Wildland recreation disturbance: broad‐scale spatial analysis and management

Abstract

Wildland recreation that does not involve animal harvests (non‐consumptive recreation) often influences various components of natural systems, including soils, water, air, soundscapes, vegetation, and wildlife. The effects of non‐consumptive recreation on wildlife have typically been assessed at spatial scales that are not only much smaller than the overall distributions of this disturbance but also much smaller than the areas that species use during a season or year. This disparity in scales has prevented effective assessment and management of broad‐scale recreation disturbance for many species, especially wildlife. We applied three software systems (ArcGIS, FRAGSTATS, and Conefor) to demonstrate how metrics commonly measured by landscape ecologists can be used to quantify broad‐scale patterns of non‐consumptive recreation. Analysts can employ such metrics to develop predictive models of how recreation disturbance – by itself and in additive or interactive combinations with other landscape characteristics – may affect wildlife responses across large areas. In turn, these models can inform decision making in broad‐scale recreation management.

The Role of Tourism Impacts on Cultural Ecosystem Services

“…Inherently, recreational tourism causes impacts on the natural resources. For instance, recreation behavior is linked to decreases in biodiversity such as wildlife, soil, and vegetation loss [36][37][38][39][40]. Because resource setting and conditions are the conduits to cultural ecosystem services, and therefore vital components of nature-based experiences in parks and protected areas [41], ecological impacts stemming from recreation also negatively impact self-reported experience and preference for recreation setting [42][43][44][45][46][47][48].…”

A bird’s-eye view of recreation : improving the application of scientific knowledge and tools in collaborative decision-making processes

“…Site managers: the relevance of knowledge and tools is increased when managers are able to predict the impact on visitor densities of changes in access for recreation, for example by changing the location or capacity of car parks or temporarily closing parts of the area. The importance of this characteristic was previously advocated by Pullin et al (2004) and Gutzwiller et al (2017). b. Stakeholders: the validity of knowledge and tools is increased when stakeholders can associate the output of the tools with the values they adhere to, as was advocated by Chan et al (2016) and McCool (2016).…”

“…First, I want to explore how available data and knowledge can be made context-specific, thus making it more salient. To achieve this, I will integrate site-specific, local knowledge with generic scientific knowledge, taking into account the complexity caused by the different scales at which recreational activities affect bird populations (Gutzwiller et al 2017). Second, I will explore how scientific information on the relationship between recreation and bird populations can help conflict management in local mixed stakeholder groups.…”

“…When site managers attempt to link management actions to acknowledged values they often face the difficulty of ' crossing scales' (Cash et al 2006, Gutzwiller et al 2017: most management actions relate to local changes in visitor access and habitat improvements, whereas most acknowledged values relate to regional or even national targets, such as population size. The tools I used in Chapters 3, 4 and 5 can all be used to cross scales as they relate the impacts of local management actions to regional impacts on bird conservation.…”

“…However, detecting impacts at larger spatial scales is more difficult because other factors, such as changes in land use and climate change, have to be taken into account (Young et al 2005). Impacts from these factors might even exceed impacts from recreation, making these even harder to detect (Gutzwiller et al 2017). Nevertheless, taking large spatial scales into account is essential for an adequate assessment of the impact on population size and viability (Buckley 2013, McCool 2016, Gutzwiller et al 2017.…”