No abstract

SUMMARYThe expansion and proliferation of backcountry campsites is a persistent problem in many parks and protected areas. Shenandoah National Park (SNP) has one of the highest backcountry overnight use densities in the USA national parks system. SNP managers implemented a multi-option backcountry camping policy in 2000 that included camping containment with established campsites. These actions were intended to reduce the number of campsites and the area of camping disturbance at each site. This paper describes a longitudinal adaptive management assessment of the new campsite policies, applying quantitative measures of campsite conditions to evaluate the efficacy of management interventions. Physical campsite measurements combined with qualitative visitor interviews indicated SNP had successfully reduced the number of campsites and aggregate measures of camping-related disturbance in the Park, while minimizing the use of regulations, site facilities and staff resources. Implications for managers of other protected areas are that an established site camping policy can minimize camping disturbance, including the number and size of campsites, provided managers can sustain rehabilitation efforts to close and restore unneeded campsites. Experiential attributes, such as the potential for solitude, can also be manipulated through control over the selection of established campsites. Integrating resource and social science methods also provided a more holistic perspective on management policy assessments. Adaptive management research provided a timely evaluation of management success while facilitating effective modifications in response to unforeseen challenges. Conclusions regarding the effectiveness of a visitor impact containment strategy involving an established site camping option are offered.

Using resource-monitoring data from seven protected areas, the effectiveness of three campfire policies-campfire ban, designated campfires, and unregulated campfires-were assessed based on the number of fire sites and the amount of tree damage. Results indicate that unregulated campfire policies permitted substantial numbers of fire sites and tree damage in campsites, although fire bans did not eliminate or even substantially decrease these problems. A designated campfire policy was effective in decreasing number of fire sites, but little difference was found among policies regarding tree damage. Given the importance of campfires to visitor experiences, campfire prohibitions could be viewed as unnecessarily restrictive based on their limited success in preventing resource damage. Conclusions encourage protected-area managers to consider designated campfire policies and prohibitions on axes, hatchets, and saws to better meet resource protection and visitor experience mandates.

No abstract