The Limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning /

Abstract

This paper describes the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) system, a framework for establishing acceptable and appropriate resource and social conditions in recreation settings. The LAC has been developed in response to the need of managers for a means of coping with increasing demands on recreational areas in a visible, logical fashion. The LAC also represents a reformulation of the recreational carrying capacity concept, with the primary emphasis now on the conditions desired in the area rather than on how much use an area can tolerate. The LAC is not a new idea. It is, however, the latest step in a continuing effort to improve wildland recreation management through definition of more explicit, measurable objectives. Nine steps are involved in the overall process.tions employed, alerting managers to the need to consider more rigorous application or the use of other measures.To demonstrate how these nine steps can lead to an effective management program, a hypothetical case example is described.

The Protected Area Visitor Impact Management (PAVIM) Framework: A Simplified Process for Making Management Decisions

“…The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) framework, developed by the US Forest Service, incorporates transactive planning (based on shared learning and open dialogue between stakeholders) (Graefe et al, 1990;Stankey et al, 1985). Other frameworks include Visitor Impact Management (VIM), developed by the US National Parks and Conservation Association (Graefe et al, 1990), Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP), developed by the US National Park Service (USDI, 1997) and Visitor Activities Management Process (VAMP), a conceptual planning model developed by Parks Canada to address target markets, appropriate recreation activities and park-related facilities (Graham et al, 1988).…”

“…Decision-making frameworks include carrying capacity and alternative frameworks such as Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) (Stankey et al, 1985;Wagar, 1964) and Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) (National Parks Service, 1997a;b). Carrying capacity frameworks are simple and inexpensive to implement and have been widely adopted by Central and South American protected areas, yet they have been misapplied in practice and have often failed to minimise visitor impacts (Lindberg & McCool, 1998;Norris, 1994;Wallace, 1994).…”

Investment Evaluation of Tourism Industry: A Case Study of Coastal Recreation Areas in Hualien Taiwan

“…The methods for studying recreational carrying capacity include the use of systematic analysis to integrate relevant planning factors, as well as the use of an objective planning method to develop a land-use objective model for a recreational area (Stankey et al, 1985;Manning 2001); the use of the perspective of limits of acceptable change (LAC) to calculate the recreational carrying capacity limits of acceptable change (Shelby & Heberlein, 1984;Hetzer, 1970); the use of fuzzy set theory to deal with the issues of multi-objective planning; and the use of questionnaire survey data to develop a multi-objective planning model or Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to determine the most appropriate recreational carrying capacity (Conestrelli &Costa, 1991;Pourahmad et al, 2015;Michailidou et al, 2016).…”

“…This phenomenon reflects that, although the development of tourism attracts tourists, it also creates unhealthy tourism development, such as environmental impacts, overburdened roads, air pollution, littering, incorrect environmental introduction offered by tour guides, and disrespect for local cultures. Therefore, the evaluation of recreational carrying capacity can help government authorities and the managers and operators of tourist attractions to develop effective measures, giving consideration to both resource conservation and recreational management, and it can also be provided as a basis for regulations governing the number and behavior of tourists (LaPage, 1963;Dasmann, 1964;Lime & Stankey, 1971;Shelby & Heberlein, 1984;Stankey et al, 1985;Hammitt & Cole, 1998;Andrew, 1999;Manning, 2001;Clivaz et al, 2004;Dobrica & Vanja, 2007;Manning, 2010;Whittaker et al, 2011;Jurado et al, 2012). concerning ecotourism and the carrying capacity of coastal recreational areas, and used the Delphi method, expert interviews, the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP), and a questionnaire survey to perform investigations, identify critical factors affecting the carrying capacity of coastal recreational areas, and provide research results to act as a reference for subsequent studies and to assist government authorities and private sector bodies to implement effective management measures.…”

A Framework for Managing the Biophysical Effects of Tourism on the Natural Environment in New Zealand

“…The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) process (Stankey et al 1985) focuses on wilderness planning with explicit objectives and opportunity classes for different management approaches. Management decisions focus on bringing back or maintaining the desired state for each opportunity class.…”