tend to evaluate different
kinds of entities differently (Katz, 2000). He uses the analogy of a ballet choreographer to
demonstrate his point. He states that a ballet by the original choreographer is viewed differently
than when it’s done by another ballet choreographer; even greater differences are noted if the
ballet is choreographed by a rock-show choreographer (Katz, 2000). He says this is due to the
presence of human intentionality: “Living natural entities and systems of entities evolve to fill
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
4
ecological niches in the biosphere; they are not designed to meet human needs or interests” (p.
175). Katz disputes Krieger’s opinion that artificial nature is acceptable. Technology creates an
“artifactual reality that is removed from the ‘wildness’ of nature” (p. 172). Technology “cannot
supply, replace, or restore the ‘wild’”. He suggests that restoration is a further domination of
nature as the natural entities are not permitted to follow their own course of action due to human
interference (Katz, 1992).
Katz (2000, p. 38) discusses “the importance of origin, historical continuity and authenticity
for a proper evaluation of artifacts and natural processes”. He suggests that nature has no original
artist or designer; if humans intervene, nature is no longer authentic and it breaks the origin and
continuity of the area. Hargrove(no date, quoted in Katz, 1992, p. 174): “Nature is not simply a
collection of natural objects; it is a process that progressively transforms those objects….When
we admire nature, we also admire that history”. Katz discusses Elliott’s comparison of restored
environment to an art forgery: “even a perfect copy loses the value of the original artwork”
(Katz, 1992, p. 174); “even a technologically perfect reproduction of a natural area is not
equivalent to the original” (Katz, 1992, p. 174). If restored environments are “adequate
replacements” for natural environments then there are no moral consequences to use, degrade
and destroy nature and then replace it.
Katz has been criticized as advocating humans as separate from nature. He replied to the
criticism, stating that he believes in a range of natural to artificial entities and does not support a
complete dualism of humanity and nature. He gives the example of a wooden chair being more
natural than a plastic chair, although neither could be created by nature alone (Katz, 2000).
1.4 Arguments in Favor of Ecological Restoration
The majority of researchers suggest support for restoration in general, and a great number
of researchers refute Katz’s arguments (Ladkin, 2005; Light, 2002). However, most researchers
also suggest some concerns that are similar to Katz and advocate responsible and ethical
restorative practices.
It has been suggested that restoration does not have to control nature, but when done well it
can assist and act in concert with nature (Jordan, 2000; Light, 2002). Jordan (2000) suggests that
restoration is agriculture in reverse: that is, relinquishing control to let nature be. “Restoration
need not determine exactly what grows in a certain place, but may in fact simply be the act of
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
5
allowing nature to again pursue its own interests rather than shackling it to perpetual human-
induced trauma” (Light, 2002, p. 181).
Light (2002) suggests that even if we cannot reproduce nature in Katz’s sense of the word,
we may still have the moral obligation to “try” to restore it. He suggests that: “even if we agree
with Katz that humans cannot really restore nature, it does not follow that they ought not to
engage in restoration projects which actually repair the damage caused by past domination rather
than furthering that domination” (Light, 2002, p. 182). Ladkin (2005, p. 214) believes that nature
can in its own time recover from degradation, but non-action is irresponsible where human
disruption is so “out-of-keeping with nature’s own processes” such as strip-mines or piles of
human rubbish. He gives the example of wolf re-introduction to Yosemite National Park. After
re-introduction they found endangered plants were thriving in some areas where deer now felt
vulnerable to wolf attacks. Ladkin (2005) suggests the wolves might have eventually returned to
Yosemite, but points out that many of the plants may have gone extinct in the meantime.
Sylvan (1994, cited in Katz, 1992) suggests that not all restoration is artificial since nature
can restore itself over time. Light (2002) suggests two kinds of restoration: benevolent, which is
restoring to rectify a harm, and malevolent, which is justifying destruction since nature can
always be restored to full value. Light (2002) states that the malicious restorations are only
worrisome if they are defended, which he says most environmentalists are unlikely to do. In
response to the argument that restoration restricts the self-realization of nature, Light (2002)
argues that we cannot know what natural self-realization would be in any particular case. He
continues to argue that if we could acquire such knowledge, acceptance of humans helping to
make it happen would be logical.
2.0 Current State of Knowledge
2.1 Overview
The literature suggests that there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about ecological
restoration. Some researchers admit that it can and has been used in the past to undermine
preservation and conservation initiatives (Jordan, 2000; Higgs, 2003). Higgs (2003) also
mentions that we may be overconfident in what we expect to achieve with restoration. There are
some important suggestions in the literature as to how restoration should be conducted to make it
more appropriate and ethical.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
6
2.2 A Public Ecology
There is increasing discussion in the literature on the importance of involving the public
in restoration and management decisions (Brunson, 2000; Jordan, 2000; Light, 2002; Hull and
Robertson, 2000). Higgs (2005) suggests that neither ecology nor culture should trump the other.
He warns against relying on cultural values for decision making at the expense of what he calls
“ecological verities” (p.162): “[A]ny model of ecological restoration that embodies cultural
awareness misses the significance of true wilderness” (Higgs, 2005, p.162). However, as
discussed earlier, many researchers agree that ecological terms such as nature and ecological
integrity are cultural constructs. Davis and Slobodkin (2004) suggest restorationists often use
terms such as restoring ecosystem health to justify their goals; however, labeling an ecosystem as
‘healthy’ is a value-based and not a scientific assessment. Hull and Robertson (2000) suggest
terminology should not be allowed to conceal values or scientific uncertainty: “A public ecology
is about creating a language that is accessible enough to support both broad participation and
meaningful deliberation in environmental decision making” (Hull and Robertson, 2000, p. 113).
In regards to the debate over who the experts are, Higgs (2005) agrees that only scientists
are considered “experts”. He suggests that both scientific and local knowledge need to be
incorporated for restoration to be successful. Restoration must continuously negotiate between
science and other forms of knowledge. The problem with scientific information is that it “tends
to reify nature, which is to take an abstraction and make it seem real” (p.162). Restorationists
need to be well rounded people who are trained in technical and scientific knowledge, but also
social, philosophical and economical aspects of the environment as well (Higgs, 2005). Higgs
(2005) also states the importance of developing a program of ecological restoration that
successfully applies an integrative approach.
There is discussion about when social aspects should appear in the restoration process.
Davis and Slobodkin (2004) suggest that defining objectives and values is primarily value-based
and ecological considerations should not be discussed until implementation. However,
Winterhalder, Clewell, and Aronson (2004) feel that expert scientific opinion is necessary in
selecting goals that will be realistic, effective, and attainable. Also decisions about restoration
can only wisely be made if stakeholders have clear ideas of the ecologically, economically and
socially tenable goals and objectives. Helford (2000, p.138) shows agreement for including both
ecology and culture from the beginning by stating: “Certainly, we must have criteria to
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
7
determine the best course for the management of public natural areas, but we must carefully
reflect on the ways in which these criteria are determined and the meaning they may have for
those beyond the circle of experts who create them”. Douglas (2002) also advocates for
including public involvement as early as possible.
2.3 Limits of Acceptable Change
Brunson (2000) relates restoration to the limits of acceptable change model that includes
a range of natural to non-natural environments. As parks and park managers are very familiar
with this management model, this may be a useful way of applying restoration in parks and
protected areas. This model is also useful for restoration in general as it recognizes that nature
and culture are not separate but blur together along a continuum (Brunson, 2000).
The LAC is based on recreational use of natural areas which automatically causes some
amount of degradation (Brunson, 2000). The different settings along the continuum dictate how
much anthropogenic change is allowed to occur in each setting. Brunson (2000, p. 240) states
that, “in the case of ecological restoration, there may be neither a statute that sets the goals nor a
history of scientific expertise on which to base decisions about where to draw the line between
nature and culture”. Brunson (2000) advocates for the involvement of the public and other
stakeholders in discussions on the type of restoration that is appropriate.
Brunson (2000) suggests that the LAC model helps us to decide what type of restorative
technique to use. He states that an issue such as restoring a mosaic of seral stages might be best
done through silvicultural practices; however, these would not fit with areas where natural
processes are supposed to continue without human intervention. Brunson (2000) suggests that
techniques such as prescribed burning might be more socially acceptable in areas that are more
strictly natural. It is thought that such a rationale could be incorporated into park zones to dictate
what level and/or type of restoration is appropriate in each zone.
2.4 Importance of Scale
Hull and Robertson (2000) write that knowledge must apply at multiple scales: spatial,
temporal, and organizational. “The decision about what scale to manage is not a given but must
be negotiated, and the scale that is selected will influence the desired outcomes of the project”
(Hull and Robertson, 2000, p. 111). Restoration should reflect scales that are relevant to specific
management cases. Studies of single species over short time periods in a small site ignore too
much information, but studies at large spatial scales over long periods may be too general or not
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
8
detailed enough to aid management decisions (Hull and Robertson, 2000). Therefore, studies
should include both site specific and larger scale data: “management decisions require
information not only about the site at hand, but also about trade-offs among many potential
species, located at multiple sites, over decades of periodic anthropogenic disturbances” (Hull and
Robertson, 2000, p.111).
Restorationists must determine which previous natural state to restore an area to as nature
is constantly changing. There is a big difference between the state of the environment 10,000
years ago and 1,000 years ago. Williams and Patterson (1996) would call this a “wicked
problem” as there is no technical solution; the perceptions and values of all the stakeholders must
be discussed and balanced to reach a solution. Cairns Jr. (2002) implies the importance of
looking at the present temporal scale as well. He states that well-meaning restoration may
displace species that are best able to tolerate anthropogenic stress.
3.0 Restoration in B.C.
3.1 Overview
SER B.C. (2004) suggests that restoration in the province is no longer only conducted
after degradation, but is starting to be a part of resource management and development. Recently,
it has focused on a number of key areas: restoring high impact urban and urban fringe areas,
restoring the carrying capacity of watersheds through instream, riparian, and slope stabilization
projects, restoring habitat and ecosystem functions in managed forests, restoring fire where it had
a historical role in maintaining the ecosystem, and restoring highly degraded ecosystems such as
mine tailings piles.
3.2 Guidelines for B.C.
Guidelines have been established for ecological restoration in B.C. (Douglas, 2002). The
guidelines are not specific to parks but they provide an excellent framework for B.C. Parks to
work with. The guidelines can help B.C. Parks in planning through to monitoring and evaluating
the implementation of specific restoration activities. The guidelines also lay out aquatic and
terrestrial restoration priorities for the province. These priorities have been determined for all the
biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification subzones of B.C. It is important that B.C. Parks looks to
these priorities before carrying out a specific restorative activity to be sure that there aren’t
higher priorities that are being overlooked.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
9
One area where the guidelines may need to have more specific suggestions for parks is
with stakeholder involvement. The guidelines state that “early stakeholder and public
involvement” contribute to project success; however, the local community is not considered a
key player in the planning process. For parks, the local community plays a bigger role than it
does on other crown or private land. Not only do they reside in the area but locals often make up
a large percent of visitors to parks. Since they are visiting and recreating in the area, they are
more likely to be aware of and affected by restoration projects. It then follows that in the case of
parks, visitor’s perceptions of restoration are also important.
To the author’s knowledge, no studies have looked at public perceptions of restoration in
general in parks. Although this may be useful information for park managers, the literature
suggests that perceptions may differ among projects due to the specific characteristic values the
area holds and the type of restoration. Therefore, it makes sense for managers to gauge
perceptions in relation to specific restoration projects.
3.3 Restoration in B.C. Parks
To the knowledge of the author, there is no comprehensive collection of restoration
projects that are being conducted in B.C. Parks. Projects may be discussed in ecosystem
management plans for specific parks such as the Mount Robson Ecosystem Management Plan
(B.A. Blackwell and Associates, Ltd. et al., 2001). Some parks even have restoration plans such
as the Dionisio Point Provincial Park Restoration Plan (Gaylor, Scholz, and Erickson, 2002).
Activities largely involve prescribed burns to restore landscape characteristics such as in Mount
Robson (B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd. and Compass Resource Management, 2005), or to
restore specific ecosystem such as the grassland ecosystem at Kikomun Creek Provincial Park
(Cale, 1999). Some parks work at restoring certain ecosystems such as planting pine grass plugs
at Wasa Lake Provincial Park to restore the grassland ecosystem (Cale, 1999). Some parks are
working on removing plant species to restore habitats. Miskelly (no date) tried to remove
Douglas Fir trees from Helliwell Provincial Park to re-establish grassland habitat for Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly. Kikomun Creek Provincial Park is encouraging harvest for medicinal use
of the non-native plant, St. John’s Wort (Cale, 1999).
Restoration is acknowledged in B.C. Park policies although it is scattered and pertains to
specific types of restoration rather than being a general policy on restoration. It is stated that
prescribed burning is an accepted restoration tool (B.C. Parks Conservation Program Policies,
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
10
1997). Policies are also described in relation to vegetation, tree removal, and wildlife. Others that
have mentions of restoration include cultural heritage, research, inventory, and monitoring, and
geologic management (B.C. Parks Conservation Program Policies, 1997). Marine park
components do not mention restoration in any way (B.C. Parks Conservation Program Policies,
1997). Other protected areas are practicing unstocking lakes, as in Mount Rainier National Park
in the United States (FRESC, 2003); therefore, restoration in marine environments may have
importance and should have some sort of policy associated with it. A more comprehensive policy
in relation to restoration is recommended.
The only time restoration is mentioned in the B.C. Park Act is in Section 22 in relation to
use permits. The act states that the person a permit is issued to may be required to pay a sum of
money that will cover restoration or repair of the area after its use (Park Act, 1996). This section
should be looked at to determine if it’s a malevolent form of restoration; that is, using the
promise of restoration to justify damaging types of use.
4.0 Recommendations
4.1 Overview
Since restoration as it pertains specifically to parks and protected areas has not generally
been studied, with the exception of urban parks, the research does not offer recommendations
that are specific to parks. However, many of the recommendations they offer can be relevant to
protected areas. The author suggests that restoration in park settings may offer ethical challenges
that are not present in other settings, such as the belief that these areas should be free of human
intervention. Therefore, it is suggested that future research on restoration that is specific to park
settings is important.
4.2 Professionalization and Standardization
Carpenter et al. (2006) suggest the need for professionalization of restoration. The
development of a code of ethics that will guide restorationists has also been suggested
(Carpenter, et al., 2006; Beier, 2005, cited in Dickinson et al., 2006). Carpenter et al. (2006) and
Dickinson et al. (2006) discuss the results of a 2002 survey, by Vidra, of members of the Society
for Ecological Restoration International (SERI). The survey found that more than half of the
respondents reported facing ethical issues while practicing restoration (Dickinson et al., 2006).
Carpenter et al. (2006) report that 79.3 % of respondents thought a code of ethics was needed
and 84.4% said they would sign such a code. Dickinson (2006) quotes Beier in relation to the
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
11
numerous constraints and pressures a restorationist must face: “the impulse to behave ethically is
sometimes stated simply as ‘[doing] the right thing,’ but all too often there are conflicting right
things to be done”. Furthermore, Harris, Birch and Palmer (1996, p. 225) mention the need for
developing “coherent and testable professional standards for both ecosystem restoration
practitioners and for ecosystem targets”.
Parks should stay up to date on the work of the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER)
and other researchers to follow discussions on the possible establishment of a code of ethics for
restorationists. Whether or not a code of ethics is developed by the SER, B.C. Parks should look
at developing its own code of ethics as there may exist some differences for ethics of restoration
in parks.
4.3 Adaptive Management
Adaptive management is not a new concept to natural resource and environmental
management. It involves taking action based on the best available knowledge and learning more
along the way through monitoring and evaluation. New understanding will be applied to a new
version of the plan. Hull and Robertson (2000) and Douglas (2002) promote adaptive
management in restoration due to recognition that the body of environmental knowledge will
never be perfect or complete.
4.4 Park Zoning
Park zoning is a useful tool for determining the types of activities that are appropriate in
different areas of parks. Brunson (2000) suggests that the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC)
framework can be used to guide what types of restoration are appropriate across a range of urban
to natural settings. This framework could help parks to determine which types of restoration
would fit into parks and park zones. However, Light (2000) warns against too much regulation of
restoration activities which restricts a democratic process. He suggests that discussion and
participation of issues and projects should be encouraged as opposed to setting standards and
specific definitions. Presqu’ile Provincial Park in Ontario provides a compromise. It establishes
resource management plans that guide maintenance or restoration of natural environments for
individual park zones (Ontario Parks, 2000). Therefore, the appropriateness of restoration can
still be compared with the guidelines set out in park zoning without restricting discussion and
participation of the specific issue. Ecosystem management plans are used in B.C. as well but are
not developed for individual zones.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
12
4.5 Volunteers
Volunteers in restoration projects are mentioned often in the literature (Higgs, 2003,
Light, 2002; Jordan, 2000; Vining et al., 2000). Some researchers suggest that restoration is not
so much about restoring nature, but rather restoring a relationship with nature (Jordan, 2000;
Light, 2002). This seems evident from the many reported benefits volunteers get from
participating in restoration. Volunteers tend to be very dedicated and get a lot out of the projects.
Restoration tends to make them feel that they are apart of something more meaningful (Ladkin,
2005). It also helps them to learn about the earth and feel more connected to it (Jordan, 2000;
Vining et al., 2000).
5.0 Conclusion
Guidelines for restoration in B.C. in general exist and provide a comprehensive
framework that B.C. Parks can use to develop restoration projects. It is recommended that the
guidelines be amended for parks to include the public and park visitors as key stakeholders in
plan development. Restoration projects and policies of B.C. Parks are scattered and should be
made more coherent. It is recommended that a general policy on restoration in B.C. Parks be
developed. Legislation pertaining to restoration in section 22 of the Park Act should also be
reviewed to determine if it is a malevolent form of restoration.
B.C. Parks should stay up to date on the work of the SER in regards to developing a code
of ethics. They should also look to establishing their own code of ethics as park issues may differ
from those of restoration in general. Adaptive management is not a new management approach
for parks, but it is the recommended approach to managing restoration in parks. Park zoning may
be utilized as a method of determining what types of restoration are appropriate throughout a
park boundary. In order to avoid establishing strict restoration guidelines or standards but
keeping with the guidelines provided for in park zones, ecosystem management plans that
include restoration activities should be developed for individual zones. As suggested in the
literature, both parks and volunteers can benefit from volunteer participation in restoration
projects. It may not always be feasible to utilize unskilled volunteers, such as in prescribed fire
control; however, there are circumstances where their help can be of benefit to both the park and
the volunteers themselves, such as harvesting non-native plants or planting native species.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
13
References
B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd. and Compass Resource Management. (2005). Forest Health
Strategy for Mount Robson Provincial Park. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.
B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd., Keystone Wildlife Research, Laing and McCulloch Forest
Management Services, Oikos Ecological Services Ltd., Phero Tech Inc., and Hugh
Hamilton Ltd. (2001). Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan.
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Parks Division. Retrieved November 24,
2006, from
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/conserve/occ_paper/number_6_mt_robson_ecosystem
_mgmt_plan/occ_paper6_mt_robson_ecosystem_mgmt_plan.pdf
B.C. Parks (no date). Mountain Pine Beetle and Provincial Protected Areas: Frequently Asked
Questions. BC Parks. Retrieved November 14, 2006, from
http://www.elp.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/conserve/pine_beetle/pine_beetle.html
B.C. Parks Conservation Program Policies. (1997). B.C. Parks Conservation Management
Program. Retrieved November 15, 2006, from
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/conserve/consprog.html
Cairns Jr., J. (2002). Rationale for restoration. In Perrow, M.R., and Davy, A.J. Handbook of
Ecological Restoration (Vol. 1): Principles of restoration. New York, U.S.A.: Cambridge
University Press.
Cale, I. (1999). Kootenay District – 1998 Highlights. B.C. Parks Newsletter: Visions, 10(1), p.5.
Retrieved November 24, 2006 from
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/publications/visions/visions_feb99.pdf
Carpenter, A., Finley, E., Gao, Y., Lin, C., Nuding, A., Shaheen, P., Stewart, L., Sun, X.,
Taranto, M., Tilley, A., Waggoner, L., Xu, H., and Vidra, R.L. (2006). Developing a code
of ethics for restorationists. Ecological Restoration, 24(2), 105-108.
Daigle, J.-M. and Havinga, D. (1996). Restoring Nature’s Place: A guide to naturalizing Ontario
parks and greenspace. Ontario, Canada: Ecological Outlook Consulting and Ontario
Parks Association.
Davis, M.A. and Slobodkin, L.B. (2004). The science and values of restoration ecology.
Restoration Ecology, 12(1), 1-3.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
14
Dickinson, W., Ferreyra, J., Imbesi, K.L., Shyam, J., Kingsolver, C., Klein, E., Lessios, N., Ng,
A., Stamp, T., White, K., Xu, D., and Vidra, R.L. (2006). The ethical challenges faced by
ecological restorationists. Ecological Restoration, 24(2), 102-104.
Dizard, J.E. (2003). Going native: second thoughts on restoration. In Minteer, B.A., and
Manning, R.E. (eds.). Reconstructing Conservation: Finding common ground.
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Douglas, T. (2002). Ecological Restoration Guidelines for B.C. Terrestrial Ecosystem
Restoration Project (TERP) of British Columbia. Retrieved November 24, 2006, from
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/fia/TERP_eco_rest_guidelines/documents/RestorationGui
delines.pdf
Gunn, A.S. (1995). The restoration of species and natural environments. Reprinted in Brennan,
A. (ed.) The Ethics of the Environment. Aldershot, England: Dartmouth Publishing
Company Ltd.
Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center (FRESC). (2003). Rehabilitation of Salamander
Populations in High Mountain Lakes, Mount Rainier National Park. Retrieved November
24, 2006, from http://fresc.usgs.gov/research/StudyDetail.asp?Study_ID=74
Harris, J.A., Birch, P., and Palmer, J. (1996). Land Restoration and Reclamation: Principles and
practice. Essex, England: Addison Wesley Longman.
Helford, R.M. (2000). Constructing nature as constructing science: expertise, activist science,
and public conflict in the Chicago wilderness. Pp. 119-142. In Gobster, P.H., and Hull,
R.B. (eds.). Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities.
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Higgs, E. (2005). The two-culture problem: ecological restoration and the integration of
knowledge. Restoration Ecology, 13(1), 159-164.
Higgs, E. (2003). Nature by Design: People, natural processes, and ecological restoration.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Hull, R. B., and Robertson, D. P., (2000). The language of nature matters: we need a more public
ecology. Pp. 97-118. In Gobster, P.H., and Hull, R.B. (eds.). Restoring Nature:
Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
15
Jordan (III), W.R. (2000). Restoration, community, and wilderness. Pp. 21-36. In Gobster, P.H.,
and Hull, R.B. (eds.). Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the social sciences and
humanities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Gaylor, N., Scholz, O., and Erickson, K. (2002). Restoration Plan for Dionisio Point Provincial
Park Galiano Island. Forest Renewal B.C. Retrieved November 24, 2006, from
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/FIA/2002/FIA2002MR027.pdf
Katz, E. (2000). Another look at restoration: technology and artificial nature. Pp.37-48. In
Gobster, P.H., and Hull, R.B. (eds.). Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the social
sciences and humanities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Katz, E. (1992). The call of the wild. Reprinted in Schmidtz, D. and Willott, E. (2002).
Environmental Ethics: What really matters, what really works. (pp. 172-178). New York
and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krieger, M.H. (1973). What’s wrong with plastic trees? Reprinted in Schmidtz, D. and Willott,
E. (2002). Environmental Ethics: What really matters, what really works. (pp. 158-171).
New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ladkin, D. (2005). Does ‘restoration’ necessarily imply the domination of nature? Environmental
Values, 14, 203-219.
Light, A. (2002). Ecological restoration and the culture of nature. Pp. 178-187. In Schmidtz, D.
and Willott, E. Environmental Ethics: What really matters, what really works. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Light, A. (2000). Restoration, the value of participation, and the risks of professionalization. Pp.
163-181. In Gobster, P.H., and Hull, R.B. (eds.). Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the
social sciences and humanities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Miskelly, J. (no date). Removing conifers to restore habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in
Helliwell Provincial Park. P.6. Garry Oak Ecosystems Recover Team Research
Colloquium. (2005). Retrieved November 24, 2006, from
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:0eX5FrpZKAkJ:www.wnps.org/ecosystems/west_l
owland_eco/documents/GarryOakRes_Colloq_2005_Proceedings.pdf+removing+scotch+
broom+from+provincial+parks&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3
Ontario Parks. (2000). Presqu'ile Provincial Park Management Plan Highlights. Retrieved
November 24, 2006, from http://biology.queensu.ca/~bio422/pqhighlights.pdf
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
16
Park Act. [RSBC 1996] Chapter 344. Victoria, B.C., Canada: Queen’s Printer. Retrieved
November 15, 2006, from http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/P/96344_01.htm
SER-BC. (2004). Ecological Restoration in B.C. Society for Ecological Restoration, British
Columbia Chapter. Retrieved November 24, 2006, from
http://www.serbc.info/public/ser_bc_home
Society for Ecological Restoration International Science and Policy Working Group (SER).
(2004). The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration (version 2). Retrieved
November 15, 2006, from http://www.ser.org/pdf/primer3.pdf
Vining, J. Tyler, E., and Kweon, B.-S. (2000). Public values, opinions, and emotions in
restoration controversies. Pp. 143-161. In Gobster, P.H., and Hull, R.B. (eds.). Restoring
Nature: Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities. Washington, D.C.: Island
Press.
Williams, D.R. and Patterson, M.E. (1996). Environmental meaning and ecosystem
management: Perspectives from environmental psychology and human geography.
Society and Natural Resources, 9, 507-521.
Winterhalder, K., Clewell, A.F., and Aronson, J. (2004). Values and science in ecological
restoration—A response to Davis and Slobodkin. Restoration Ecology, 12(1), 4-7.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
17
Chapter 2
The Power of Interpretation in BC Parks
Rebecca Baines
Executive Summary
The objectives of interpretation have changed and grown to facilitate the role of parks.
Originally, when parks were first being established, interpretation was used to enhance the
visitor experience by engaging the park visitors with their surroundings; this was done to
increase public support for parks. Interpretation became a means of education, creating a deeper
understanding of the nature of the park, resulting in an enjoyable and memorable experience.
Changes in recreation, science, and environmental issues have led to new challenges for
parks. Increased use and new forms of recreation has led to a need for new management
strategies. Advances in science have led to a greater understanding of the environment,
revealing facts about the demands and needs of ecology. Environmental issues such as global
warming are threatening the future of parks and the planet. Interpretation can be part of the
solution to the issues that parks are dealing with today.
Interpretation is a means of communication; a way of communicating scientific
information and creating resonance in the viewers mind and soul. This results in a stronger
connection and knowledge of the land, which has potential to change attitudes and behaviour. It
can be used as a sustainable visitor management tool to minimize direct impacts that visitors
have on parks. Another use for interpretation within BC Parks is education of the global issues
that are affecting the ecology of our parks and planet. This is a large issue and with the use of
interpretation BC Parks can take an active role in the solution. Issues can be interpreted to the
visitors’ in parks as well urban outreach program can enlighten non park users. Yet, in order to
generate behaviour change, interpretation should include facts along with solutions.
The principles of interpretation by Tilden correspond with learning theories by
psychologists such as Piaget. In order to change attitudes, interpretation must reach the viewer
on a cognitive level as well as an affective level. Interpretation that best results in behaviour
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
18
change includes suggestions on how the viewer can be part of the solution. Although these
theories correlate with interpretive principles, empirical evaluations and documented studies on
the effectiveness of interpretation are lacking.
The empirical studies that have been completed have shown ambiguous results. Many
studies conclude that interpretation is effective at increasing knowledge, changing attitudes, and
increasing behavioural intentions. In order to create standards for the creation and monitoring of
effective interpretation, more studies need to be compiled.
The growth and standardization of interpretation by BC Parks will result in a multipurpose
communication tool. This tool can be used for sustainable visitor management and at the same
time it will enhance the visitor experience. Interpretation can also be used to manage the
external factors that are threatening parks, by educating the public and providing solutions.
1.0 Overview and Scope of Interpretation
Interpretation is a powerful tool for communicating knowledge, helping people develop a
greater understanding about the nature that surrounds them, and creating a deeper connection
with nature. Currently parks are being affected by visitor impacts and threatened by external
factors, such as climate change and pollution. In response to the increased use in parks,
interpretation is a tool that park managers can utilize for sustainable visitor management.
Interpretation can also be used to educate park users and the public about current global issues,
their effects on BC parks, and solutions for change.
Interpretation has had many different values over the years and has rarely been recognized
for its full potential. Initially the value of interpretation in parks was its ability to create public
support by enhancing the visitors’ experience. Education through interpretation leads to an
“intellectual appreciation of nature; it involves the enjoyment of the sublimity and beauty; and it
leads to a higher conception of the development of man” (Miles, 1995, p.124). Buchholtz (1978)
recaptures letters that were written about experiences in the first parks. In the letters there are
observations about visitors not being very engaged with their surroundings and hesitant to go
outside. He quotes a letter saying that a little encouragement would add great pleasure to their
visit (Buchholtz, 1978). In the 1920s Parks Services started nature programs such as smelling
herbs, feeling bark or guided overnight hikes (Buchholtz, 1978). Programs such as these helped
create the essence of the park experience for the visitors.
Cuts to interpretation staff and budgets have left many parks lacking adequate staff and
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
19
resources to provide sufficient interpretive services (Buchholtz, 1978). It seems as though
interpretation has frequently been in crisis, often struggling to prove its value. Park managers
see interpretation as nice but not essential and it often suffers when the budget needs to be cut
(Mackintosh, 1986). These cuts have led to the loss of understanding about the power of
interpretation. A service wide questionnaire in the United States during the 1970’s concluded
that the importance and professionalism of interpretation had declined (Mackintosh, 1986).
Another questionnaire was sent out to find the factors attributing to the decline. Amongst the
most significant were:
organizational changes that had lumped interpretation with resources management in
many parks, often removing people with interpretive backgrounds from leadership; the
de-professionalizing tendency of the new park technician series; increased park visitation
and expansion of the National Park System without commensurate funding and personnel
increases for interpretation; and increased emphasis on law enforcement after a 1970
disturbance in Yosemite, at the expense of interpretive positions and training
(Mackintosh, 1986, p. 10).
Cutbacks have inhibited the wonder and enjoyment that interpretation can create:
“unfortunately, the [U.S. National Park] Service commitment and ability to commit to a mission
of proactive education and interpretation as a high priority, has waxed and waned” (The Vail
Agenda, 1992, p.24). This has led the deterioration of the quality and quantity of interpretation,
taking away from the essence of parks. The Vial Agenda (1992, p.24) recommended that the
National Park Service should “invest in innovative expansions of its ability to provide
interpretation that enhances visitor enjoyment and enlightenment”. The diminished quality of
interpretation in parks resulted in the loss of the value of interpretation. The true value of
interpretation, as means of communication, needs to be recognized and reinforced.
Interpretation is a valuable tool not only for enhancing the visitor experience but as an
indirect form of behaviour management, thus minimizing internal threats on parks. As well,
interpretation can be used as a means of communicating current global issues affecting parks.
Recreation is an integral part of parks, yet it is only part of the dual mandate. Managers are in a
constant position of choices, debating between preservation and use. The number of park users
has increased and tourism is one of the fastest growing industries (Orams, 1994). This is coupled
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
20
with new forms of recreation such as mountain biking, rock climbing and snowmobiling. The
increasing internal pressures on parks result in a need for visitor management.
There are three main ways to manage visitor behaviour. There can be physical separation
like barriers, pathways and locations, or direct management such as rules and fines (Orams,
1994). The third is interpretation, a form of indirect management which seeks to reduce
inappropriate behaviour on a voluntary basis through education (Orams, 1994). Interpretation is
a tool for managing visitor behaviour by enriching the experience, providing orientation and
information, informing of appropriate behaviour, and advising of safety issues. Interpretation is
therefore seen as a ‘win-win’ situation for park managers and visitors. Another important aspect
of interpretation is that it allows users to retain their freedom of choice, which is a fundamental
part of the recreation and leisure experience (Tubb, 2003).
Currently parks are under siege from external factors like resource extraction, global
warming, and air pollution. According to the 2005 BC Parks household survey, the utmost
concern of BC residents is wilderness preservation (Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services,
2005). Residents’ secondary concern is the parks role in providing outdoor recreation and places
to learn about the environment. Recently it has become clear that environmental issues are
inhibiting parks role in wilderness preservation. Interpretation can be used as an educational tool
to teach people about the issues that are affecting parks and the world.
Parks are more frequently called islands; an island of protected habitat for species in a sea
of resource extraction and other types of development. As well, it has become evident that
drawing a boundary around a park does not sufficiently protect it (Eagles and McCool, 2002).
Stats and figures have shown that parks are not large enough to adequately protect habitat for
large animals such as bears and wolves (Theberge and Theberge, 2002). Abiotic and biotic
standards, which are necessary for parks to sufficiently protect and preserve an area, are far from
possible (Theberge and Theberge, 2002). As a result of the degradation in unprotected habitats
by activities such as forestry, mining, and agriculture, there have been habitat losses and
fragmentations. Other factors are species loss, and impacts on air and water quality (Searle,
2000). These resource factors along with the increase of tourism, recreational use, and global
issues are putting immense amounts of stress on the park environment. Natural resource
scientists and resource managers know that the resolution of natural resource issues require
public support, and at times behavioural change (Whatley, 1995).
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
21
It has been found that communicating this message to people is necessary. The
ecological deterioration of parks is going largely unnoticed by most Canadians and there seems
to be a public acceptance that parks are fulfilling their role to conserve the environment (Searle,
2000). People only notice drastic changes and park changes are too slow for humans to perceive
and react to (Searle, 2000).
Studies have found that most of the characteristics that parks were originally created to
protect will change in this century. Forecasted changes include: sea level rising, reduction in
permafrost, fire, insect, and disease disturbance, and phonology and hydrology changes (Scott et
al., 2002). The sea level rising will dramatically affect coastal parks and residents. Insects,
disease and fire are something that we are already familiar with in BC. Phonology and
hydrology changes mean floods and droughts (Scott et al., 2002). Interpretation can be used as a
form of communication to inform people of issues that are posing external threats on parks and
how the public can be part of the solution.
2.0 Current State of Knowledge of Interpretation
Interpretation is still a relatively new construct. When most people think of an interpreter
they think of a translator. Tilden has developed guidelines and principles for interpretation,
creating a standard on which to learn from. Tilden (1977, p.8) defines interpretation as: “the
revelation of a larger truth that lies behind any statement of fact”. Interpretive messages can be
delivered in many forms, but there are six key principles to follow for each. Tilden’s (1977, p. 9)
principles of interpretation are provided in Table 1.
Along with Tilden’s principles, effective interpretation needs to consider the type of
action, the moral level of the visitor, the use of education, the ability of the interpretation to reach
the feelings and the attitudes that are connected to the motivation of the visitor, and possible
ways the user can be a part of the solution. Studies have shown that visitors are more likely to be
affected by behavioural or environmental signs than regulatory signs (Wirsching, Leung, and
Attarian, 2003).
There are five different types of visitor actions that impact parks, three of which can be
dealt with through interpretation. Illegal actions and unavoidable impacts are the two types of
actions that need alternate methods of management (Hendee and Dawson, 2002). The remaining
three are careless actions, unskilled actions, and uninformed actions. Careless actions include
littering and building of fires where prohibited. These actions can be managed through
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
22
Table 1: Tilden’s Principles of Interpretation
Source: Tilden, 1977
interpretation by education of the impacts of such actions (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). Unskilled
actions and uninformed actions have the highest potential for behavioural change through
interpretation. This is based on the presumption that the visitor does not intend to perform their
destructive actions. They are actions such as digging a ditch around a tent, burning garbage, or
concentrated use (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). Interpretation can reduce such actions by
educating the visitor on the effects of their actions and providing examples of alternative low
impact practices. It is thought that “wilderness visitors provide a particularly good audience for
information-education programs as one distinguishing socio-economic characteristic of
wilderness visitors is high education levels”(Hendee and Dawson, 2002, p. 481). Most park
visitors also place a high value on the wilderness and many surveys show that preserving nature
is their biggest concern, therefore, once informed they are more likely to change behaviour and
use the area more carefully (Hendee and Dawson, 2002).
i. Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being displayed or
described to something within the personality or experience of the visitor will
be sterile.
ii. Information, as such, is not Interpretation. Interpretation is revelation based
upon information. But they are entirely different things. However, all
interpretation includes information
iii. Interpretation is an art, which combines many arts, whether the materials
presented are scientific, historical or architectural. Any art is in some degree
teachable.
iv. The chief aim of Interpretation is not instruction, but provocation.
v. Interpretation should aim to present a whole rather that a part, and must address
itself to the whole man rather that any phase.
vi. Interpretation addressed to children (say, up to the age of twelve) should not be
a dilution of the presentation to adults, but should follow a fundamentally
different approach. To be at its best it should require a separate program.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
23
Although it is presumed that park visitors enjoy their experience and want to protect it,
there still are many individual differences that influence the effectiveness of interpretation.
According to Manning (2005), interpretation should be designed to reach each visitor depending
on their level of moral development. For people with lower levels of moral development it is
necessary to emphasize extrinsic rewards and punishments (Manning, 2003). For people with
higher levels of moral development, interpretation can be used to emphasize the rational for
selected behaviours; appealing to the sense of altruism, justice and fairness (Manning, 2003).
Among many things, effectiveness of interpretation is a result of the audience, content, and
delivery of the message to visitors.
Content that is used to facilitate learning and environmental education is most commonly
based on Piaget’s learning theory (Orams, 1995). This theory is centred around the concept of
cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is found when one view such as ‘running through
the forest is fun and exciting’ is met with another view, such as a sign saying ‘parks protect a
fragile ecosystem; it is important to stay on the trail’. Cognitive dissonance is a result of these
two disagreeing messages and it produces a psychological tension which motivates the user to
alter their current belief systems to reduce the conflict (Orams, 1995).
This theory only refers to the educational value and change of beliefs that interpretation
can bring. When interpretation is aimed at not only the cognitive domain but also the affective
domain, further learning, evaluating, and understanding occurs. The affective domain consists of
attitudes, feelings, emotions and value systems (Orams, 1995). Tilden (1977, p.9) notes the
importance of relating to peoples affective domains in his principle “any interpretation that does
not somehow relate what is being displayed or described to something within the personality or
experience of the visitor will be sterile”. The affective domain is central to learning and
evaluating ones choices (Orams 1995).
In addition to reaching people’s cognitive and affective domains, there is another step
that can be taken to enhance the possibility of behaviour change. This step includes providing
examples of how the visitors’ behaviour affects the issue and how they can help. Messages such
as ‘you can make a difference’ are critical to enhancing the effectiveness of interpretative
programs (Orams, 1995). Suggestions for behaviour change can result in instant actions such as
beach clean up activities or things that can be done at home, such as buying environmentally
friendly products or lists of ideas of how to reduce waste.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
24
2.1 Literature Review
Interpretation can not forcibly change people’s behaviour; rather it aims to persuade a
voluntary behaviour change (Orams, 1994). Evaluation is necessary to determine if
interpretation is achieving its objectives (Littlefair, 2003). Tilden (1997) also noted the
importance of research and monitoring the effectiveness of interpretation. The effectiveness of
interpretation is measured based on its impacts on visitors. Impacts can be found through
observation, interviews, or questionnaires from participants who were exposed to the
interpretation (Orams, 1994). In is also crucial to have a follow up with the participants to know
the long term effects of interpretation.
There have not been many empirical evaluations and documented studies relating to the
effectiveness of interpretation (Littlefair, 2003). The studies that have been completed show
contradictory results (Littlefair, 2003). Some studies show that interpretation results in increased
knowledge, change in attitude, and increased behavioural intentions (Tubb, 2003, Madin &
Fenton, 2004). Other studies suggest that interpretation has no impact on the visitor.
2.2 Research Approaches to Studies
The effectiveness of interpretation has been studied in Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,
Dartmoor National Park, Lamington National Park, and other protected areas (Tubb, 2002;
Littlefair, 2003; Madin and Fenton, 2004). The studies are completed with varied methods.
Methods of measurement include surveys, observation, focus groups, and interviews (Tubb,
2003). When an experimental design is used, the control group receives a survey before the
interpretation. They are not interviewed or surveyed after because the pre-survey heightens their
awareness when viewing (Tubb, 2003). The surveys administered after the interpretation rated
attitude change, increase in knowledge, and self reported behaviour change. Attitude change is
measured with randomly placed Likert-type attitude statements that are relevant to the natural
environment and the messages that the park is portraying (Tubb, 2003).
For accurate results observation is also needed because self reports do not always
accurately reflect actual behaviour (Littlefair, 2003). To measure effectiveness through
observation, anonymous researchers observe the effectiveness of the interpretation to hold the
viewers attention (Tubb,2003). Observers can also be part the audience in a guided walk to
observe changes in behaviour (Littlefaid, 2003).
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
25
Based on the limited studies researching the effectiveness of interpretation, there have been some
standards developed for the design and testing of interpretive programs. Programs on how
to create and maintain effective interpretation can be used by managers influence direct or
indirect impacts on parks. They provide park managers with a set of guidelines to consider
when developing an inexpensive and effective visitor communication and education
systems (Wirsching, Leung, and Attarian, 2003). One example is the program developed
by Forestell and Kaufman (cited in Orams, 1994). Although there are a few programs,
there is still a need for more research and standards for interpretation.
3.0 Recommendations for BC Parks
1. Personally learn more about global issues such as global warming.
There are huge global issues affecting parks, such as global warming and pollution. These
issues are too big for parks alone. BC Parks can take the initiative to educate BC residents about
these issues and recommend how they can help. Parks are seen as a benchmark for the ecology
of the world and if they are not sustainable then the environment of the world is not either.
2. Acknowledge interpretation as an educational tool and its potential for attitude and
behaviour change.
Research indicates that when the message is delivered effectively, interpretation creates
increased knowledge, changes in attitudes, and behaviour modification (Tubb, 2003).
3. Take full responsibility and the initiative to manage and create interpretation and increase
funding.
4. Research the effectiveness of interpretation in many situations.
The variances in media of interpretation, audience, and message being portrayed all alter the
effectiveness of interpretation. More research studies with measuring the effectiveness of
interpretation need to take place with variants of audience, means, and message.
5. Create standards and guide lines for creating and monitoring interpretation.
Based on the research compiled from the studies there should be new standard guidelines
created for creating and monitoring interpretation.
6. Research the information to be included in the messages.
Interpretation personalizes scientific information but before interpretation can be created
there needs to be correct scientific information.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
26
7. Create interpretation within parks about factors influencing BC parks, the effects visitors
actions have on them either direct or indirect, and potential solutions. To ensure effectiveness,
interpretation should be created by in house professionals.
8. Coordinate urban outreach programs to communicate the importance of parks and the
issues that they are facing.
9. Monitor these new programs, research current issues, assimilate new information, and
act.
4.0 Conclusion
Interpretation is a powerful tool for educating users about nature, forming deeper
meanings and connections. Interpretation has potential to be a solution to the impacts of
increased use and can be used as a tool to combat global issues that are affecting parks. With
proper research, guidelines can be formed for the creation and monitoring of interpretation.
Interpretation can then be used as an effective indirect management tool that facilitates change in
behaviour and attitudes. This can reduce the impacts of the increasing number of park visitors.
Secondly, interpretation should be utilized in a province-wide effort to build awareness of the
issues that are threatening parks and provide potential solutions. In order to ensure the future of
our parks and planet, we all need to work together.
References
Buchholtz, C. (1978). The national parks as a playground. Journal of Sport History. 5(3), 21-37.
Eagles, P. & McCool, S. (2002). Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas: Planning and
Management. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
Freemuth. J. (1991). Islands Under Siege: National Parks and the Politics of External Threats.
USA: University Press of Kansas.
Harmon, H., & Putney, A., (2003). Intangible Values and Protected Areas: Towards a
More Holistic Approach to Management. In Harmon, H., & Putney, A., (eds.).
The Full Value of Parks: From Economics to the Intangible (pp 311-327). New
York, USA: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hendee, J.C.. & Dawson, C. (2002). Wilderness Management: Stewardship and
Protection of resources and Values (Third Edition). Golden, CO: North American
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
27
Press.
Littlefair, C. (2004). The Effectiveness if Interpretation in Reducing the Impacts of Visitors in
National Parks. Webhumans: Griffith University.
Mackintosh, B. (1986). Interpretation in the National Park Service: A Historical
Perspective. Retrieved November 6, 2006 from http://www.cr.nps.gov
/history/online_books/mackintosh2/directions_av_other.htm.
Madin, E., & Fenton, D. (2004). Environmental interpretation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park: An assessment of programme effectiveness. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 12(2),
(pp 121-130).
Manning, R.E., (2003). Emerging Principles for Using Information/Education in
Wilderness Management. International Journal of Wilderness, 9(1).
McNeely, J.A., (1992). The World Conservation Union. Parks for Life: Report of the IVth
World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. Cambridge, UK: IUNC
Publications Services Unit.
Miles, J.C., (1995). Guardians of the Parks. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Ministry of Labour & Citizens’ Services. (2005). BC Parks Household Survey 2005 Provincial
Report.
Orams, M.B., (1994). Using Interpretation to Manage Nature-based Tourism. Department of
Management Systems, Massy University. Retrieved November 6, 2006, from
http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jost/004/0081/jost00481.pdf.
Parks Canada Agency (2000). Unimpaired for Future Generations? Protecting Integrity with
Canada’s National Parks. Vol. I & II “Setting a New Direction for Canada’s National
Parks”. Report of the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada’s National Parks.
Ottawa, Parks Canada Agency.
Searle, R. (2000). Phantom Parks: The Struggle to Save Canada’s National Parks. Toronto: Key
Porter Books.
Scott, Malcolm & Lemieux. (2002) Climate Change and Modeled Biome Representation in
Canada’s National Park System: Implications for System Planning and Park Mandates.
Global Ecology & Biogeography. 11, (pp 475-484).
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
28
Theberge, J. & Theberge, J.B. (2002). Application of ecological concepts to the management of
protected areas. In P. Dearden and R. Rollings (eds.), Parks and protected areas in
Canada: Planning and management (pp. 70-96). Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Tilden, Freedman. (1977). Interpreting Our Heritage. USA: The University of North Carolina
Press.
Tubb, K. (2003). An evaluation of the effectiveness of interpretation within Dartmoor National
Park in reaching the goals of sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism. 11(6), (pp 47-50).
Whatley, M.E. (no date), Interpreting Critical Natural Resource Issues in Canadian and United
States National Parks Service Areas. Retrieved November 6, 2006, from
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/pubs/whatley/whatley.pdf.
Wirsching, Leung, & Attarian, (2003). Swatting Litter Bugs. Parks & Recreation.
The Vail Agenda. (1992). National Parks for the 21st Century: Report and Recommendations to
the Director of the National Park Service. Montpelier, Vermont: Electric Dragon
Productions.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
29
Chapter 3
Shifting Tides: The Marine Protected Areas System in
British Columbia
Adam Leavitt
Executive Summary
Marine protected areas (MPA’s) are a type of protected area that specifically focuses on
protecting the marine environment and the marine environments’ adjacent features. MPA’s have
faced many challenges in terms of their understanding, creation, definition, purpose and overall
scope. In BC, the completion of a MPA system is a critical issue for both the provincial and
federal governments. Marine protected areas are critical as they can protect the marine
environment and its associated natural, recreational and cultural features. They also provide
benchmarks for research and provide invaluable opportunities for protected areas managers and
other stakeholders.
This chapter provides an analysis of the MPA system in British Columbia, with special
emphasis being placed on BC Parks. This report will provide a definition of what an MPA is and
it will look the history of these areas in B.C. The reasons and benefits for their creation will also
be highlighted. It will review the rationales for the completion of such a system in British
Columbia and it will look at what has been done so far towards creating the current system in
this province. The management and planning techniques that BC Parks and other agencies
utilize in creating and managing MPA’s will be highlighted as well. The views of marine
dependent communities in regards to these areas will be analyzed and the issues and challenges
that are encountered in their creation will be discussed.
1.0 Overview and Scope of the Issue
Marine protected areas (MPA’s) are a unique concept within the standard protected areas ethos.
Even though they aren’t relatively new, they present a unique model that focuses mainly on the
marine ecosystem. While protection of the marine environment is their primary goal, an MPA
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
30
can be utilized to represent both recreational and cultural aspects as well. Marine protected areas
are defined as “any area of the intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and
associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other
effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment” (Kelleher, 1999, in Dearden,
2002).
Currently more than half the inhabitants of the world can be found within 200 km of a
coastline (Hinrichsen, 1998, in Dearden, 2002). Marine habitats and inhabitants are known to
fulfill the roles of resistance to diseases, food production, filtering pollution, and stress recovery
that results from climate change (Stockstad, 2006).
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), it is estimated that 70% of
the world’s marine fisheries are over exploited (Dearden, 2002) This is a major source of
concern, as there are many who rely on these valuable resources. According to Stockstad (2006),
40% of species fished historically had collapsed by 2003. It’s estimated that the remainder of all
wild seafood will collapse by 2048 if the trend of overexploitation continues (Stockstad, 2006).
Many environmental impacts have occurred in the marine environment: overfishing, aquaculture,
dredging, various fishing practices and methods, drilling, climate change/global warming, oil and
gas drilling, boating and the dumping of pollutants have all had major impacts on the marine
ecosystem. There are now fewer nurseries where fish produce, and these practices have resulted
in the water column being stripped of one species at a time (Stockstad, 2006). This loss of
marine species has been linked with the increases in coastal flooding, shellfish closures, beach
closures, fish kills and the presence of invasive species (Stockstad, 2006) It also has been found
that destruction has occurred to nearly half of the world’s salt marshes, mangroves and coastal
wetlands had been destroyed (Dearden, 2002). This is a dire situation for all those that rely on
ocean resources for their health and livelihoods.
Marine protected areas are known to provide many benefits. Some of these include
providing marine biodiversity, representing ecosystems, protecting special natural features,
supporting the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks (particularly groundfish), protection of
spawning and nursery grounds, insurance against current inadequate management of marine
resources, provision of benchmark sites, recognition of cultural links of coastal communities to
biodiversity and the provision of opportunities for recreation and interpretation/education
(Dearden, 2002). Marine protected areas also provide many opportunities for marine research in
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
31
terms of studying various ecosystems, species, trends and various geographic, geologic and
archaeological/historical features. Marine research can be conducted by such organizations as
universities, governments, First Nations, NGO’s and other institutions and organizations that
have a vested interest in marine areas. Hydrothermal vents, seamounts, cold-water sponge reefs,
rookeries and haul-outs are examples of unique features that add to the benefits of protecting
marine areas.
2.0 Current State of Knowledge
There are many jurisdictions that manage various marine protected area networks, including
Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
National Marine Monument is the worlds largest MPA. It was created on June 15, 2006 under
the US Antiquities Act and it encompasses nearly 140,000 square miles. (360,000 km2)
(http://www.hawaiireef.noaa.gov/management/). This area protects nearly 4,500 square miles of
“relatively undisturbed” coral reef habitat and nearly 7000 species that call the area home . The
current management techniques for this area include the requirement of permits for research,
education, conservation & management, Native Hawaiian practices, and non-extractive ‘special
ocean uses’. Prohibited activities include commercial and recreational extractive activities,
commercial fishing (by 2011) and oil & gas development
(http://www.hawaiireef.noaa.gov/management/).
In Canada, the federal government manages a MPA network that is administered by
several different agencies, including Parks Canada (PC), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FOC)
and the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS). The federal government utilizes the Oceans Act,
Fisheries Act, Wildlife Act, Migratory Birds Convention Act, National Parks Act and the Marine
Conservation Areas Act to create MPA’s (Dearden 2002). Federal areas include National Parks,
National Conservation Areas, FOC Marine Protected Areas, FOC Fisheries Closures, National
Wildlife Areas, National Marine Wildlife Areas and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (Dearden 2002).
The first National Marine Conservation Area to be created was the Fathom Five National Marine
Park in 1987. Focusing on BC, areas such as Gwaii Haanas and the Southern Straight of Georgia
are ‘candidate areas’ for protection as National Marine Conservation Areas
(http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/amnc-nmca/index_E.asp). Pacific Rim and Gulf Island National Park
Reserves are the only terrestrial protected areas to have marine components (Dearden, 2002). In
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
32
BC, there are currently there are two NWA’s with marine components and five MBS’s with
marine components (Jamieson and Lessard, 2000). As of yet there has been no designation of
Marine Wildlife Areas; however, the CWS is currently in the developmental stage of setting a
national criteria to identify areas of interest, and the Scott Islands has been identified as a
possible area in B.C. (Dearden, 2002; http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa/default_e.htm).
There is also one FOC Marine Protected Area (Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents) and three MPA
pilot sites in BC (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa/default_e.htm). There are numerous
fisheries closure areas as well.
In order to create a system of MPA’s, Parks Canada has identified 29 marine natural
regions. These 29 marine natural regions are based on temperature, salinity, currents, depth
profiles and species distributions (http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/amnc-nmca/index_E.asp). In BC,
there are five of these marine natural regions (http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/amnc-
nmca/index_E.asp). Three zones for NMCA’s are proposed: a Preservation Zone (no
use/development), a Natural Environment Zone (no renewable resource harvesting), and a zone
that’s dedicated to allowing many uses while at the same time maintaining ecosystem structure
and function (http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/amnc-nmca/index_E.asp). The 1994 Parks Canada
policy of NMCA’s stated that they will be “Managed for ‘sustainable use’ rather than the “strict
protection of ecological integrity”. They will be managed on a partnership basis with local
stakeholders, and will allow more existing extractive uses to continue (Dearden, 2002). The
strategy for marine and coastal conservation, protection and management and the development
integrated coastal zone management plans falls under the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans
Canada (Dearden, 2002). For the Fisheries and Oceans MPA’s, the vision is that an internal
zoning system will be initiated that allows for various levels of resource extraction. In addition, a
management plan will be required before an area can be designated under the Oceans Act
(Dearden, 2002).
Marine Protected Areas in British Columbia
The definition of MPAs in British Columbia is “any area of tidal water together with associated
natural and cultural features in the water column, within, or on top of the seabed which has been
designated under the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act or under the Park Act, Ecological
Reserve Act and Environment and Land Use Act” (Dunham, Zacharias, Biffard, Westmacott,
Dunham and Ogborne, 2002, unpaginated). The various LRMP and Coastal Planning processes
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
33
and the BC Marine Ecological Classification System (which contain 12 distinct Marine
Ecosections) are also used in MPA creation and management (Dunham et al., 2002). This
process is led by the Integrated Land Management Bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture and
Lands through the LRMP and Coastal Planning Processes (Dearden, 2002;
http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/lup/coastal/index.html).
A MPA designated by BC Parks can include a provincial park, conservancy, protected
area or an ecological reserve (Dunham et al., 2002). In British Columbia, the primary managing
agency is the Ministry of Environment’s Parks and Protected Areas Branch (BC Parks). When
creating MPA’s in BC, the BC Parks two Goal Conservation System for Ecosystem
Representation and Special Features is always applied when selecting potential MPA’s (Dunham
et al., 2002) No specific zoning system has yet been designated for MPA’s in BC Currently, the
BC Parks’ MPA system encompasses 240,000ha, or 0.5% of BC’s total marine area (BC
Ministry of Environment, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, University of British Columbia
Fisheries Centre, University of Victoria Geography Department, Environment Canada [BCME et
al.], 2006). The deep sea is one of the least represented areas, while areas that are located in the
near shore zone (>20m deep) are the most represented marine zone (BCME et al., 2006). Out of
the MPA’s managed by BC Parks, five are known to be exclusively marine while the rest include
land located above the high-tide mark (BCME, 2006) Approximately 5% of B.C.’s MPA’s are
known to be larger than 1000 hectares, making up nearly 92% of the BC’s total protected marine
area. Out of the 12 Marine Ecosections, none of them have more than 6% of their area protected.
The Vancouver Island Shelf Ecosection, which includes Pacific Rim National Park, is the best
represented. In total, less than 1% of five marine ecosections are protected and the Subarctic
Pacific Ecosection has no representation (BCME et al., 2006).
There are many terrestrial protected areas in BC which have a coastal component; that is,
there are not marine parks by definition, but merely comprise shorelines. The first protected area
to be created with a marine component was Strathcona in 1911. The first protected area to be
created solely based on its marine values was Rebecca Spit Park in 1957 (Dunham et al., 2002).
There are now 105 protected areas managed by BC Parks that have a coastal component
(Dunham et. al., 2002). In April 2006, the BC Government created a new designation called a
Conservancy in order to meet the objectives of the North and Central Coast LRMP (BC MOE
News Release – 4/24/2006). As a result, 23 new areas with marine based components were
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
34
added to the new schedules “E and F” of the Park Act (BC MOE News Release – 4/24/ 2006).
BC Parks also manages 7 marine-based Wildlife Management Areas established under the
Wildlife Act and 17 Land Act, marine-based Wildlife Reserves (Jamieson and Lessard, 2000)
BC Parks also manages 128 Boat Havens in a partnership agreement with the Council of BC
Yacht Clubs (Council of BC Yacht Clubs). Again, it is important to reiterate that these areas are
not MPA’s in the traditional sense, as the Federal Government holds jurisdiction over the water
column itself. Only the seabed portion of the provincial marine parks, ecological reserves,
wildlife management areas and wildlife reserves are protected. However, in some cases, there are
numerous FOC Fisheries Closures that benefit provincial MPA’s. They include coast-wide
closures, closures that overlap and closures that are specific to that MPA (Dunham et al., 2002;
Jamieson and Lessard 2000). For a provincial MPA to receive full protection, it’s integral for the
water column in these areas to be protected thorough further Federal and Provincial Government
agreements (e.g., Fisheries Closures). Changes in the various pieces of provincial legislation
would have to define what a provincial marine protected area is and what type of regulations
would be applicable save the current regulations found in present provincial legislation such as
the BC Park Act.
In order to analyze their existing network of MPA’s (as of 2002) the BC Government
created a report titled Provincial Marine Protected Areas in British Columbia (Dunham et al.,
2002). The purpose of the report was to utilize a number of “inventory, analysis and planning
tools developed by the BC Government in order to identify values captured within the existing
system of BC’s MPA’s”(Dunham et. al., 2002, unpaginated). The Coastal Resource Information
System (CRIS), Valued Marine Environments and/or Features (VMEF) and the BC Marine
Ecological Classification System (BCMEC) were tools used to evaluate the network of MPA’s
managed by BC Parks (Dunham et. al., 2002). The VMEF classification ranking is based on
marine conservation, marine recreation, marine cultural heritage, marine biota extraction, marine
biota creation, marine industrial activities and ecounits (Dunham et. al., 2002). The 104 MPA’s
researched were also analyzed if they had FOC Fisheries Closures were applicable (Dunham et.
al., 2002; Jamieson and Lessard, 2000). The findings of this report found that high-exposure,
high current and hard substrate areas were over-represented, while areas with moderate depth
with mud and sand bottom substrates were under-represented (Dunham et. al., 2002). It was also
expected that the report would provide further direction for the establishment of future MPA’s,
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
35
identify current provincial MPA’s that could benefit from additional FOC fisheries closures and
identify potential opportunities and conflicts with other coastal and marine issues (Dunham et.
al., 2002). The report argued that in order for future establishment of MPA’s to be successful,
they needed to have support from First Nations, communities, industry, and be feasible in terms
of , costs, jurisdictional compatibility and contribution toward trends monitoring (Dunham et al.
2002).
Challenges to Creating Marine Parks in British Columbia
There are many challenges that come about from the protection of marine areas. One is
the difficulty in translating the well-established approaches for protection in terrestrial
environments into the marine context. An example derives from is trans-boundary effects and
connectivity of marine ecosystems (Dearden, 2002). Competition with existing uses is another
key stumbling block to the creation of MPAs. As a result, another challenge has been the
timeliness in creating a network of marine protected areas. For example, it has been nearly
almost 20 years since the MPA initiative began and almost a decade since the Tri-Council
statement was signed. The Tri-Council is a group that consists of the Canadian Councils of the
Ministers of Environment, Parks Ministers and Wildlife Ministers (Dearden, 2002). The Federal
and Provincial Governments in 1998 originally wanted to create a Protected Areas System on the
BC Coast by 2010 (Dearden, 2002).
Perhaps the primary barrier in the creation of a network of marine protected areas is the
jurisdictional challenges currently in place. When the original Canadian Constitution was signed
in 1867, all marine waters and species fell under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government
(Dearden, 2002). The provincial government retained the rights to the seabed located along the
coastline with the exception of the outer coastlines of Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte
Islands (Dearden, 2002). The responsibilities of the Federal Government would include
“beacons, buoys and lighthouses, navigation and shipping, and sea coast and inland fisheries”
(Federal Government - Canada Constitution Act of 1867 s. 91) and marine biota not managed by
the province (Dunham et. al., 2002). The provincial responsibilities include the management and
development of natural resources and the management of marine biota which include: attached
marine plants, the Pacific Oyster and anadromous salmonid species such as Dolly Varden
(Salvelinus malma) and Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Dunham et al., 2002). These
challenges in terms of jurisdictional responsibility create a conundrum for the definition, purpose
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
36
and future creation of provincial MPA’s. For example, if you look at a provincial marine park
that has a significant amount of foreshore protected within it, the only part that’s truly protected
by the province is the seabed. This could potentially create some problems such as overlapping
management and regulatory confusion. However, in some cases (e.g., Porteau Cove Provincial
Park), the marine-based boundary also contains a FOC Fisheries Closure area. The jurisdictions
that have vested interest in BC’s coastal marine waters other than the agencies previously
mentioned in this report include Transport Canada, BC Ministry of Environment - Ocean and
Marine Fisheries Division, BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, BC
Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Federal Department of
National Defense and various First Nations groups through the BC Treaty Process.
Another issue that has stymied the creation of a network of marine protected areas is the
lack of scientific information, management experience, background information, monitoring
programs and research conducted (Dearden, 2002). The understanding of the marine
environment is not as extensive as for the terrestrial environment. In BC, many unique areas are
constantly being discovered. Examples include the Hecate Straight Sponge Reefs and the Strait
of Juan De Fuca “Big Eddy” ecosystem (CPAWS BC Chapter, no date). The CPAWS
Wilderness Vision Colloquium of 1994 came to the conclusion that Canada seriously lags in
other nations’ initiatives to protect the marine environment due to the lack of political will
(Jessen, 1996). It was also stated that in the short term a community driven approach be applied.
Successful community driven approaches include the Whytecliff Marine Park and Gwaii Haanas
and Duu-Guusd Tribal Park in Haida Gwaii (Jessen, 1996). There are many challenges in
creating marine protected areas, yet it is clear these challenges can be overcome.
One last issue and challenge is the virtual permeability and vulnerability that marine
protected areas face. Terrestrial parks are relatively easily defined by their geography. Marine
areas are much more difficult to define due to their aquatic environment: it is much more
difficult to draw lines on marine maps since there are truly no well defined geographical markers
to go by. It would be easier to have a marine protected area with a defined coastline or network
of islands, yet if the area is completely ‘water-based’ it serves as an even greater challenge.
Perhaps potential solutions would be to update marine charts, post “floating” signage and
provide informational signage at marinas. Another key problem the permeability and
vulnerability issue presents is the potential exposure to oil spills, pollution, rising ocean
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
37
temperatures, poaching, etc. There are currently 28 BC Parks MPA’s that are affected directly by
pollution (Dunham et al., 2002). On a positive note, there are six BC Parks MPA’s that have
been designated under the Federal Governments Pleasure Craft Sewage Prevention Regulation as
‘no dump zones’ (Dunham et al., 2002). Twenty three other BC MPA’s are proposed to receive
this designation (Dunham et al., 2002) In terms of other stressors it was found that 40% of BC’s
MPA’s are affected by forestry/ mining/agricultural activities (Gilkeson et. al, 2006). Recreation
use and gathering/harvesting activities which included recreational fishing were the most
common internal stressors (BCME et al., 2006). Only one-third of the areas protected in BC can
be considered ecologically intact (areas not subject to specific activities, such as fishing,
aquaculture, boat anchorages, industrial sites and cruise ship routes) (BCME et al., 2006).
First Nations Perspectives on MPAs
This section of the report will look at some of the views that communities and First
Nations hold toward marine protected areas. The challenge on non-First Nation community
involvement and support is also addressed.
The public generally holds a low perception of the value of the preservation of the marine
environment in relation to terrestrial parks (Paisley, 1995, in Guénette et al., 2000). It was also
found that the policies of government generally tend to favor resource harvesting in order to
“minimize conflicts with historical subsistence” users (Paisley, 1995, in Guénette et. al 2000, p.
). It is interesting to note that not long ago it was quite common for public interest groups to
focus their attention on protecting key sites and develop complimentary management plans and
interpretive programs in order to enhance their uniqueness (Guénette et al., 2000). According to
Guénette et al. (2000, p. ), the primary objective of MPA creation is to “always to have an
inclusive shared decision making process and partnership that involves stakeholders, First
Nations, coastal communities and the general public.”
One example of a successful MPA partnership model is Whytecliff Park in West
Vancouver, BC. Whytecliff Park is unique since it is subject to an annual fishery closure from
it’s shoreline to a point 100m from it. However it’s not subject to a legal designation as an MPA,
despite being considered as the first MPA with a fisheries closure in Canada (Guénette et al.,
2000). The Whytecliff project was also a success for its time since it was the first area to have
both ‘bottom-up’ and process oriented partnership management approaches applied to it. A
process oriented management approach is a system that where “different knowledge bases, skills,
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
38
expertise and common goals are brought to the table by all stakeholders and agencies represented
by the government and NGO’s” (Guénette et al., 2000). These are the reasons that made the
creation of the Wytecliff Park no-take area so successful. On the other hand, such community-
driven endeavors may not be so successful. The proposed NMCA for Newfoundland’s
Bonavista-Notre Dame Bays was turned down as a potential MPA since it was deemed that the
fisheries activities would possibly be curtailed by Parks Canada (Lien 1999, in Dearden, 2002).
Another concern that came out of the meetings included the fact that a NMCA would negatively
impact the families and communities through the potential loss of their livelihoods (Lien 1999, in
Dearden, 2002). The aquaculture industry also felt that a NMCA would be incompatible with
their objectives (Lien 1999, in Dearden, 2002). One final reason why the NMCA proposal was
declined had to be attributed to the fact that various conservation initiatives such as lobster
enhancement were already in place (Lien 1999, in Dearden, 2002).
For First Nations, MPA’s have the potential to create social, food related, ceremonial,
recreational and commercial opportunities (Dunham et al., 2002). In terms of First Nations
issues, there are a couple of examples as to where the creation of an MPA has been successful
through the establishment of agreements. In Haida Gwaii, there was a quick development of
fishing lodges in a short time period (from 1985-89) (Jones, 1994, in Jessen, 1996) To address
this, the Haida Nation met with the public and the lodge owners to discuss their concerns in
regards to this sudden expansion (Jones, 1994, in Jessen, 1996) As a result of various discussions
that took place, an Interim Measures Agreement was signed in 1993 between the Haida Nation
and the BC Government for a potential moratorium on lodge expansion (Jones, 1994, in Jessen,
1996). While unrelated to the fishing lodge issue, a Haida Fisheries Co-management program
was also signed. This co-management agreement called for reaching settlements on allocation
issues, decision making roles and gaining access to fish based on a ‘buy back’ system based on
historic aboriginal use (Jones, 1994, in Jessen, 1996).
The Hakai Luxvbalis Conservancy Area is another example of a MPA involving First
Nations. Hakai was first designated as a provincial recreation area in 1987 without the
consultation of aboriginal people (Hamilton and Wilson, 2005). This area is famous for world
class fishing in the Hakai Pass area and also has many outstanding marine resources and
ecosystems that make the area unique; the area is significant to the aboriginal people that hold
title over the area (Hamilton and Wilson, 2005). As a result of the recreation area designation in
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
39
1987, the Heiltsuk First Nation felt that the area would infringe upon their traditional rights and
concurrently opposed the protection of this area (Hamilton and Wilson, 2005). About more than
10 years of conflict between the Heiltsuk First Nation and the provincial government, a
collaborative agreement process was initiated (Hamilton and Wilson, 2005). On September 28,
2003 a collaborative agreement was signed between the BC Government and the Heiltsuk First
Nation. The agreement basically stated that the Heiltsuk First Nation would be able to access the
land and resources within the protected area in accordance to their rights (www.bcparks.ca).
Other MPA’s with successful collaborative management agreements include: Kitlope Heritage
Conservancy, Khutzeymateen Grizzly Bear Sanctuary, Ha’thayim (Von-Donop) Marine, and the
Clayoquot Sound Protected Area Complex (14 parks which include Vargas Island and Hesquiat
Peninsula). (www.bcparks.ca). Recently, a new co-management agreement was signed on May
16, 2006 with the ‘Namgis Nation. This agreement will apply to all 10 protected areas located
within the ‘Namgis Nation traditional territories (BC MOE News Release – 5/16/06). Marine
areas that benefit from this include the Robson Bight Ecological Reserve and Cormorant
Channel Provincial Marine Park.
3.0 Recommendations for the BC Ministry of Environment
The following provides a basis of sound and realistic recommendations created to assist
the BC Ministry of Environment (BC Parks) in developing and managing an expanded MPA
system.
1. Create an effective research program that utilizes partnerships. This can include the use of
volunteers, university faculty/students, institutions such as the Vancouver Aquarium, other
Government agencies, First Nations (co-management agreements) or consultants.
2. Create a public educational awareness program for a BC Parks MPA system though
educational institutions, interpretive programming (e.g., BC Conservation Corps – Federation of
BC Naturalists Park Interpretive Program), signage, the Vancouver Aquarium, First Nations (co-
management agreements) and web-based information.
3. Establish an effective monitoring system. This could possibly utilize existing parks and
protected areas branch/section staff located in marine regions to monitor their respective MPA’s.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
40
This could include the use of existing watercraft and the dedication existing patrol/work hours.
Monitoring should be a top priority for each respective protected areas section head in order for
MPAs to be effective. Establishing partnerships with previously mentioned parties, and possibly
establishing a Marine Park Watch could be complementary methods of involving communities as
well.
4.0 Conclusion: The Future of Marine Protected Areas in B.C.
This report provided a clear definition of MPAs and examined their benefits and reasons
for their establishment. It also looked at the various issues and challenges that the creation of
MPAs face and also reviewed how various communities and aboriginal groups tend to view
marine protected areas. I personally hope there is going to be a bright and prosperous future for
Marine Protected Areas in both Canada and British Columbia. Even though the first ‘official’
MPA in British Columbia has yet to be established, I feel that once the hurdles have been
identified and significant resources put towards solving these issues BC will be able to have a
world class MPA system that our provincial and national residents will be proud of.
References
BC Ministry of Environment News Release: April 24, 2006 BC Leads in Creation of
Protected Areas. http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2006ENV0028-
000477.htm
BC Ministry of Environment News Release: May 16, 2006 Province Signs Parks
Agreement with ‘Namgis Nation. Available at http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/
news_releases_2005-2009/2006ENV0036-000603.htm (accessed Nov 29, 2006)
BC Ministry of Environment, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, University of British Columbia
Fisheries Centre, University of Victoria Geography Department, Environment Canada.
(2006). Alive and Inseparable – British Columbia’s Coastal Environment: 2006.
Victoria, BC: Author. Available at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/bcce/images/
bcce_report.pdf (accessed Nov. 30, 2006).
BC Parks Website: Coastal Marine Parks, Hakai Luxvbalis Conservancy, Shuswap Lake Marine
Park and BC Parks Ecological Reserves. Available at http://www.bcparks.ca (accessed
Nov 30, 2006).
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society: BC Chapter Marine Spaces Campaign.
Available at http://www.cpawsbc.org/marine/index.php (accessed on Nov 28, 2006).
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
41
Dearden, P. (2002). Marine parks. In P.Dearden and R. Rollins (eds.), Parks and
Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management (pp. 354-378) Toronto: Oxford
University
Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pacific Region – Marine Protected Areas. Available at
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa/default_e.htm (accessed Nov 30, 2006).
Council of BC Yacht Clubs. Provincial Boat Havens. Available at
http://www.cbcyachtclubs.ca/boathavens.htm (accessed Nov 29, 2006).
Dunham J.S., et al. (2002). Provincial Marine Protected Areas in British Columbia, BC
Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Decision Support Services, Victoria, BC:
Available at ftp://ftp.gis.luco.gov.bc.ca/pub/coastal/rpts/MSRM_PMPA.pdf (accessed
Nov 23, 2006)
Government of Canada, Department of Justice. (no date) The Constitution Act of 1867.
Available at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html#distribution (accessed Nov
24, 2006).
Guénette, S., Ratana, C., Jones, R. 2000, Marine Protected Areas with and Emphasis on
Local Communities and Indigenous People: A Review. Fisheries Center Research
Reports, 8(1): UBC Fisheries Center.
Hamilton, C., Wilson, R. 2005. Marine Protected Areas and Aboriginal People in British
Columbia: From Conflict to Collaboration. Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
Available at http://www.cec.org/pubs_docs/documents/
index.cfm?varlan=english&ID=1776 (accessed Nov 26, 2006).
Integrated Land Management Bureau, Marine Planning Office, and BC Ministry of
Agriculture and Lands. (no date). Integrated Land Management Bureau, Marine Planning
Office Available at http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/lup/coastal/index.html (accessed Nov 23,
2006).
Jamieson, G. and Lessard, J. (2000). Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Closures in
British Columbia. Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Pacific Biological Station. Nanaimo,
B.C. and NRC-CNRC Research Press, Ottawa
Jessen, S. (1996). Introduction The Wilderness Vision for British Columbia: Proceedings
from a Colloquium on Completing British Columbia’ Protected Area System. Canadian
Parks and Wilderness Society. Vancouver, BC.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
42
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. (no date). Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands Marine National Monument: Management. Available at
http://www.hawaiireef.noaa.gov/management/ (accessed Nov 21, 2006).
Parks Canada. (no date). National Marine Conservation Areas of Canada. Available at
http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/amnc-nmca/index_E.asp (accessed Nov 26, 2006).
Stockstad, E. (2006). Global Loss of Biodiversity Harming Ocean Bounty. Journal of
Science, 314(5800), 745.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
43
Chapter 4
Managing Mountain Pine Beetle in BC Parks
Sara Sundin
Executive Summary
A landscape with forests that have turned red does not have to mean ecological
devastation, even if that is what it looks like (Gawalko, no date). These dead trees serve as
habitat for vertebrates and invertebrates both when they are still standing and later when they
have fallen down to the ground (Chan-McLeoyd, 2006). Affected trees starts to fall down after
3-20 years and can then be a danger for people recreating in the area. Park managers may have to
fell or make stumps of trees in the area around trails or campsites for people’s protection.
Mountain pine beetle attacks should be seen as a normal process in parks and protected
areas and, if managed, should follow the ecological preservation prescriptions a park has. Ways
to manage the affected forest is baiting, and burning of trees and whole areas (Gawalko, no date).
The beetle management in parks and protected areas is a challenge because there are so many
things that need to be considered, the ecological integrity, acceptance from the public and that
the management options do not have negative impact on the visitors’ experience (McFarlane,
Stumpf-Allen and Watson, 2006).
In this report, several recommendations for mountain pine beetle management in BC
Parks are made. To involve the management of mountain pine beetle in the ecosystem
management plans, it is important to be able to follow what should be done and when. This has
been done in Mount Robson Provincial Park. The management plans should map the area which
would help beetle management in the future, by improving planning. In terms of information
required, research about people’s attitudes towards the mountain pine beetle showed that people
had little knowledge about the mountain pine beetle; few knew that the beetle was naturally
occurring in the national parks (McFarlane et al., 2006). Education and information is important
in order to get the public to know that a mountain pine beetle attack not always is a bad sign and
understanding of the best ways to prevent future attacks.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
44
1.0 Introduction
The mountain pine beetle epidemic that is now affecting lodgepole pine forests in British
Columbia will have management implications for parks which want to maintain ecological
values and preventing the beetle from spreading (Gawalko, 2003). The mountain pine beetle
occurs naturally in British Columbia (Gawalko, no date; McFarlane et al., 2006), the quote above
suggest native species and alteration are part of the achievement and maintenance of ecological
integrity. This means that the pine beetle should be allowed to continue its infestations without
the interference of any management options (McFarlane et al., 2006).
Mild winters, natural beetle population cycles and a large quantity of mature lodgepole
pine forests as a result of fire suppression are all some factors that have caused the epidemic
(Gawalko, 2003). The mountain pine beetle is very aggressive and it kills nearly every large and
prevailing tree in a lodge pole pine stand (Amman and Baker, 1972). In British Columbia, about
4.2 million ha of land is attacked by the mountain pine beetle; 623,000 ha of these are located in
60 parks and protected areas (Gawalko, 2003). British Columbia’s provincial parks and protected
areas have never seen a natural disturbance this extensive. The beetle management in parks and
protected areas is a challenge though there are so many things that need to be considered, the
ecological integrity, acceptance from the public and that the management options do not have
negative impact on the visitors’ experience (McFarlane et al., 2006). This study shows the
background of both possibilities and challenges that parks will face during mountain pine beetle
management.
2.0 Current State of Knowledge
2.1 Literature Review
Mountain pine beetle is an endemic species in lodge pole pine stands in British Colombia
(Gawalko, no date; McFarlane et al, 2006). The normal process is small infestations; the
epidemic we see now is a result of warm weather and a large amount of suitable host trees.
Beetle infestations are not a new thing; they have been present in British Columbia for millennia
(Taylor and Carrol, no date). In the last century there have been four major outbreaks; each of
these outbreaks enlarged the total area affected by the beetle. The present infestation is the
largest one recorded in history.
Park management must balance the beetle control activities with the preservation of park
ideals; this makes beetle control in parks and protected areas more complicated than beetle
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
45
management in forests managed for timber values (Gawalko, no date). Even if the mountain pine
beetle attacks are thought to be a natural process in parks and protected areas, there might be a
need to do some management to stop the beetles from spreading to timber managed forests. Of
the control actions that are used in parks and protected areas in British Columbia, pheromone
baits are the most common. It is used to gather the beetles in small concentrations of trees and
then fall and burn the trees to kill the beetle larvae. In bigger beetle populations, a larger area can
be burned.
Burton (2006) states that the sight of dead of dead and dying trees are a big concern; for
most people there is a willingness to help the dying forest, both from forest operators and
environmental groups. Many people think that the parks are ecologically ruined after a mountain
pine beetle attack (Gawalko, no date). How to restore the forest is a big concern; the provincial
government has given $2.7 million to allay mountain pine beetle impacts in parks and protected
areas (Government of B.C. 2005, in Burton, 2006). Research, planning and sustainable
ecosystem supervision costs money for the park managers and they have to try to find funding
for this (Gawalko, no date). The government funds the management actions for the pine beetle in
parks and protected areas, with the main focus of preventing beetles from parks to spread to
forests on Crown lands.
These areas can not be harvested and managed by the forest industry but have to be
restored to protect species at risk (Burton, 2006). Productivity shifts from pure pine stands to
non-pine or non-tree species after a mountain pine beetle infestation. Previous mountain pine
beetle attacks show that stands has recovered with full but often irregular stockings (Hawkes et
al., 2004, in Burton, 2006). Pine stands often have an understory of shade tolerant species as
spruce, sub-alpine fir and Douglas-fir that starts to grow when the pine trees are dead and this
shows the ecosystems ability to restore itself. In Tweedsmuir Provincial Park, samplings from
the most beetle affected area show that understory and codominant tree species that grow under
the beetle killed trees will be a good forest in the future (Cichowski, 2000, in Gawalko, no date).
2.1.1 Cover Disappearance
When the mountain pine beetle affected tree dies, it loses all it needles, which affects the
canopy cover. This will affect the wildlife both at the stand level and at the landscape level
(Chan-McLeoyd, 2006). Animals prefer covered, continues, mature forested landscapes to move
in when searching for food or new habitats. Wildlife prefers large trees because of their big and
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
46
multifaceted crowns; these are the trees the pine beetles also favour. In forests with a mixed
species composition, the forest vertebrates should be able to get their requirements from spruce
or fir. In pure lodgepole pine stands that are very affected by the pine beetle, wildlife species that
depend on canopy cover (e.g., Townsend’s warbler, golden- crowned kinglet or marten) will
diminish or vanish from the area.
2.1.2 Hazard Tree Management
Standing dead trees provide nesting sites, important feeding substrates and habitat for
different kinds of vertebrates and invertebrates (Laudenslayer, 1997 in Shea et al., 2002). These
functions continue even after the tree falls down. Despite these positive functions, the standing
dead trees are also a potential danger for people that are in the forest (Rakochy and Hawkins,
2006). Trees start to fall down between three and twenty years after the attack (Keen 1955;
Harrington 1996; Mitchell and Preisler, 1998, in Rakochy and Hawkins, 2006). The more
moisture in the soil the higher fall rate the trees have (Lewis and Hartley, 2005 in Rakochy and
Hawkins, 2006). This calls for management in certain areas to ensure human safety (Rakochy
and Hawkins, 2006). Required management actions may include felling dangerous trees beside
often used trails, stubbing individual dangerous or suspected trees (stubbing is to cut trees in the
height of 3-5 meters), rerouting trails and relocating picnic tables.
2.1.3 Fire Management
Fire has been suppressed both in parks and in other forests in modern time. British
Columbia has 65% of mature lodge pole pine stands which are suitable for attacks by the
mountain pine beetle (Gawalko, no date). In a natural fire regime, an unmanaged lodge pole pine
stand, suitable stands for the mountain pine beetle, will reach a maximum of 25% in a 100-120
year fire cycle. This will diminish with more or less frequent fires (Taylor and Carrol, no date).
Prescribed fire will not stop the mountain pine beetle, but it will decrease its reproduction
up to 50% (Safranyik et al., 2001) and also it will diminish the risk for a high fire hazard in the
stands (Ross et al., no date).
2.1.4 Possibilities
Wildlife will often be positively affected in the remains of stands after a mountain pine
beetle attack (Chan-McLeoyd, 2006). Many birds have the mountain pine beetle as an important
food source, especially the tree-toed woodpecker and the black-backed woodpecker. A number
of studies prove that woodpecker populations increase after beetle epidemics due to an increased
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
47
food supply (Baldwin 1960; Koplin 1969, in Chan-McLeoyd, 2006). The trees are host for the
mountain pine beetles for one year, which also is the life cycle of the beetle (Chan-McLeoyd,
2006).
Chan-McLeoyd (2006) notes that “Dead and dying trees provides enhanced opportunities
for nesting, roosting, denning, perching, and foraging and will therefore support more wildlife
trees than live trees alone”. Birds and mammals use standing dead trees as nesting and denning
sites. Dead trees produce important habitat qualities such as bark slabs and downed wood; they
are also habitat for invertebrates and provide food storage for animals. More than 179 forest
vertebrates live on coarse woody debris in BC.
The increased light that reaches the forest floor after a mountain pine beetle infestation
makes a suitable habitat for deciduous shrubs, spruce and Douglas-fir (Hawkes et al., 2004, in
Chan-McLeoyd, 2006).
2.1.5 To Manage or Not to Manage?
Mountain Pine beetle are seen as a natural species in parks and protected areas; the
attacks contribute to a natural forest regeneration (Gawalko, no date). However, management of
the beetle can be needed to help prevent it to spread to forests managed for timber values.
Gawalko (no date) describes three beetle management problems in parks: a higher level of
planning usually is needed to protect unique values; affected areas usually are situated far from
roads; and forest inventories usually stops at the park borders which means no forest mapping is
available in the parks.
The Ministry of Forestry has a management strategy for the beetle infestation, which
includes management units. These units are divided in different levels of infestation (Gawalko,
no date). Beetle control in parks and protected areas is only done if they fall into these units. If
beetle control needs to be done it can not interference with the preservation of parks values. The
public response to beetle management is, according to McFarlane et al. (2006), that they feel it
was unacceptable to let the outbreak continue without doing anything to stop it. People in general
had a negative attitude to the beetle and they supported the management against mountain pine
beetle in parks.
Commercial logging, used in the timber managed forests to control the beetle, is not
allowed in parks. (Premiers Office, 2003 in Gawalko, no date) To log in a park would have
major ecological impacts. Much of the beetle affected forests are in remote areas far from roads
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
48
(Gawalko, no date). To reach this forest a network of roads would have to be built which would
affect the wilderness and recreation values in the park.
Beetle control in parks must be done to diminish direct impacts, preserve the nature of the
park and it should be done in a way that is close as possible to natural processes. (BC Parks,
1997 in Gawalko, no date) One method is to use pheromone baits that gather the beetles to a few
trees that will be felled down and then burned. Fifteen thousand beetle trees in 38 parks were
felled in the winter 2001/02. This is also the most acceptable way to mange the beetle, according
to the public respondents in a research made by McFarlane et al. (2006). If there are larger beetle
invasions in an area, prescribed burning over the whole area may be the best way to manage it
(BC Parks, 1997, in Gawalko, no date) McFarlane et al.’s (2006) research show that prescribed
burning is not supported by the public.
2.2 Research Approaches to Studying the Issue
In order to examine what it is that influence people’s knowledge, attitudes and support
towards mountain pine beetle management in parks, McFarlane et al. (2006) surveyed residents
in the Banff and Kootenay National Parks areas. The research was conducted via a questionnaire;
the respondents were located in three groups with different distance from the national parks.
They were questioned about demographic information, their knowledge and attitude about the
beetle, their environmental world view, their attitude towards management in parks and their
preference for beetle control in parks.
Rakochy and Hawkins (2006) studied the safest time for forest workers, recreationalists,
and First Nations to be in the forest after a mountain pine beetle attack according to hazard trees
and safety precautions. The study was made with 303 sample plots that were selected randomly
by the use of transects and fixed radius plots. Each mature tree at the plot was measured by
height, diameter at breast height and the species of the potential hazard trees were counted.
In order to understand the mountain pine beetles habitat needs, Elkin (2001) conducted
research in Kootenay National Park so assess if habitat choice changed with population density.
Five sites with different density were chosen; beetles were implanted in the trees and traps were
put on the trees. The trees were visited weekly and beetles caught in the traps were collected and
measured. The attack density was measured by counting the numbers of new entry holes.
In the creation of Mount Robson Ecosystem Management Plan the authors looked at a
hazard rating system made by Shore and Safranyik in 1992. The hazard system can analyze the
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
49
stand by looking at tree form, elevation, and density. These were compared with forest inventory
data. By comparing these factors, a potential mountain pine beetle productivity in Mount Robson
National Park was created.
3.0 Recommendations for BC Parks
1) Management Plans
To involve the management of mountain pine beetle in ecosystem management plans, it
is important to be able to follow what should be done and when. A good example of this is the
practical application in Mount Robson Provincial Park, British Columbia (Ross, et al., no date).
Beetle danger areas were mapped in a GIS and compared to the ecological management plan; the
result showed a direct danger to management objectives. The recommendation that came from
this was a development of a prescribed burn plan.
Gawalko (no date) writes that parks do not have areas mapped like the forest companies
have. Mapping areas with high beetle infestation within the park will help hazard tree
management in the future. It would also help to have the areas with high lodge pole pine content
mapped out for future management; this should be found in the management plan.
Removal of hazard trees should be done by stumping, not by felling the whole tree; a lot
of species depend on standing dead wood. The tree tops that are cut of should be left on the
ground to decompose in its own time. Suggestions on how, why and where to do this should be
in the management plan.
Trees killed by the mountain pine beetle can be a danger for people recreation in parks
when they start to fall down; this occurs between 3-20 years (Rakochy & Hawkins, 2006). This
has to be supervised by park managers, which have to remove or stump trees in the area where
people are recreating.
2) Information
McFarlane et al. (2006) researched peoples’ attitudes towards the mountain pine beetle. It
showed that people had little knowledge about the mountain pine beetle; few knew that the
beetle was naturally occurring in national parks. This shows that information is an important
aspect in the mountain pine beetle management, especially since so many people think that the
affected forests are ecologically devastated. Information signs should be put up in the parks and
information papers should be available. BC Parks have information about pine beetle on its web
site now, which is useful. When stump cutting is performed near trails or campsites, it is
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
50
important to inform people why it is done and what animals that can benefit from that stump.
Prescribed burning, according to McFarlane et al. (2006) is still not supported by the public, but
it has significant meaning for ecosystem variability. It will not just help to prevent this mountain
pine beetle attack: it will also put the forest to a more natural diversity species composition that
was there before the fire suppression started. Education about this should be done!
4.0 Conclusion
Park managers must balance the beetle control activities with the preservation of park
legislation and policy (Gawalko, no date). The mountain pine beetle infestations are a natural
process that has affected British Colombia for millennia; this outbreak is the most severe
(Taylor, and Carrol, no date). This outbreak is caused by a number of things such as mild
winters, natural beetle population cycles and a large quantity of mature lodge pole pine forests
(Gawalko, no date). The large amount of large quantity forests is related to years of fire
suppression.
Management of pine beetle includes baiting and burning of single trees or prescribed
burning over a big area. This can increase reproduction up to 50% (Safranyik et al 2001) and
also it will diminish the risk for a high fire hazard in the stands (Ross et al., no date).
Even if the mountain pine beetle killed trees looks ecologically devastated, they serve a
living for many species. Both birds and mammals live in the trees, and after the tree has fallen
down, many vertebrates live in the wood.
References
Amman, G.D. and Baker, B.H (1972). Mountain Pine Beetle influence on lodgepole pine stand
structure. Journal of Forestry, 70, 204-213.
Burton, P.J. (2006). Restoration of forests attacked by mountain pine beetle: Misnomer,
misdirected, or must-do? BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management.7(2), 1-
10.
Chan-McLeoyd, A.C.A (2006). A review and synthesis of the effects of unsalvaged
mountain-pine-beetle attacked stands on wildlife and implications for forest
management. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management. 7(2), 119-132.
Elkin, C. (2001). Does habitat choice by Mountain Pine Beetle vary with population
density? Research Links 9(1),8-11.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
51
Gawalko, L. (no date). Management of the mountain pine beetle epidemic in British
Columbia’s parks and protected areas. Environmental Stewardship Division, Parks and
Protected Areas Branch, Victoria, B.C
Gawalko, L. (2003).. Mountain Pine Beetle Management in British Columbia Parks and
Protected Areas. Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium: Challenges and Solutions.
October 30-31, 2003, Kelowna, BC. Information Report BC-X-399. Natural
Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, BC.
McFarlane, B.L., Stumpf-Allen, C.G. and Watson, D.O. (2006). Public perceptions of
natural disturbances in Canada’s national park: The case of mountain pine beetle
(Dendroctonus pondaerosa Hopkins). Biological Conservation 130(3), 340-348.
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Parks Division. (2001). Mount Robson Ecosystem
Management Plan. Occasional Paper No. 6. BC Parks, Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks: Victoria, BC.
Rakochy, P. and Hawkins, C. (2006). Wildlife/danger tree assessment in unharvested stands
attacked by mountain pine beetle in the central interior of British Columbia. BC
Journal of Ecosystems and Management. 7(2), 72-80.
Ross, G., Blackwell, B., Needoba, A. and Steele, F. (no date). Ecosystem-based
management: practical application in Mount Robson Provincial Park, British
Columbia. BC Parks, Prince George District Office.
Taylor, S.W and Carrol, A.L. (2004). Disturbance, forest Age, and mountain pine beetle
outbreak dynamics in BC: a historical perspective. Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium:
Challenges and Solutions. October 30-31, 2003, Kelowna, BC. Information Report BC-X-
399. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre:
Victoria, BC.
Safranyik, L, Linton, D.A., Shore, T.L and Hawkes, B.C (2001). The effects of prescribed
burning on mountain pine beetle in lodge pole pine. Information report BC-
X391. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry
Centre.
Shea, P.J., Laudenslayer, Jr. W.F., Ferrel, G. and Borys, R. (2002). Girdled vs. Bark Beetle
Created Ponderosa Pine Snags: Utilization by Cavity-dependent Species and
Differences in Decay rate and Insect Diversity. USDA Forest Service Gen.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
52
Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR 181.
Woodley, S. (2002). Planning and Managing for Ecological Integrity in Canadian National
Parks. In P. Dearden and R. Rollins (eds.), Parks and Protected Areas in
Canada: Planning and Management (pp.97-114). Oxford University Press:
Toronto.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
53
Chapter 5
Sustainable Tourism and BC Parks
Shannon Davies
Executive Summary
British Columbia is “a region of immense natural and cultural wealth and beauty,
containing a rich diversity of ecotourism attractions” (CEC 2000). The increasing numbers of
visitors to these regions can lead to their deterioration (CEC 200). With the Olympics fast
approaching, these numbers will increase substantially. This “degradation and loss of diversity
in these areas will eliminate the very attractions that draw travelers and provide revenue to the
industry” (CEC 2000). It is a crucial time in BC to incorporate long-term park planning.
It is important to develop and promote tourism that will be sustainable and
environmentally sound if we want to continue to take pride upon British Columbia’s
opportunities. Responsible development and proper management of ‘sustainable tourism’ and
niches such as ecotourism in natural areas will benefit the economy and environment of British
Columbia (CEC 2000). This report provides a brief background, definition, and importance of
sustainable tourism and ecotourism within BC.
This report also discusses the importance of the sustainable tourism industry and outlines
six recommendations for the government of BC and its parks managers: (1) reduce energy usage
in new and upcoming park facilities and establishments; (2) strongly promote waste and
pollution reduction programs and actions; (3) develop a common understanding of the term
sustainable tourism and ecotourism; (4) increase funding, research, and enforcement toward
environmentally sustainable tourism; (5) maintain public participation in planning and
development processes; and (6) consolidate environmentally friendly policy.
1.0 Overview
The tourism industry is currently the world’s largest and one of the fastest growing (CEC,
2000). In the Americas for example, the regional share of total world income from tourism in
1993 represented thirty percent of the world market (CEC, 2000). In British Columbia, the
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
54
tourism industry generated $9.4 billion in revenues just in 2004, with a gross domestic profit of
$5 billion (BC Government, 2005). Tourism in BC is the third largest sector after retail trade and
construction (BC Government, 2005).
Tourism is a highly valued part of global and regional economies, and one highly
promoted by all three North American countries (CEC 2000). There is a great deal of evidence
that “many forms of traditional tourist development cause varying degrees of harm to the
environment, as well as to local populations” (CEC 2000); especially in areas of natural beauty
and in small communities of cultural significance.
British Columbia is “a region of immense natural and cultural wealth and beauty,
containing a rich diversity of ecotourism attractions” (CEC, 2000). It is important to note that
the increasing numbers of visitors to these regions can lead to their deterioration (CEC, 2000).
This “degradation and loss of diversity in these areas will eliminate the very attractions that draw
travelers and provide revenue to the industry” (CEC, 2000). It is important to develop and
promote new ways of tourism that will be sustainable and environmentally sound if we want to
continue to take pride upon British Columbia’s natural beauty and nature-tourism opportunities.
Responsible development and proper management of ‘sustainable tourism’ in BC’s natural areas
will benefit the economy; it also has the potential to provide important financial resources to
some of Canada’s poorest regions (CEC, 2000).
British Columbia’s Ministry of Tourism acknowledges that “the need to plan for the
sustainability of tourism is growing in importance, as British Columbia works to make the most
of future environmental, economic and social changes” (BC Government, 2005). In one of
British Columbia’s current planning statements it also stated that:
• “The ministry can work with its partners to increase forms of high-yield
tourism.
• The ministry will carry out activities directed at encouraging tourism
investment and economic development.
• It will provide leadership and advocacy to stimulate strategic planning and
investments in the sector, optimal use of crown lands to support resort
development and commercial recreation, increased opportunity to attract
high-yield tourism and promotion of long term sustainability of the sector.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
55
• …focusing its activities on accelerating economic development in key
sectors such as tourism, resorts and public outdoor recreation” (BC
Government, 2005).
It seems that a lot of focus is towards economic growth and the promotion of tourism in BC, with
little focus on environmental protection. With this promotion and increase in tourism there can
be a downside. More promotion means more people, and more people mean more deterioration
of the environment.
A long-term goal needs to be followed in sustaining this environment (IUCN, 1996).
More development of environmentally sound options needs to take place. Although the
promotion of sustainable tourism and options like green tourism and ecotourism are not the only
answer, it is a good niche to partake in when possible. It is also proven to attract a significant
number of tourists compared to regular tourism, as people are interested in helping to maintain
the environment (McCool, 1994). It should be noted that nature travel is the fastest growing
sector in the tourism business; estimates of its growth vary between 10 and 30 percent per year
(CEC, 2000). Eco-tourism is, in part, nature-tourism; therefore it has a possibility for success.
2.0 Current State of Knowledge
Sustainable Tourism
Limiting the negative impacts of tourism on the natural and cultural environment is
important (Royal Roads University, no date); this can be done through “the responsible use of
resources, effective waste management and minimizing of pollution” (Royal Roads University,
no date). These actions are important when planning for sustainable tourism, but first it is
necessary to understand the concept of sustainable tourism:
� ”Sustainable tourism actively fosters appreciation and stewardship of the
natural, cultural and historic resources and special places by local
residents, the tourism industry, governments and visitors. It is tourism that
is viable over the long term because it results in benefits for the social,
economic, natural and cultural environments of the areas where it takes
place.” (Royal Roads University, no date).
� “Sustainable Tourism meets the needs of present tourist and host regions
while protecting and enhancing opportunity for the future. It is envisaged as
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
56
leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic, social
and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity,
essential ecological processes, biological diversity, and life-support
systems” (CEC, 2000).
Another very common definition of sustainability is that it meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (IUCN, 1996).
“There are three aspects of development that need to be sustained: economic, social and
environmental” (McCool 1994); for the purpose of this paper, we will concentrate on the
environmental aspects.
Ecotourism
In tourism, “sustainability is frequently associated with discussions of ‘ecotourism’ and
nature-based tourism” (McCool, 1994). Ecotourism is a type of nature based tourism (Wood,
2002). It has been studied as a sustainable development tool by development experts and
academics since 1990 (McCool, 1994).
Ecotourism is also described as ‘responsible travel to natural areas’ that “conserves the
environment and sustains the well being of local people” (McCool, 1994). While ecotourism has
the potential to create positive environmental, social, and economical impacts it can be as
damaging as mass tourism if not done properly. Since ecotourism is usually done in pristine,
fragile ecosystems it “runs the risk of destroying the very environmental assets in which it
depends” (Wood, 2002).
Many global environmental organizations and agencies favour ecotourism as a vehicle to
sustainable development (Wikipedia, 2006), but the “concept of ecotourism is widely
misunderstood and, in practice, is often simply used as a marketing tool to promote tourism that
is related to nature” (Wikipedia, 2006). Critics claim that “ecotourism often consists of placing a
hotel in a splendid landscape” (cited in Wikipedia, 2006), which leads to damage of that
ecosystem. Some operators use the label of "ecotourism" and "green-friendly" to promote their
tour, while behaving in environmentally capricious ways (Wikipedia, 2006).
It is said that true ecotourism should adopt the following criteria:
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
57
� Conservation (and justification for conservation) of biological diversity and
cultural diversity, through ecosystems protection
� Promotion of sustainable use of biodiversity, by providing jobs to local
populations
� Sharing of socio-economic benefits with local communities and indigenous
people by having their informed consent and participation in the
management of ecotourism enterprises.
� Increase of environmental & cultural knowledge
� Minimization of tourism's own environmental impact
� Affordability and lack of waste in the form of luxury
� Local culture, flora and fauna being the main attractions (Wikipedia, 2006).
Responsible ecotourism includes “programs that minimize the adverse effects of
traditional tourism on the natural environment, and enhance the cultural integrity of local people”
(Wikipedia, 2006). Therefore, “initiatives by hospitality providers to promote (and engage in)
recycling, energy efficiency, water re-use, and the creation of economic opportunities for local
communities is an integral part of ecotourism” (Wikipedia, 2006).
The responsibility of environmentally sustainable tourism is important in BC parks,
especially with the new fixed roof accommodation proposals now under-way in twelve of BC
parks (BC Parks, 2006). This new private-for-profit development will increase the chances of
negative impacts to BC’s pristine environment and ecological integrity (WCWC, 2006),
especially if not managed carefully. Ecotourism can allow for positive and successful
management guidelines in these areas, especially to international investors who may not fully
understand the sensitive ecosystems within BC.
The fast approaching Olympics in 2010 is also an important issue in British Columbia.
With the Olympics will follow a huge increase in visitors and developments in BC (BC
Government, 2004). The growth of tourism involved with the Olympics is starting now, and will
carry on well past the Games (BC Government, 2004); this puts strain on the environment in a
number of ways. More wastes, pollutions, degradation, etc. will accompany these visitors. The
promotion of going green and following environmentally safe initiatives within and among BC
parks boundaries will come of importance, and is an asset when planning for sustainability.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
58
2.2 Research
Sustainable Tourism
A “serious lack of strong data pertaining to the market characteristics of the sustainable-
tourism industry, and the lack of ‘agreed upon’ or the lack in consistency of definitions and
terminology dampen collective efforts to promote sustainable tourism” (CEC, 2000). There is
“no agreed-upon definition, set of criteria, list of indicators, or single recognized seal or
certification system for sustainable tourism in North America” (CEC, 2000).
The Commission of Environmental Conservation recognizes that “it would be more
useful to define the parameters of sustainable tourism and to set out principles to guide
sustainable practices in the tourism sector than to seek an agreed-upon definition of the term”
(CEC, 2000). There is “a need for a common North American and British Columbian
understanding of the guiding principles of sustainable tourism” (CEC, 2000) with-in
organizations and with-in the field. The Commission of Environmental Conservation is currently
beginning the production of an abstract set of criteria for in North America (CEC, 2000),
“highlighting the common elements of different criteria sets” (CEC, 2000). This project will also
“assemble examples of best practices that put principles and criteria for sustainable tourism, into
action” (CEC, 2000). This would be beneficial for BC Parks to take into account, so all of
Canada can be on the same page when planning for sustainable tourism; it will help change the
complexity of the issue when the definition and understanding of the term is shared.
Various management tools exist and have been tried out to achieve and guide sustainable
tourism development in natural areas. Among the best practices for sustainable tourism
development are “intersectoral collaboration and public participation, environmental impact
assessments, land use planning and zoning, and indicators” (CEC, 2000). Currently BC engages
in the majority of these practices when panning for development, but could and should make use
of them even more. Often some of these tools are neglected; for example, the allowance of the
new fixed roof accommodation proposals have been implemented without full public
consultation (WCWC, 2006). An increase in public participation could have provided different
knowledge, ideas, and views for sustainable planning among these developments.
Ecotourism
In 2002 the global importance of the issue regarding to sustainable tourism was raised by
the United Nations, by claiming that year as the ‘international year of ecotourism’ (Wood, 2002).
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
59
Many conferences of the parties of the UN Convention on Biological Diversities realized that
with the growing interests in nature tourism, ecotourism can have its benefits not only
economically, but conservation wise as well (Wood, 2002).
According to the fifth meeting at a convention on biological diversity, “ecotourism has a
unique role to play in educating travelers about the value of a healthy environment and biological
diversity” (Wood, 2002). Although it was noted that proper and strict planning needs to be done;
otherwise it can threaten biological diversity (Wood 2002). It is shown that businesses,
government, non-governmental organizations, and local communities must be involved in its
planning and implementation (Wood, 2002). It is also shown that local communities have the
most at stake; therefore, they need to be fully involved and educated on its implementation
(Wood, 2002).
The World Ecotourism summit in 2002 in Quebec came to some important conclusions
worth noting:
• Ecotourism works and benefits the local communities, enhances conservation
efforts, and is a sustainable way of tourism development.
• In order to make people participate in ecotourism, and most importantly not to
disturb the culture and the natural environment, there is a need of community
support, encouraging joint venture and partnership and most importantly,
communication, education and awareness
• There is an importance of certification and labeling of ecotourism businesses, as it
creates a marketing purpose allowing those who have the certificate to sell their
products better.
• There are frequent conflicts between national policies and planning of
development to that of environmental protection.
• Auditing, licensing and providing liability insurance to ecotourism business is
also a way to measure success in the business as well as providing a safety net as
well. (Wood, 2002).
These findings are important when looking at the current developments, and possible growth of
this industry, within BC Parks. It states clearly that ecotourism can prove to be a sustainable way
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
60
of tourism if planned and managed properly and if some if its challenges are addressed (e.g.,
conflicts between policies).
3.0 Recommendations
1. Reduce Energy Use
It is no secret that energy consumption is becoming a big concern throughout the
world. The population is rising, and the demand for energy is increasing. There is strain
on the world’s resources and overall ecology (IUCN, 1996). It is Canada’s, and British
Columbia’s, responsibility being that of a developed nation to do all that it can to
encourage the conservation of energy in parks campgrounds, businesses, resorts etc. This
includes striving for energy efficient light bulbs, heating systems, cooling systems,
transport, bathing utilities etc. (CWDT, 1995) in already existing establishments and
enforcing this approach to any new developments.
2. Highly Promote Waste & Pollution Reduction Programs
Another recommendation is to limit waste to implement recycling programs in
parks campgrounds, businesses, rest stops, etc for all recyclable wastes (CWDT, 1995).
There are many other wastes that can be recycled, besides the current concentration on
drink containers; such as, newspapers, plastic containers, milk jugs, cardboard, etc.
(CWDT, 1995). Another important waste that can be disposed of differently is food
wastes. A large number of food wastes can be generated especially among resorts.
Incorporating a compost program can limit this waste as well as provide environmentally
friendly fertilizer for the surrounding soils (IUCN, 1996).
Sometimes the promotion of recycling and waste reduction is not enough; it needs
to become a priority when planning for sustainable tourism. The use of levies on all
recyclable materials, or such things as tax credits rewarded to optimal
recycling/reduce/reuse programs amongst stakeholders will provide more incentive for
people to take part in such a program (Conservation International [CI], 1999). Enforcing
fines for littering and improper disposal of wastes, and passing more eco-friendly
development proposals can give incentive for more developers to adopt an
environmentally friendly approach (CI, 1999); otherwise, they have the possibility of
losing out on future proposals.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
61
Increase in tax breaks or financial support towards pollution control equipment, recycling
plants and gray water systems, or other technology such as solar and wind energy systems could
also be implemented (CI, 1999)) This type of incentive may be necessary if firms are either
unwilling or unable to pay for changes (CI, 1999).
It may also be useful to educate tourists on ways they can reduce wastes and become
more eco-friendly; such as promoting the re-use of drink and food containers and bags, using
biodegradable soaps, not burning garbage, recycling, using better disposal methods, etc. (IUCN,
1996).
3. Develop a Common Understanding of Ecotourism
The task of planning projects that are aimed toward the conservation of nature will be
more difficult without a system that efficiently collects, shares, and disseminates information on
the tourism industry (CEC, 2000). One of the problems today is that not all mangers separate
nature tourism from conventional tourism in their accounts (CEC, 2000). Managers should work
towards defining and separating all types of tourism. There is a lack of consensus or consistency
in the definition of terms; therefore, “recognizing, promoting and managing ‘sustainable tourism’
requires that there be some mutual understanding of the meaning of the term” among all types of
stakeholders nationally and internationally (CEC 2000).
4. More Funding & More Research and More Enforcement
The United Nations Environment Programme suggests that eventually guiding codes for
sustainable development may “need to become, to some degree, enforceable if they are to
become primary management tools” (Wood, 2002). Another factual need is that of an accurate
baseline of information concerning environmental degradation caused by tourists (Wood, 2002).
There also needs to be more market research, although the market characteristics of
ecotourism, nature tourism and sustainable tourism are difficult to measure (CEC, 2000). There
is a serious lack of data about the market characteristics of the industry (CEC, 2000). No
definitive studies exist “explaining the specific demand for ecotourism from conventional
tourism in North America” (CEC, 2000). Therefore, there is “a critical need for more information
on tourism in general, and on the different ‘branches’ of the industry” (CEC, 2000), particularly
ecotourism and nature tourism.
More research needs to be done, and more funding needs to be provided to help
carry out this research, and incorporate its findings.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
62
5. Maintain Public Participation
It is vital that “the public and private sectors are both involved in all discussions
regarding sustainable tourism development so as to balance the economic aspects of the industry,
with the need to protect environmental resources” (CEC, 2000). Public participation in
sustainable tourism is also achieved through training and education projects for local
communities (CEC, 2000).
It is of crucial importance that “indigenous communities are involved in aspects of the
sustainable tourism development process, from meetings and conferences to the management and
ownership of operations, including the provision of training and education” (CEC, 2000).
“Indigenous peoples often possess an intimate knowledge of local ecosystems, and can make
unique and valuable contributions to the sustainable management of natural resources” (CEC,
2000).
6. Adopt Advice from Environmentally Friendly Policy
Politicians often have different views and different standards when it comes to the tourism
industry. It is best to consolidate leaders that have appreciation and understanding of the
environment as a whole, not just the economic baseline of tourism. For example, the Green Party
of Canada has many policies that can provide exceptional advice when planning for sustainable
tourism. Some of these planning suggestions include:
• Develop and adopt codes of conduct for ecologically and socially sustainable tourism
practices;
• Develop more targeted marketing opportunities for BC's ecotourism operators;
• Conduct early and “thorough” environmental and social impact assessments;
• Ensure that development is appropriate to the specific location (doesn’t take away from
the ecological integrity);
• Design an environmental and social strategy to guide operations;
• Use and dispose of resources in an efficient and responsible manner;
• Minimize the negative impact of tourist activity on local ecosystems and cultures;
• Increase public sector capacity to manage and regulate the tourism sector; and
• Enact environmental and social “legislation” to guide development (GPC, 2005).
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
63
4.0 Conclusion
British Columbia's natural resources attract visitors from all over the world. The
“continued success of tourism as a sustainable industry in BC is dependent on its ability to access
and responsibly utilize the land, water and air resources of the province” (COTABC, no date).
As the supply of natural areas decreases, the value placed on these resources will continue to
increase (COTABC, no date). It seems that when looking at certain management plans or
tourism strategies (such as the 2010 tourism strategy) written by the BC government, the focus is
on the economic values and the need for increases in tourism capabilities, utilization, and
visitors; environmental protection is often put on the back-burner, even in protected areas.
Since BC’s tourism value is so high in parks, it is not impossible to develop stricter
guidelines with new developments, especially among private stakeholders. In fact, if stakeholders
want to compete for a new development initiative they will pay what they need to, regardless of
the environmental guidelines. People around the world know the economic tourist potential among
BC, private developers will incorporate whatever sustainable actions we ask of them with their
development proposals, or the next person in line will.
Is it too much to strive for, in a world full of increasing environmental problems, to
preserve our protected lands to our fullest capability? Make recycling/reduce/reuse programs,
energy efficient products, non-polluting tours and accommodations a law amongst new tourism
developments. Sustainability means leaving this province in a state that does not compromise the
needs of the future. If we leave our parks polluted and degraded, it is immoral, unethical, and
irresponsible.
By encouraging travelers, stakeholders, and park employees to behave in an
environmentally responsible way, and by offering travelers the opportunity to participate in
conservation or preservation projects, the path to sustainable tourism and eco-tourism can be
successful. It is important to remember the importance of education in this type of project. The
goal among many eco-tourism companies is that “through participation, eco travelers will return
home with increased awareness and concern for environmental issues and therefore continue to
behave in an environmentally conscious way” (EcoTour, 2006).
The “overriding concern for tourism is: to enhance rather than degrade tourism's core
product - land, water and air resources” (COTABC, no date). Ecotourism has been realized to
have a potential importance in sustainable development, and market research shows that eco-
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
64
tourists are particularly interested in wilderness settings and pristine areas (McCool, 1994).
“Many global environmental organizations and aid agencies favour ecotourism as a vehicle to
sustainable development” (Royal Roads University, no date), and there is vast amounts of
written material suggesting positive approaches towards environmentally sustainable tourism
that should be taken into account.
References
BC Parks. (2006). Fixed roof accommodation guidelines. Available at
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/fixed_roof/fixed_roof_accomm_dev_guide_06.pdf
(accessed Nov 23, 2006).
Commission for Environmental Cooperation. (May 2000). Promoting Sustainable Tourism in
North America’s Natural Areas: The Steps Forward. Montreal. Available at
http://www.cec.org/files/pdf/ECONOMY/sustaine_EN.pdf (accessed Nov 20, 2006).
Commonwealth Department of Tourism. (1995). Best Practice: Ecotourism. A guide to energy
and waste management. Commonwealth of Australia.
Conservation International. (1999). The Green Host Effect: An integrated approach to
sustainable tourism and resort development. Washington, DC: Conservation
International.
Council of Tourism Associations of BC. (no date). Creating Sound Environmental Practices.
Vancouver, BC. Available at http://www.cotabc.com/policy/land_and_resources.aspx
(accessed Nov 30, 2006).
EcoTour Directory. (2006). Environmental issues. Available at
http://www.ecotourdirectory.com/ecotourism/index.php (accessed Nov 28, 2006).
Government of British Columbia. Sept 2005) Service Plan Update:
Ministry of Tourism. Available at http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/
2005_Sept_Update/sp/tsa/StrategicContext4.htm (accessed Nov 24, 2006).
Government of British Columbia. (2004). Spirit of 2010 Tourism Strategy. Available at
http://www.ecdev.gov.bc.ca/ProgramsAndServices/Tourism/SUMMIT.pdf (accessed
Nov 28, 2006).
Green Party of Canada. (2005). Green Book: Expand Tourism and Ecotourism. Available at
http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/frames/frame404.html (accessed Nov 23, 2006).
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
65
International Union for Conservation of Nature. (1996). Tourism, Ecotourism, and Protected
Areas. Gland: IUCN.
McCool, S.F. (1994). Linking Tourism, the Environment, and Concepts of Sustainability:
Setting the Stage. National Recreation and Park Association. Minneapolis.
Royal Roads University. (no date). Hatley Park: Our Tourism Vision. Victoria, BC. Available at
http://www.hatleypark.ca/ (accessed Nov 30, 2006).
Wikipedia Encyclopedia. (Nov 2006). Ecotourism. Available at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-tourism (accessed Nov 23, 2006).
Wood, M.E. (2002). Ecotourism. Principles, Practices and Policies for Sustainability. Gland:
United Nations.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
66
Recreation Conflict Management in
Parks and Protected Areas
Rhona Dulay
Executive Summary
Recreation conflict is common in all types of protected areas; it needs to be constantly
managed and planned in order for visitors to enjoy their outdoor recreation experiences. Various
studies have been undertaken in the past 20 years investigating the phenomenon of recreation
conflict. These studies range from specific user group interactions to social versus interpersonal
value conflicts. Many of these studies have resulted in the compilation of various models to help
recognize the occurrence of conflicts and predict when it will occur. The result has been an
increase in awareness and knowledge as well as the establishment of better management tactics
in parks. Public participation in the planning processes and monitoring of policies currently in
place has resulted in the refinement of principles and approaches. Those plans in place today
will only aid in the enhancement of future conflict strategies. It is recommended that BC Parks
should:
1. maintain open channels of communication between users and managers;
2. promote/develop alternative recreation opportunities;
3. redistribute users spatially and/or temporally;
4. establish a working code of ethics for outdoor recreation in protected areas;
5. more actively enforce proper behaviour in protected areas;
6. legally designate use areas by activity;
7. implement a carrying capacity process to minimize recreation conflict in high use
areas;
8. increase public participation in the decision-making process to ensure transparency in
different planning stages;
9. increase funding to ensure appropriate levels of management and staff; and
10. educate the public on the issue of recreation conflict.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
67
1.0 Overview and Scope of Recreation Conflict
Recreation conflict, with respect to outdoor activities associated with parks and protected
areas in British Columbia, will only increase as a result of rising demand for area usage.
According to the “Crown Land Recreational Conflict Documentation for the Ft. St. James,
Vanderhoof, Prince George, and Robson Valley LRMP Areas” (CLRC, 2002), B.C. provincial
forests experienced 45 million visitor-days from residents alone in 1993, and out of province
recreationalists contributed an additional eight million visitor-days. According to B.C. Parks,
63,074 reservations for 3,592 campsites were received for 67 parks in 2005. In British Columbia
as of July 28, 2006, there were 852 Provincial parks and protected areas encompassing a total of
13.09 million hectares (roughly 13.8% of the provincial land base). A British Columbia
residents’ survey conducted by the Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection (MWLAP, 2002)
stated that 53% of residents visited and/or utilized a Provincial park in 2001. Factors that can
attribute to these trends include the corollary of outdoor activity with better health and quality of
life and the growth of urban centres creating a heightened demand for genuine wilderness
experiences.
Recreation conflict can be defined as goal interference (the obstruction of goal
attainment) created by another individual or group of individuals, a feeling(s) of intimidation by
an individual or group of individuals or for their property, or a strain on a visitors ability to cope
with the stress that arises from a conflict or confrontational situation; it can be a cumulative
versus simply a reactive response (Hammitt and Schneider, 2000). It has also been noted that
conflict may be a result of a direct or an indirect encounter (Confer, Thapa, and Mendelsohn,
2005). It has been an emerging issue for the last 20 years, resulting in negative interactions
which managerial bodies have strived to study, understand, and resolve (Schneider, 2004).
According to Hammitt and Schneider (2000), there have been four eras of recreation
conflict that have been identified by park and protected area managers since the 1950s: user
activity-space allocation, perception-cause, institution-public involvement, and coping-
resolution. User activity-space allocation took place during the 1950s and 1960s when
recreation activity was on the rise and more people were competing for usage of leisure areas.
Managers tried to identify any activity as well as any spatial and/or temporal incompatibilities
which could potentially result in conflict thus separating activities which could not coexist. The
perception-cause era occurred during the 1970s and recognized the significance of human
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
68
behavior and/or differences and psychological perceptions with respect to conflict. Management
attempted to focus on social characteristics and identify probable contributory factors such as
motivational differences and the range of demands as well as the experience of the users. The
establishment of the recreational opportunity spectrum (ROS) can be attributed to the perception-
cause era (1970s). ROS consists of models and educational programs for both visitors and
management staff aimed at conflict prevention targeting user behaviour (Hammitt and Schneider,
2000). The third era, the institutional-public involvement era, continued into the 1980s, initiating
public involvement in decision-making and planning processes by managing bodies. Value
differences held by recreation classes was examined and used to implement proactive planning
strategies in an attempt to open communication with the public and avert conflicts before they
had a chance to occur. Hammitt and Schneider (2000) identify the current coping-resolution era
as one involving the investigation of how visitors cope in response to conflict and how conflict
can be resolved. Management now recognizes the importance of public participation as a
collaborative process rather than merely an input in the decision-making process.
As participation in and popularity of outdoor recreation activities continues to escalate,
conflict between recreating groups is unavoidable and may subsequently increase in occurrence
(Confer et al., 2005). Improvements in technology coupled with accessibility to parks and
protected areas by more feasible and convenient means result in more people utilizing recreation
areas. The obligation for the management of conflict ensues due to limited outdoor recreation
and park supply.
According to the “Economic Benefits of British Columbia’s Provincial Parks” (MWLAP,
2001), provincial parks in B.C. bear economic significance provincially and nationally; more
than 90% of total expenditures on parks were from park visitors. The Canadian Parks and
Wilderness Society (CPAWS, 2006) claims since 1993, the budget for BC Parks has remained
constant while the number of parks in B.C. has doubled. More funding should be re-circulated
into BC Provincial Parks to help promote awareness by providing better management plans, for
example. One can obtain management plans for specific parks in British Columbia: however,
not all established parks have an official management plan.
According to the “Tourism British Columbia: Annual Report 2005/06” (TBC, 2006),
various strategies are proposed to double tourism in B.C. by 2015. In September of 2004,
Premier Gordon Campbell announced a budget increase to $50 million for Tourism BC (TBC,
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
69
2006). With the upcoming influence of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, the Province of B.C.
should expect a major influx of outdoor recreation participants in park and protected areas in the
near future.
2.0 Current State of Knowledge of Recreation Conflict
The following is a summary of various literature pertaining to the issue of recreation
conflict: what it is defined as, models developed, the various types and causes, and suggested
management strategies established as a result.
According to Vaske, Coruthers, Donnelly, and Baird (2000), when different user groups
use the same resource or recreation area, recreation conflict may occur. Recreation conflict can
also be defined as a “phenomenon (which) typically occurs when people engaged in traditional
activities (e.g. skiers) interact with those using newer technologies (e.g. snowboarders)” in the
same resource or resource area (Vaske et al., 2000, p. 297).
Recreation conflict was viewed in the past as the competition between users and/or user
groups over the same resources taking their incompatibilities into direct consideration (Confer et
al., 2005). Conflicts which can arise were a result of various factors such as noise and/or
physical presence as well as ensuing feelings of nuisance and/or stress. The intensity of the
conflicts may vary and appear in many ways causing detrimental effects on the recreationist(s).
According to Vitters, Chipeniuk, Skar, and Vistad (2004), recreational conflicts that do reach
fruition are commonly asymmetrical (i.e., perceived by a single group); for example, cross-
country skiers possess negative feelings towards snowmobilers, but not vice versa.
Recreation conflict can also take place as in-group (within the same recreational activity)
and out-group (outside the same recreational activity) categories. For example, Thapa and
Graefe (2003) discovered that skiers and snowboarders experienced both types of group conflict.
Skiers with less skill were subject to more in-group conflict than those with a higher skill level.
In general, more out-group conflict pressure was felt by skiers as a result of the behavior or
presence of snowboarders (Thapa and Graefe, 2003).
Recreation conflict can be a result of the inability of a visitor or group of visitors to
achieve a goal(s) associated with performing a specific activity. The goals, which may be social,
psychological, and/or physical, may hold great importance to a visitor and motivate an individual
to perform a particular activity: this concept is referred to as goal orientation (Gibbons and
Ruddell, 1995). The concept of goal orientation suggests that performing a particular activity
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
70
will aid in the attainment of the preferred goal. When the direct or indirect behaviour of another
individual hinders the experience and/or the goal attainment of goals of another individual
engrossed in an activity, conflict may be a result (Gibbons and Ruddell, 1995). Outdoor
recreation goal types can be separated into activity-based goals (experiencing the euphoria
associated with an activity) or setting-based backcountry goals (experiencing nature and
solitude). Crowding can also contribute to conflict due to the occurrence of goal interference
(Gibbons and Ruddell, 1995).
Confer, Thapa, and Mendelsohn (2005) suggest conflict occurs at differing levels: low
level (Type I) or visual contact conflict results from initial contact or seeing users, mid-level
(Type II) or encounters conflict is provoked by indirect or direct contact with other users, and
high level (Type III) or avoidance and impact conflict is dictated with outright evasion of other
users thus preventing any sort of association.
Outdoor recreational conflicts can range from generalized to situation-specific in context
and can exist concurrently or be integrated having negative synergistic effects. Although only
one variable need be present in order for conflict to occur, the existence of a number of different
variables may dictate whether or not recreation conflict comes to fruition or not in various
situations (Confer et al., 2005). A number of models have been suggested by various
individuals. These models have aided in the establishment of conflict types, their determinants,
and management strategies for conflict resolution. The following includes a brief description of
three of these models.
Various authors (e.g., Schneider and Hammitt, 1995; Vaske et al., 2000; Confer, Brijesh,
and Mendelsohn, 2005) have cited Jacob and Schreyer’s goal interference model. This model
identifies four factors which can contribute to conflict in a recreation setting. Activity style refers
to the significance the individual attaches to the activity including various experiences with the
activity, participation intensity, and skill level. Resource specificity identifies the meaning of the
resource area or specific resource being used to perform an activity including feelings of
possessiveness of or relationship with the resource or resource area and the range of experience.
The degree of focus on the environment whilst performing the activity held by the individual is
referred to as the mode of experience; this can either be focused (determined by details and
scenery) or unfocused (determined by preoccupation with physical movement). The final factor,
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
71
tolerance for lifestyle diversity, addresses the potential hesitation of an individual or group to
share the resource or resource area with others in different lifestyle groups.
The second model diagrams a single sphere of recreational activities: as the number of
recreational activities increases within the sphere and the sphere becomes full, the more conflict
is likely to occur. Lindsay (1980) provided an “advanced a spatial model of conflict” where
conflict was defined as “any physical, social or psychological obstruction arising with or
between participants and their recreational goals” (cited in Schneider and Hammitt, 1995, p.
224).
A third model of conflict put forth in Schneider and Hammitt’s (1995) article is that of
Bury, Holland, and McEwan (1983), which specifies the interrelatedness of the technology
dependence of a user activity and the environment. For example, a fisherman standing on the
bank of a river will have a low level of tolerance for a fisherman in a powerboat.
According to Thapa and Graefe (2003), in conflicts between skiers and snowboarders,
threats of safety, unacceptable behavior, skill level, and discriminatory factors such as age or sex
can also give rise to recreation conflict. Skiers often perceive snowboarders as being reckless
practicing unsafe jumps and speeds accompanied by lack of control and are thus perceived to
disregard others using the same resource area. Another major determinant of conflict may be
inter-group skill level differences involved in exclusive activities. Individual skill level is
influenced by the degree of expertise an individual possesses for a specific activity and conflict
may occur as in- or out-group. Individuals who are more qualified may consciously isolate
themselves from novice individuals or groups in order to attain the greatest recreational
experience. Age and/or sex are other factors which may influence recreation conflict. For
example, female skiers seemed to be more skeptical as to the compatibility of the two activities
and less tolerant of other snowboarders (Thapa and Graefe, 2003).
According to Schneider and Hammitt (1995), crowding is a significant contributor to
recreation conflict. Visitors will respond to crowding in three ways: product shift,
rationalization, and displacement. Product shift occurs when an individual is forced to change
the definition of their experience. Rationalization requires an individual to be as consciously
optimistic as possible with respect to the presence of crowding. The final response category to
crowding in a recreation area is displacement. In this case, the visitor actively segregates (or
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
72
displaces) themselves from the recreation area as a result of undesirable changes in recreation
area, social conditions, or management.
Another major factor which has been directly associated with (and even used
interchangeably) conflict is stress. It has commonly been a viewed as one way of a visitor
dealing with a direct or indirect confrontational situation (Schneider, 2004). Stress can be
defined as a reaction or a stimulus impinging on an individual (Schneider and Hammitt, 1995).
According to Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) model, stress is one of five elements associated with
recreation conflict; the others being person and situation factors, appraisals, the coping response,
and short and long term adaptational outcomes.
Coping helps an individual deal with the emotions brought about by a stressful situation.
According to Schneider and Hammitt (1995), “coping (with a conflict situation) manages both
the stressful encounter and the emotions (which may be) generated” (p.226). Schneider (2004)
identified two types of coping mechanisms: problem- and emotion-focused. Problem-focused
coping requires an individual to displace themselves spatially and/or temporally from the
recreation activity or the area. With emotion-focused coping, the individual consciously avoids
the recreation activity or area which in turn alters or lessens the emotional impact of the
stress(or). The Lazarus and Folkman (1984) model takes into account the environmental and
personal factors and illustrates influencing and appraisal factors as well as short-and long-term
outcomes. When a visitor retains negative feelings about management as a result of a diminished
experience it is classified as a short-term outcome. A long-term outcome may entail a visitor to
disapprove of management decisions based on an unpleasant recreation experience and in some
cases to discontinue using the area altogether (Schneider, 2004).
Attachment to a specific place can be related to goal orientation due to an activity
performed in that area. Place attachment refers to a feeling of well-being coupled with a bond
formed between a place and the individual performing an activity within this area. The incidence
of goal interference is more prominent in individuals attach more ‘value’ to a specific recreation
area than users who possess a lesser degree of place attachment.
The British Columbia Ministry of Forests (MoF) acknowledges the presence of winter
recreation conflict between different resource area user groups in mountainous areas (MoF,
2006). With the onset of the 1990s and a growth in popularity for backcountry winter activities
in the BC Purcell range, conflict flourished between snowmobilers, heli-skiers, and ski tourers.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
73
As these visitor areas continued to overlap, an increase in negative interactions resulted in the
form of noise disturbances as well as threats to safety. The loss of the feeling of solitude
attributed to a lessened feeling of a genuine backcountry experience. In January of 1996, after
two years of meetings and negotiations between managers and stakeholders, designated
recreation areas were established to accommodate the three aforementioned activities. In two
specific resource use areas (Catamount Glacier and Upper Jumbo Creek), snowmobile use
became prohibited (as per the Forest Practices Code of BC Act).
The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management for the Omineca-Peace Region
instigated the “Crown Land Recreational Conflict Documentation for the Ft. St. James,
Vanderhoof, Prince George, and Robson Valley LRMP Areas”, completed in March of 2002 by
various organizations (CLRC, 2002). This report specifically outlines the conflict between
motorized and non-motorized recreationalists identifying issues of concern with respect to both
groups as well as progressive management strategies. Literature reviews, past research,
interviews with individuals of interest, as well as on-going planning processes have all
contributed to the information found within this report.
3.0 Research Approaches to Studying Recreation Conflict
According to Hammitt and Schneider (2000) and the CLRC document for the Omineca-
Peace Region (2002), one of the most significant trends in conflict management and resolution
has been the identification of different causal conflict relationships between visitors, managers,
government, and local officials and residents. Hammitt and Schneider (2000) identified nine
combinations of conflict that can transpire in outdoor recreation areas: visitor to visitor, visitor to
management, visitor to community, management to visitor, management to management,
management to community, community to visitor, community to management, and community
to community. Each ‘coupling’ implies a different conflict situation and thus the necessity for a
different strategy. Schneider (2004) adds that recreation conflict can be defined by a multitude
of interacting variables which need to be identified before resolution can be obtained. Not all
conflicts need managerial intervention and can be solved by individual or groups of visitors
using coping strategies indicating that proactive and post-conflict management is necessary.
An example of the research processes necessary to investigate recreation conflict in
British Columbia is provided in the CLRC document (2002). This investigation, though focused
on one general type of recreation conflict in the Omineca-Peace Region, is very thorough and
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
74
may be used to set precedence for future reports of this kind. The ‘Study Process and Methods’
section indicates the various means by which data was collected and analyzed. Information was
gathered from various public and private agencies (including recreation and tourism operators) as
well as pertinent legislation and policies. Interviews with individuals representing groups of
concern (Ministry staff, recreation area users, and stakeholders) were conducted in the form of
surveys to provide relevant data for the study. A section outlining which Ministries are
responsible for resolving recreation conflicts, the legislation utilized in the process, and the
mechanisms by which this is accomplished was also provided.
4.0 Recommendations for BC Parks
Recreation conflict is inevitable in any shared outdoor natural resource activity area. The
keys conflict prevention is communication between and education of all respected parties.
According to Schneider (2004), between five and 40% of outdoor users will encounter
conflict, which may hinder their recreation experience. Protected area managers and planners
need to investigate the motivators for participation as well as ways to remediate crowding and
conflict in order to maintain a pleasurable experience for all that choose to recreate in natural
outdoor areas (Confer et al., 2005). There is also an expressed need for management staff to be
able to recognize the existence of a conflict, to identify and understand key conflict indicators,
and to implement the appropriate resolution mechanisms (Hammitt and Schneider, 2000). It is
important to recognize that conflicts are usually situation-specific and need to be handled
accordingly (Schneider, 2004). Proactive recreation conflict management, versus simply
reactive management, involves recognizing sources of conflict as well as visitor stress and
coping mechanisms which aids in the effective resolution of conflicts (Schneider and Hammitt,
2000).
The provision of appropriate general activity and activity-specific information (via
pamphlets, websites, orientations) pertaining to park and protected areas may also help curb the
occurrence and the negative repercussions of confrontational situations (Schneider, 2004). The
ease at which this information can be obtained should be considered as well as the opportunity
for visitor feedback (e.g., concerns, recommendations, and/or commendations). Visitor input can
be obtained by unbiased direct surveys and/or interviews either on- or off-site (Schneider, 2004;
Schneider and Hammitt, 2000). Monitoring programs may also accentuate an existing recreation
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
75
management plan. This will help managers identify, reduce, and address pertinent and potential
conflict situations and plan accordingly.
The concept of visitor ‘freedom of choice’ can be promoted in a number of ways. The
ability for the public to participate in decision-making and planning processes with respect to
recreation in this case vital tool to adequately providing services, facilities, and information
portals reflect the needs of the users (Schneider and Hammitt (2000). Open communication and
provision of information may result in the visitor feeling they have a ‘freedom of choice’ due to
an increased sense of responsibility. Individuals who frequently visit recreation areas can be
useful sources of information and may provide valuable insight to the needs of visitors.
The CLRC report (2002) identifies twelve principles managers need to understand in
order to minimize and/or alleviate user conflicts:
1. Recognize conflict as goal interference.
2. Provide adequate trail opportunities. Conflict is partially related to the lack of supply
of areas and facilities.
3. Minimize the number of contacts in problem areas.
4. Involve users as early as possible. If a problem is recognized now, deal with it!
5. Understand user needs (e.g., what types of experiences are mountain bikers looking
for?).
6. Identify the actual sources of conflict. Is it environmental degradation? Is it social
conflict? Is it both? What activities are contributing to the sources of conflict?
7. Work with affected users and user groups (e.g., Sea to Sky Forum).
8. Promote trail etiquette through the use of information and education programs.
9. Encourage positive interaction among different users.
10. Favour light-handed management.
11. Plan and act locally (cater to local needs on an individual basis.
12. Monitor progress through a carrying capacity program.
Source: Moore (1994)
The report also outlines the three functions that must be addressed prior to the implementation of
a management strategy: user safety must be maintained, natural resources must be protected from
degradation, and a quality leisure experience for all user groups of interest must be obtainable.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
76
As participation in outdoor activities in parks and protected areas increases, BC Parks
needs to focus on a variety of strategies to help reduce, prevent, and mitigate recreation conflict:
1. maintain open channels of communication between users and managers;
2. promote/develop alternative recreation opportunities;
3. redistribute users spatially and/or temporally;
4. establish a working code of ethics for outdoor recreation in protected areas;
5. more actively enforce proper behaviour in protected areas;
6. legally designate use areas by activity;
7. implement a carrying capacity process to minimize recreation conflict in high use
areas;
8. increase public participation in the decision-making process to ensure transparency in
different planning stages;
9. increase funding to ensure appropriate levels of management and staff; and
10. educate the public on the issue of recreation conflict.
The first eight conflict resolution practices, which are based on past research, are listed in the
CLRC (2002) report. Recommendations number 9 and 10 were derived from the “Radical
Changes Proposed to BC’s Park Act” (2006). Recommendation number 11 was obtained from
CPAWS (2006) and the final recommendation is a result of numerous literature sources found
throughout this document. The first five principles are the least intrusive to the visitor
experience and also the least costly to enforce. Principles six through eight however have a
higher impact on visitor freedom of choice; visitor satisfaction may be minimal if present and/or
asymmetrical.
A working provincial sample of a successful recreation conflict management plan is the
Sea to Sky Corridor in the Squamish Forest District. This area is popular for winter and summer
recreation and experiences large numbers of recreationalists (guided or unguided) all year round.
Commercial recreation organizations require a license of operation for lands utilized. An
example of a conflict management strategies include zoning specific areas designated for various
activities, conducting monthly meetings to ensure parties of interest are satisfied, and acquiring
public input.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
77
5.0 Conclusion
There are many ways in which recreation conflicts between outdoor recreation users can
be averted. As participation in outdoor activities in resource areas escalate, an increase in
recreation conflict occurring between outdoor users is likely to transpire. A number of
managerial strategies can be investigated, implemented, and monitored to help enhance visitor
experiences. Recreation conflict management is very complex and managers need to plan
proactively to avert potential confrontations. Management and staff of recreational areas face
real challenges with respect to recreation conflict management planning. The key is to be able to
identify, understand, and resolve recreational conflict situations where it is possible. Managers
need to properly understand the processes involved in and brought about by conflict situations.
The sharing of natural resource areas is inevitable but the keys to the successful symbiosis of
outdoor leisure activities include patience, awareness, education, and consideration for one’s
fellow recreation area users.
References
Barlee G. (2006). Radical changes proposed to BC’s Park Act. Available at
http://media.wildernesscommittee.org/news/2006/-0/1728.php (Dec. 1, 2006)
B.C. Ministry of Forests (2006). Winter Recreation. Available at
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/drm/Recreation/WinterRecreation/WinterRecreation.htm
(Dec. 1, 2006).
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS, 2006). ParkWatch: Issues. Available at
http://www.cpawsbc.org/parkwatch/issues.php (Nov. 29, 2006).
Confer, J., Thapa, B., and Mendelsohn, J. (2005). Exploring typology of recreation conflict on
outdoor environments. World Leisure, 1, 12-22.
Gibbons, S. and Ruddell, E. (1995). Dependence on select goal interferences among winter
backcountry users. Leisure Sciences, 17(3), 171-184.
Hammitt, W. and Schneider, I.; Gartner, W.C. and Lime D.W. (ed.). (2000). Recreation conflict
management. In Trends in Outdoor Recreation, Leisure, and Tourism. (pp.347-356).
UK: CABI Publishing.
Lazarus, R. and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal and coping. New York: Springer Publishing
Co., Inc.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
78
Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Omineca-Peace Region (2002). Crown Land
Recreation Conflict Documentation for the Ft. St. James, Vanderhoof, Prince George,
and Robson Valley LRMP Areas: Conflict between Motorized and Non-motorized
Recreation Users. March 2002. Victoria: Author.
Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection (2002). BC Residents’ Views, April 2002. Victoria:
Author.
Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection (2001). Economic Benefits of British Columbia’s
Provincial Parks. Victoria: Author.
Schneider, I. (2004). Less stress: how you can respond and manage visitor conflict. Parks and
Recreation, 69-73.
Schneider, I. and Hammitt, W. (1995). Visitor response to outdoor recreation conflict: a
conceptual approach. Leisure Sciences, 17(3), 223-234.
Thapa, B. and Graefe, A. (2003). Level of skill and its relationship to recreation conflict and
tolerance among adult skiers and snowboarders. World Leisure, 1, 15-26.
Tourism British Columbia (2006). Tourism British Columbia: Annual Report 2005/06. Victoria:
Author.
Vaske, J., Carothers, P., Donnelly, M., and Baird, B. (2000). Recreation conflict amongst skiers
and snowboarders. Leisure Sciences, 22, 297-313.
Vitters, J., Chipeniuk, R., Skar, M., and Vistad, O.I. (2004). Recreational conflict is affective: the
case of cross-country skiers and snowmobiles. Leisure Sciences, 26, 227-243.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
79
Mechanized Use in BC’s Protected Areas
James Kotai
Executive Summary
Mechanized use in parks has many social and ecological impacts. However, the
popularity of off-road vehicles (ORVs) and other forms of mechanized access has increased
dramatically since 1970; this puts pressure on park decision makers to include mechanized use in
park zoning.
There are many sensitive species in BC that would are affected by mechanized use;
research can be used to determine effects of all types of ORVs and modes of air and water travel.
The effects of ORVs should be weighted more heavily in BC parks; especially for sensitive
species such as mountain caribou and grizzly bears. Mountain caribou are declining in
population and becoming fragmented into smaller groups partly due to the increased access into
backcountry areas and mechanized use (Simpson and Terry, 2000). Heli-skiing and
snowmobiling push out and stress mountain caribou from their natural high alpine winter habitat
in winter (Simpson and Terry, 2000). More needs to be done to protect this species before they
become extinct.
Snowmobiling in BC parks, such as in Kakwa Provincial Park should be reconsidered or
further limitations and restrictions. BC Parks should also try to increase resource based tourism
in provincial parks that minimize mechanized use (Lawson and Burkhardt, 2005). Park planning
should revolve less around road travel and toward more rudimentary means as suggested by
Runte (1997). Recreation Access Management Plans (RAMPs) have been used in the Bulkley
Valley and in Golden BC. Recreation groups come together with management and discuss
strategies to help minimize recreation conflict and coordinate conservation efforts. BC Parks
should identify where recreation impact and conflict is high or sensitive species are at risk and
assess the viability and benefit of creating an RAMP for those areas in BC.
1.0 Overview and Scope
Most research on mechanized impacts started around the 1970s; this is in part due to the
environmental movement and because ATVs and snowmobiles were just starting to become
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
80
popular (Stokowski and Lapointe (2000). It is at this time that recreation conflict first became an
issue with mechanized use.
Virtually every park in BC has some form of mechanized use; access in to remote parks,
such as Spatsizi Provincial Park can be gained through float plane or helicopter. Snowmobile
use in Kakwa Provincial Park is allowed in many areas to access backcountry and cabins in the
winter. Helicopters are used to bring guests to Berg Lake in Mount Robson Provincial Park. In
Northern Rocky Mountains Provincial Park jet boats are used to access hunting camps. All these
example of mechanized use in parks have ecological and social impacts.
The issue of mechanized use in parks and protected areas is an important issue to BC
Parks but will become even more important in the future. Currently, 13.8% of BC’s land base is
protected; this is a great responsibility for BC parks to undertake (BC Parks, 2006). Pristine
landscapes are becoming scarcer as forestry, mining and gas exploration open up access to
wilderness areas. Technology advancements with respect to off-road vehicles allow humans to
get to places they could not access before. Impacts on the environment are constantly changing
and may become more significant.
The BC Parks mission statement is “to protect representative and special natural places
within the province's Protected Areas System for world-class conservation, outdoor recreation,
education and scientific study”. Some motorized use is required and important for front country
and remote parks. Boats, planes, all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, helicopters, passenger
vehicles and buses are many of the different motorized transportation types used to access and
recreate in parks. Parks staff, tourism and recreation, education and scientific study all require
some mode of transport and infrastructure; but what are the effects and how should motorized
use be managed to minimize impacts?
Balancing motorized use to conform to economic, political, special interest groups,
ecological, First Nations and local community pressures is a very difficult task. Understanding
and managing for any of these variables alone is cumbersome and challenging. Perhaps the most
difficult task is the understanding and attempt to keep areas ecologically intact. The vast amount
of research and knowledge to understand the relationships of all concepts involved in a healthy
and intact natural environment is seemingly endless. However, over time, the foundation of
knowledge is becoming more broad and inclusive and access to this information has become
easier.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
81
2.0 Current State of Knowledge
2.1 Off-Road Vehicle Use
ATVs and snowmobiles create a significant amount of noise and pollution. According to
the USDA, ATV use in the United States has increased by seven times since 1972 (Gucinski,
Furniss, Ziemer, and Brookes, 2001).
ORV use has been shown to have direct negative impacts on wildlife. Accurate data on
wildlife responses to off-road use are not well document because until recently, visual
observation methods were used; now radio telemetry can accurately show responses of wildlife
to human disturbances (Preisler et al., 2006). In one study, elk were observed to react to ATVs
at distances up to 3000 meters; overall, effects started to level off at approximately 1 kilometer
(Preisler et al., 2006). These results raise questions as to how many animals are just as or more
sensitive to the sounds of off-road or even on-road vehicles. Interestingly, elk had increased
reactions to ATVs when there was an ATV trail nearby (Preisler et al., 2006). This suggests that
elk would learn where ATV activity was common and where they were traveling and would be
quick to move from the area. In cases where elk were not as responsive to noise (when there was
no trail) might suggest that elk could not determine the direction or the location of the sound. It
was also found that elk had a higher response when in the feeding pastures with high elk density
(Preisler et al., 2006). Based on these findings it appears that ORVs have significant impacts on
wildlife behavior. Effects of ORVs may create more significant behavioral responses in more
sensitive animals such as grizzly bears or caribou.
One study on snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park described the air pollution
problem. About 700 snowmobiles use the park on any given winter day releasing 7 tons of
hydrocarbons and 19 tons of carbon monoxide; the 9200 passenger vehicles that enter the park
on the same day will release 3 tons of hydrocarbons and 18 tons of carbon monoxide (Daerr,
2000). These numbers suggest that the average snowmobile pollutes at least 30 times more than
an average passenger vehicle for hydrocarbons. For carbon monoxide, snowmobiles will pollute
14 times more than a passenger vehicle. Pollution from snowmobiles is not considered as much
as noise or wildlife disturbance but it certainly does raise questions as to where air contaminants
are distributed. Very little research has been complied to suggest the effects of ORVs on air
quality.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
82
Another issue may be the random occurrence of oil and gas leaks or spills. Leaking oil
from snowmachines or small leaks and spills from fueling up could add up and create a point
source of contamination.
2.2 Endangered Mountain Caribou in BC
Mountain caribou have been significantly affected in BC from human disturbances; this
species is currently red listed (Simpson and Terry, 2000). Some important factors in the
disappearance of mountain caribou include loss of old growth habitat of greater than 140 years,
fragmented habitats, human disturbances and predation (Clayton and McLellan, 2006).
Mountain caribou were found to frequent places that contained old growth forests and were
remote from human presence with low road density and low motorized access (Clayton and
McLellan, 2006). Because mountain caribou are endangered, special care should be taken to
ensure that their habitat is not disturbed.
Winter is a tough time for mountain caribou to survive: they require high energy levels
for survival. Critical and rare winter ranges of mountain caribou are disturbed by mountain
recreation such as snowmobiles, back-country skiers and ice climbers. Caribou use these high
alpine areas for food and escape from predators in late winter (Simpson and Terry, 2000). It has
been found that snowmobiling has the highest perceived threat to mountain caribou for most
populations; winter range for mountain caribou is also favored ground for snowmobilers
(Simpson and Terry, 2000). Figure 1 (below) shows the range of perceived threats to mountain
caribou and the land space required for those activities. Today’s snowmachines can access high
alpine areas easier than in the past. This causes mountain caribou to retreat to steeper slopes that
are more susceptible to avalanches (Simpson and Terry, 2000). Furthermore, snowmobiles
create tracks in the snow that allow predators to travel to alpine areas where they could not when
snowmobiles were not around; snow is deeper up high ridges than on valley bottoms (Simpson
and Terry, 2000). Back-country skiers use helicopters and snowcats to also access these high
alpine bowls and ridges for fresh powder and virgin descents. Protected areas and parks should
not allow any sort of mechanized access in areas of critical mountain caribou habitat. Protection
of this species should be paramount to recreation. The amount of mountain caribou habitat in
parks is very small; everything and anything should be done to protect them.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
83
Figure 1. Perceived Threat of Activities in Mountain Caribou Habitat
Source: Simpson and Terry, 2004
2.3 Effects of Roads
Roads will have benefits and negative impacts in parks; the degree of impact depends on
the type and location of road. Some of the benefits may include improving access and allowing
for more recreation opportunity. For example, a road into an upper river system would allow
kayakers, fishermen and canoeists to use this area. There are many downfalls, however; roads
and mechanized travel have serious impacts to the ecological integrity in parks, cause noise
pollution, decrease availability to wilderness user groups and minimize intact wildlife and
vegetative habitat (Gucinski et al., 2001). Roads have been shown to have an impact on wildlife
by providing access for humans into previously inaccessible areas and creating barriers to
wildlife (Craighead, no date). Habitat fragmentation is a considerable problem because it will
increase the amount of inbreeding and lead to smaller and more isolated populations (Craighead,
no date). It has been shown that large carnivores and ungulates can be significantly affected by
roads. Road avoidance behavior has been observed for large animals such as grizzly bears, elk,
bighorn sheep, wolf and caribou (Gucinski et al., 2001). Grizzly bears are very sensitive to
roads; grizzly deaths increase as roads and motorized use densities increase (Mace and Manley
1993). Some research has shown that road densities must be less than one per square mile to
minimize impacts and if road densities are more than two per square mile, grizzlies can be
displaced from this area completely (Mace and Manley 1993). Mattson et al. (1987) found that
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
84
most bears will be offset about 0.3 miles on either side of a road on average and even when roads
are closed, bears - especially females with cubs - may continue to avoid using roads completely.
There are many other variables that will be affected by introduction of roads to parks.
Roads will have significant effects on natural water drainage systems. Channel flow, flow
velocity, weathering, erosion, sedimentation, water temperature and pollution are all
considerable impacts caused by roads (Gucinski et al., 2001).
2.4 Tourism and Mechanized Use
Tourism is affected by motorized use in parks and roads. Most tourism involves
mechanized use to the park and often within the park. However, 10% of annual revenues in BC
are resource based tourism, the fastest growing sector in tourism according to the British
Columbia Wilderness Tourism Association (BCWTA, 2006). Resource based tourism is
considered to be sustainable and takes place in a wilderness setting; tourists pay top dollar, up to
twice the amount of road accessible tourism, to recreate in remote areas of BC (Lawson and
Burkhardt, 2005). Remoteness sells; visitors to parks should be given the opportunity to
experience solitude and wild settings. The kinds of recreation that would be non-disruptive
include hiking, canoeing, photography, wildlife viewing and cross-country skiing. The more
wilderness that is available the more this industry will appeal. BC is renowned for having wild
landscapes and parks provide some of the last supply of wild and pristine places. Motorized use
reduces the ecological and aesthetic value of parks significantly and affects the type of tourism
(Lawson and Burkhardt, 2005). One conflicting issue with resource based tourism is how to
bring in the tourists to remote areas while minimizing mechanized travel.
2.5 Recreation Conflicts
Recreation conflict is a widespread issue with motorized use in parks; increased access
into recreation areas often leads to recreation conflict (see the chapter by Dulay in this report).
Recreation conflict starts when goals are interfered with; individuals seeking fulfillment of
nature-oriented goals such as solitude can be compromised by thrill seekers or social oriented
goals (Gibbons and Ruddell, 1995). In conflict, frustration or threat is inevitable and is a major
source of psychological stress in human affairs (Schneider and Hammitt, 1995). Tourists that
experience recreation conflicts may not return to visit the same area.
To help mitigate the issue of recreation conflict, the Bulkley Valley and Golden BC both
created local Recreation Access Management Plans (RAMPS). User groups were brought
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
85
together to discuss conflict and ecological management issues. The outcome was agreement
between the groups that divided up recreation access opportunity. By doing this, recreation
conflict was minimized and ecological preservation values are respected. Caribou herds in both
regions are endangered and were an important factor. RAMPs promote volunteer recreation
closures and limitations.
In one article, cross-country skiers were tested to see how they would react to a
snowmobile encounter (Vitterso, Chipeniuk, Skar, Vistad, 2004). Two test groups were studied:
group 1 was a control group and did not encounter a snowmobile; group 2 encountered a
snowmobile while cross-country skiing. Group 2, those that encountered a snowmobile, had the
impression that snowmobiles had more negative effects than the control group (Vitterso et al.,
2002). According to Vitterso et al. (2002), an encounter such as this will not only create a
negative recreation experience but it will cause non-motorized users to feel more strongly about
the negative effects of motorized use.
3.0 Research Approaches to Studying Mechanized Use
The unique data sets obtained from using radio telemetry allowed Preisler et al. (2006) to
develop statistical methods called probalistic flight response for analysis of human disturbance to
wildlife. This new research approach will certainly have uses in many different regions. Theory
from this type of research can possibly be applied to other sensitive species.
The study by Vitterso et al. (2002) was a similar research method. They used a
snowmobile disturbance to study the effects on humans. The snowmobile appeared as a random
event; after the skiing session a questionnaire was filled out to determine how it affected the
skiers. The questions of interest were grouped with a series of other questions to disguise the
purpose. This type of research is much more effective than just asking park users outright about
how they feel about motorized use. If park users directly experience a disturbance they will be
much more likely to have a negative perception on mechanized use.
4.0 Recommendations to BC Parks
RAMPs have been used in some communities where potential of recreation conflict is
high. Golden and the Bulkley Valley, both in BC, have used RAMPs. The purpose of a RAMP
is to maximize economic opportunity while supporting the social and environmental values and
minimizing recreation conflicts; RAMPs deal with recreation exclusively according to the
Golden Backcountry Recreation Access Plan (GBRAP), 2002. All user groups come together
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
86
and discuss interests and tradeoffs so that a viable plan can be reached (GBRAP, 2002). The
GBRAP has set out what recreation groups can use what areas at specific times; for example,
snowmobiles and cross-country skiers will not be using the same area at the same time. In
another example, the Upper Wood River area was recognized as having high biodiversity and
important mountain caribou habitat (GBRAP, 2002). This area was designated as non-
mechanized use only; helicopter use is limited and only at specific landing areas for heli-skiing.
In the GBRAP, user groups volunteered to limit use or cease to recreate in certain areas for
management reasons. Cooperation was achieved perhaps due to fact that groups were brought
together and all were consulted. RAMPs could be useful in many more areas across the province
to help protect the environment and prevent recreation conflicts.
It has been suggested to decrease motorized access and use in parks and introduce more
rudimentary means of travel to and within parks. Runte (1997) would prefer to see people
walking or riding bikes so that people can enjoy parks for what they are meant to be; quiet,
natural areas for people to enjoy nature and relax. Trains are the common mode of travel in
European parks and are very effective in reducing mechanized use (Runte, 1997). Snowcoaches
and shuttles have been suggested as another means to move people around in parks as opposed to
personal mechanized travel (Daerr, 2000).
‘Remoteness’ is defined by Lawson and Burkhardt, (2005), as a resource that is not
accessible by road and is based on a remote wilderness experience where access is only gained
through air, water or rail. Based on this definition, BC has tremendous opportunity for remote
tourism. BC Parks should capitalize on this remote tourism and provide a unique experience that
is increasingly rare in the world.
Roads impacts are highly variable; the USDA suggests that a comprehensive framework
for determining the risks, dilemmas and tradeoffs could provide a very useful tool for land use
management (Gucinski et al., 2001). In order for this to happen, more research must be done in
different eco-zones and existing research be compiled to help decision makers better understand
these risks and tradeoffs of roads or the lack of roads.
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
87
5.0 Conclusion
Mechanized use in parks is a very important issue in BC. Ecological integrity and social
values become compromised with an increase in roads or motorized use in parks. Parks
management needs to determine the problems, risks and tradeoffs associated with mechanized
use in and around protected areas. Park planning should consider accommodating other means
of travel than cars to reduce mechanized travel and promote a more quiet and natural experience
in parks. RAMPs should be used in all areas in BC to promote cooperative and volunteer
recreation use. Ecological integrity and recreation conflict can be minimized through RAMPs.
Species at risk rely on the proper management of critical habitat. Mountain caribou are an
example of species that have been hurt by improper management; critical caribou habitat in parks
needs to be carefully managed to assist in the recovery of this species. BC still has vast expanses
of wild areas and opportunity to protect land; BC Parks can offer more unique and natural
experiences by not only discouraging mechanized use but promoting less disruptive modes of
travel to and within parks.
References
BC Parks (2006). BC Parks Facts and Figures (Available at
www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/facts/fact_fig.html (Dec. 3, 2006)
BC Wilderness Tourism Association (2006). BC Wilderness Tourism Association.
Available at www.wilderness-tourism.bc.ca (Dec. 1, 2006).
Clayton, D., McLellan, B. (2006). Factors influencing the dispersion and fragmentation
of endangered mountain caribou populations. Biological Conservation, 130, 84-97.
Craighead, F. (no date) Wildlife-related road impacts in the Yellowstone to Yukon
region. Available at http://www.y2y.net/science/roads_wildlife.pdf (Dec. 1, 2006)
Daerr, E. (2000). Park service to issue rules on off-road vehicles. National Parks, 74(5),
12-13.
Gibbons, S. and Ruddell, E. (1995). Dependence on select goal interferences among
winter backcountry users. Leisure Sciences, 17(3), 171-184.
Golden Backcountry Recreation Access Plan (2002). Available at
http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/ilmb/lup/srmp/southern/gbrap/pdf/GBRAP.pdf (Nov. 28,
2006)
ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF
88
Gucinski, H., Furniss, M.J., Ziemer, R.R. and Brookes, M.H. (2001). Forest roads: a
synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-
509. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station.
Lawson, S., and Burkhardt, R. (2005). Remoteness sells: a report on resource based
tourism in northwestern Ontario. Toronto: Wildlands League.
Mace, R., Manley, T. (1993). South Fork Flathead River Grizzly Bear Project, Progress
report. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Mattson, D., Knight, R., Blanchard, B. (1987). The effects of development and primary
roads on grizzly bear habitat use in Yellowstone National Park,Wyoming. International
Conference on Bear Research and Management, 7, 259-273.
Preisler, H., Ager, A., Wisdom, M. (2006). Statistical methods for analyzing responses of
wildlife to human disturbance. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, 164-172.
Runte, A. (1997). Redefining Sacred Space. National Parks, 71(1), 39-40.
Schneider, I. and Hammitt, W. (1995). Visitor response to outdoor recreation conflict: a
conceptual approach. Leisure Sciences, 17(3), 223-234.
Simpson, K., Terry, E. (2000). Impacts of backcountry recreation activities on mountain
caribou. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria BC.
Stokowski, P., Lapointe, C. (2000). Environmental and social effects of ATVs and
ORVs: An annotated bibliography and research assessment. Available at
http://www.americantrails.org/resources/wildlife/docs/ohvbibliogVT00.pdf (Dec. 1,
2006).
Vitterso, J., Chipeniuk, R., Skar, M., Vistad, O. (2004). Recreational conflict is affective:
the case of cross-country skiers and snowmobiles. Leisure Sciences, 26, 227-243.