APPLYING A BUMAN DIMENSION TO IVILDLIFE MANAGEMENT: A

CASE STUDY OF LAKE O'BARA

Dawn Priscilla Kelly

B.A. (Honours) Geography, University of Western Ontario 1994

RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED iN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQülREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

in the

School of Resource and Environmental Management

Report No. 21 1

63 Dawn Priscilla Kelly 1997 Simon Fraser University Decernber 1997

Ali rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. National Libraty Bibliothéque nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Weiiingtan Street 395. tue Wellington Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada

The auîhor has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distri'bute or seil reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thése sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/fïlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright kt this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantieIs may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation.

This compIetion of this work is credited to the participation of a number of individuais who were invoIved at various stages of the project. First and foremost, 1 would Iie to thank my senior supervisor, Dr. Parnela Wright for introducing me to the project and for her direction, good humour, and time cornmitment with respect to analyzing the data and writing the report. 1 wish to thank Alison Gili, my second reader, for her guidance, particularly in obseMng the details 1 had overlooked. 1 wodd aiso like to extend my gratitude to those who were invaluable during my field season. Special thanks to thank Jean-Paul Molgat for "teaching me the ropes" and to Pasha Carruthers, my cheery countetpart, for her he1p in ensuring the project ran smoothly. 1 would lie to th& Derek Petersen for his guidance in the projecf particulariy for taking care of the pre-field season logistics and to ai1 the other wonderfiil Yoho NationaI Park staff for their heIp and cooperation with the project. I would aiso like to express my appreciation to the Lake O'Hara Lodge management and staff for their hospitdity and for induding me in ail the summer socids. And hally, to those who have given me the inspiration to take the last few Ieaps in getting this report completed, 1 thank you. Table Of Contents

** Approval page ...... LI Abstract ...... III Acknowledgments ...... iv List of Figures ...... ix List of Tables...... x

1-0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1-2 Research Probiem ...... 2 1.3 Purpose and Objectives ...... 5 1-4 Organization...... 5

2.0 Literature. .Review ...... 6 2.1 Visitor Management Models...... 6 2.1.1 Recreation Opportunity Spectnim ...... 6 2.1.2 Setting-bas& Models...... 8 2.1.3 Activity-based Models ...... 9 2.1 -4 Benefit-based Models ...... 10 2.1.5 Other Visitor Management Models ...... 11 2.2 Collection of Visitor Experience Information ...... 12 2.2.1 Visitor Surveys ...... 12 2.2.2 Visitor Employed Photography ...... 13 2.2.3 Trail Use Assessments ...... 15 2.3 Applying Visitor Experience Information to Wildlife Management ...... 15 2.4 Past Visitor Research Conducted in the Study Area ...... 18 2.5 Conclusion to Literature Review ...... 19

3.0 Setting ...... 20 3.1 Features of Study Area ...... 20 3.1.1 Natural Environment ...... 20 3.1.2 Recreational Environment ...... 20 3.1.3 Heritage Resources ...... -21 3.2 Accommodation and Facilities ...... 2 1 3.2.1 Lake O'Hara Campground ...... 23 3.2.2 Elizabeth Parker and Abbot Pass Huts...... 23 3 .2.3 Lake O' Hara Lodge ...... 23 3 .2.4 Le Relais...... 23 3.2.5 Bus Shuttle Senrice ...... 24

6.0 Segment Profiles ...... 62 6.1 Country of Origin ...... 62 . . 6.1.1 Trip Charactenst~cs...... 62 6.1.2 Activity Characteristics ...... -62 6.1.3 Hiking Preferences ...... 63 ...... 6.1.4 Hiking Plans ...... 63 6.1.5 Park Management Actions ...... 65 6.2 Prior Visitation Segmentation...... -66 6.2.1 Trip Charactenstics...... 66 6.2.2 Hiking Preferences...... 66 6.2.3 Park Management Actions ...... -67 6.3 Accommodation Segmentation ...... -69 6.3.1 Visitor Profile ...... -69 6.3 -2 Trip Characteristics...... 70 6.3 -3 Hiking Preferences...... -71 6.3.4 Park Management Actions ...... -72 6.4 Benefit-Based Profile ...... 75

7.0 Defining The Hiking Experience...... 79 7.1 Response Rate ...... 79 7.2 Photographie Subjects ...... 79 7.3 Visitor Experience and Photographic Judgment ...... 82 7.4 Features of Trails Hiked ...... 82 7.4.1 Feature Preference Cornparisons ...... 84 7.4.1.1 Focus Groups ...... 84 7.5 Features of Closure Trails ...... 85 7.6 Hiking Preferences ...... 86

8 .0 LeveIs Of Use ...... -89 8.1 Area Use Summary ...... 89 8.2 Trail Use Assessrnent ...... -90 8.2.1 Intensity of Use ...... 93 8.3 Level of Use. .fiom Visitor Survey ...... 94 8.3.1 Hiking Expenence...... -94 8.3.2 Trails Hiked ...... -95 8.3.3 Trails People Wanted to Hike But Were Unable To ...... 96 8.3.4 Length of Hike ...... 99 8.3.5 Favourite Trails ...... 99 9.0 Discussion ...... 106 9.1 What Type ofVisitor Experience Are Hikws Currently Receiving? ...... 106 9.1.1 Visitor Profile ...... --...... 106 9.1.2 Motivations and Benefits for Hiking ...... 110 9.2 How Do Visitors Feel About Trail Closures and Other Actions? ...... 111 9.3 What Types of Recreation Features Are Important to Visitors? ...... 113 9.4 What Are the Trd Preferences and Current Patterns of Use? ...... 114 9.5 Is it Possible to Spaîia. Represent Social Data? ...... 115

10.0 Recomrnendations and Conclusions...... 117 10.1 Context for Recommendations...... ,...... 117 10.2 What Type of Visitor Experience Are Hikers Currently ReceiWig? ...... 117 10.2.1 Visitor Profile ...... 117 10.2.2 Motivations and Benefits for Hiking ...... *...... 117 10.3 How Do Visitors Feei About Trail CIosures and Other Actions? ...... 118 10.4 What Types of Recreation Features Are Important to Visitors? ...... 119 10.5 What Are the Trail Preferences and Current Patterns of Use? ...... 121 10.6 1s it Possible to Spatiafly Represent SociaI Data? ...... 122 10.7 Conclusions ...... 124

Appendix A .Visitor Experience Survey ...... 125

Bibliography ...... 131 List Of Figures

Figure 1 : Lake O'Hara Study Area ...... 4 Figure 2: Lake O'Hara Hiking Trails and Facilities ...... 22 Figure 3: Trail Counter Locations...... 33 Figure 4: Country of Ongm...... -. 38 Figure 5: Group Size of Visitors...... 39 Figure 6: Gender and Age of Respondmts ...... 40 Figure 7: Frequency of Visitation in Past Ten Years ...... 40 Figure 8: Breakdown of Visitors by Accommodation Type ...... 41 Figure 9: Activities Visitors Participated in During Visit ...... 45 Figure 10: When Visitors First Learned of Seasonal Bear Closures ...... 46 Figure Il: How Visitors Learrted About Bear Closures Prior to This fikit ...... 47 Figure 12: Visitors' Avoidance of Trds Near Closwe Areas ...... 48 Figure 13: Percentage of Visitors Who Had Previously Hiked Closure Trails ...... 50 Figure 14: Number of Times Visitors Previously Hiked Closure Trails...... 50 Figure 15 : Visitor Attitudes About Potentid Management Actions ...... 54 Figure 16: Visitor Attitudes About DifEerent Types of Closures (Safety Reasons) ...... 55 Figure 17: Visitor Attitudes About Different Types of Closures (Protect Wildlife) ...... 55 Figure 18: Major Themes of Visitor/WildIife Comments ...... 58 Figure 19: SarnpfeVisitor Comments ...... 59 Figure 20: VEP Features of Interest ...... 80 Figure 2 1 : VEP Features of interest by Sub-Category ...... 81 Figure 22: Main Comments/Recommendationsfiom VEP Exercise ...... 83 Figure 23: Lake O'Hara Surnmer Attendance Figures ( 1972- 1996) ...... 90 Figure 24: Monthly Passages for Alpine Route Trails ...... 92 Figure 25 : Monthly TotaIs for Trail Segments ...... 93 Figure 26: Visitors' Use of Lake O'Hara Kiking Trails in t 996 ...... 97 Figure 27: Reasons for Not Hiking Desired Trail ...... 98 Figure 28: Average Time Visitors Spent Hiking Per Day During Their Visit ...... 99 Figure 29: Motivation for Trail Seleclion: Discovery Enthusiasts ...... 101 Figure 30: Motivation for Trail Selection: Letiming Enthusiasfs ...... 102 Figure 3 1: Motivatiori For Trail Sdection: Chailenge Seekers ...... 103 Figure 32: Motivation for Trail Selection: Relaxation Seekers ...... 104 List Of Tables

Table 1 : Breakdown of Visitors Surveyed by Accommodation Group ...... 37 Table 2: Group Composition ...... ~...... -.. 39 Table 3: Average Length of Stay for Each Accommodation Type ...... 41 Table 4: Importance-Performance Cornparison of Reasons to Hike in Lake O'Hara ..... 43 Table 5: Factor Analysis of Major Motivations for Hiking in Lake O'Hara ...... 44 Table 6: Major Reasons (SubsetdFacton for Hiking in Lake O'Hara ...... 45 Table 7: Trails Avoided Near Closures ...... 49 Table 8: Level of Affect Closures Had on Visiton' Hiking Experience ...... 51 Table 9: Visitor Attitudes About Using Closures to Minimize HumadBear Conflicts ... 52 Table 10: Factor Analysis of Attitudes About Management Actions ...... 53 Table 1 1 : Factor Analysis of Management Actions for Human Safety and Wïidlife ...... 56 Table 12: Correlation Between Management Actions for Safety vs . Ecological Reasons 57 Table 13: Themes of Visitor Comments ...... ,...... 57 Table 14: Significant DiEerences Between Ongin and Trip Characteristics ...... 62 Table 15 : Significant DEerences Between Origin and Activity Participation ...... 63 Table 16: Significant Diffwences Between Origin and Hihg Preferences ...... 64 Table 17: Siwcant DBerences Between Ongin and Intention to Hike in Closure Areas ...... 64 Table 18: Significant DSerences Between Ongin and Management Actions for Visitor Safety ...... 65 Table 19: Sigdïcant Dserences Between Origin and Management Actions for Ecological Reesons ...... 65 Table 20: Significant Differences Between Country of Ongin and Attitudes About Management Actions ...... 65 Table 2 1 : Siwcant DifFerences Between Prior Visitation and Trip C haracteristics .... -66 Table 22: Significant DSerences Between Prior Visitation and Activity Participation ... 66 Table 23 : Significant DEerences Between Pnor Visitation and Hiking Preferences ..... -67 Table 24: Significant Differences Between Prior Visitation and Awareness of Closures 68 Table 25: Significant DifEerences Between Prior Visitation and Closure Affect on Hiking Experience ...... -68 Table 26: Significant Differences Between Pnor Visitation and Attitudes About Closures ...... 69 Table 27: Significant Differences Between Accommodation and Demograp hics ...... 69 Table 28: Significant Differences Between Accommodation and Activity Participation . 70 Table 29: Signincant Differences Between Accommodation and Trails Hiked ...... 71 Table 30: Significant Differences Between Accommodation and Hiking Preferences .... -72 Table 3 1: Significant DiEerences Between Accommodation and Awareness of Closure 73 Table 32: Significant Differences Between Accommodation and Management Actions for Visitor Safety ...... -...... 73 Table 33: Significant Differences Between Accommodation and Management Actions for Ecological Reasons ...... -74 Table 34: Si@cant Dflerences Between Accommodation and Attitudes About Closures ...... ,...... 74 Table 35: Ranked Benefit Items Associated with Each Cluster ...... 76 Table 36: Significant Differences Between Benefit Clusters and Selected Dernographic and Trip Variables ...... 77 Table 37: Signifïcant Dserences Between Benefit Clusters and Hiking Feature freferences ...... -77 Table 38: Si&cant DifZerences Between Benefit Clusters and Attitudes About CIosures ...... 78 Table 39: Main Features of interest for Selected Lake O'Hara Trails ...... 84 Table 40: Cornparison of Top Five Feaîures for the VEP, Survey, and Focus Group .... 85 TabIe 42 : Top Five Most Prefmed Features of Closeci Trails ...... 85 Table 42: Preferred Conditions for Visitors Selecting a Hiking Trail ...... 87 Table 43: Visitors' Ranking of Most Preferred Hiking Preferences ...... 88 Table 44: Total Number of Hikers Passing By Counter Locations During 1996 Surnrner Season ...... 91 Table 45 : Cornpanson of Monthiy Totals for 1996 Surnrner Season ...... 91 Table 46: Cornparison of Weekday and Weekend Use of Trails ...... 94 TabIe 47: Trails msitors Hiked During Their 1996 Visit Compared with Past Survey Data ...... -95 Table 48: Most Favourite Trail Hiked ...... 100 Table 49: A Cornparison of Lake O'Hara and Yoho Visitor Profiles ...... 109 Table 50: Recornrnendations for Further Research and Park Management ...... 123 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The importance of integrating social and ecoIogical concems when managing parks and protected areas for recreation and biodiversity values has been a complex and ongoing resource management issue, particularly when visitor use of an area is perceived to compromise the ecologicd integrity of a critical wildlife population. TraditionaI approaches to resolving this diiemma have been to compartmentalize the problem and to employ visitor

management models to manage for visitors and biological lkneworks to manage for wildlife.

Recent paradigm shifts towards ecosystem management in parks and protected areas have conûibuted to the view that people are an integral component of the ecosystem and to that end they should not be considered as extemal to the other resources being managed (Nilsen and Nepstead, 1993; Field, 1996). The concept of considering the human dimension of wildlife management is not new but looking at means to successfülly integrate visitor information with biological information is relatively new (Nilsen and Nepstead, 1993; Vaske et al., 1995; Field, 1996; Manfiedo et al, 1996; Payne, 1997). The need to address the human dimension is ilIustrated by a quote f?om a Colorado wildlife manager who States "managing wildlife is IO percent biology and 90 percent managing people"(Manfiedo et al., 1996: 53). If the importance of addressing the human dimension is evident, what has held resource management professionals back fiom applying visitor information to wildlife management frameworks?

One of the main obstacles to linking the two sources has been the gap in availability of visitor information in relation to the quantity of ecologicai information available for parks and protected areas (Machlis, 1996; Payne, 1997). Incompatibility of formats between the two sources and uncertainties about how and where information should be collected as well as how it should be used within interdisciplinary research, have also impeded advances (Nilsen and Nepstead, 1993; Field, 1996; Payne, 1997). Schroeder (1996) has suggested how understanding human behaviours, values, preferences, and responses to management actions is critical to park and protected management. He describes the need to look at the "ecology of the human experience" by examining the types of "critical habitat" needed by visitors to sustain certain experiences and to link this information with the needs of restoring ecosystems for endangered species (Schroeder, 1996: 16).

Compton (1994) also illustrated how visitor knowledge and attitudes about human-wildlife interactions in Yellowstone National Park couid be incorporated in park management actions and decision making processes pertaining to visitor-wildlife safety. Simüarly, Brown et al. (1994) and Hanis et al. (1995) showed how social data could be linked with ecological data using Geographic Information Systems (GIS)software to resolve competing use issues between people and wildlife. Outside of these examples, there have been very few studies that have used an integmted socio-ecological hmework when managing people and wildlife.

1.2 Research Problem The issue of managing parks for wildiïfe and visitors has been an on-going struggle, particularly in the Bow River Corridor that links sub-populations of wolves and grizzly bears fiom Montana to the Arctic Ocean (Marty, 1997). Within this "genetic pathway" only 3 percent of Banff National Park's 6,641 kzn2 area, consists of critical montane habitat (valley bottom and open forests) and half that is in the Bow Valley (Marty, 1997: 32). This factor combined with encroaching development in neighbouring tomof Banff, Lake Louise, and Canmore, has forced wildlife and visitors to compte for use of similar areas in the rnountain national parks. This dilemma has spurred the onset of ecological studies like the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project and research in neighbouring Yoho National Park to map out rnovement comdors and habitat (Le. denning sites and rubbing trees) of the resident grizzly bear population (McCrory and MaIIam, 1991 ; Punres et al., 1992; BadM30w Valley Task Force, 1996; Marty, 1997). While this research is important for the protection and management of grizziy bears, it does not address the other variable in the equation, park visitors.

The presence of popular hiking trails in the Lake O'Hara and McArthur Valiey areas (see Figure 1) of Yoho National Park also coincides with the habitat and movement corridors of grizzly bears. This has resdted in four serious bear/human encounters over an eight year period. Upon the completion of an area hazard assessrnent and extensive stakeholder consultations, Yoho National Park implemented an indefinite seasonai closure over a portion of the Lake O'Hara area. This was followed by the signing of a terms of reference for a four- year multi-stakeholder socio-ecological study. Partners included The Department of Canadian Heritage, Yoho National Park, World WiIdlife Fund, grizzly bear biologists, social scientists and local interest groups. The overarching goal was to develop a decision support mode1 to identify management actions that would prevent bearban codicts while ensuring the protection of grizzly bear habitat and providing quality visitor oppomuiities.

This research is intended to elaborate on the social component of the Lake O'Hara Socio- ecological study by demonstrathg how visitor information can be collecteci and applied to an uiterdisciplinary wildlife management fhmework. It is through research examples like this study that advances can be made in managing people and wildlife in other parks and protected areas.

1.3 Purpose and Objectives The purpose of the project was to idente how different types of visitor experience information could be integrated into management approaches and decisions periaining to minirnizing human/wildlife conflicts . Figure 1. Lake O'Hara Study Ana

Legend

Lake Ohara , Study Area

iIcArthur Valley Study Area

.ake O'Hara Lodge

?ansCanada Hwy.

Roads

O 1997 Ptarrnigan Geographic More specifically, the research was guided by the foUowing objectives: i) What type of visitor experience are mers currentiy receiving in Lake OYHara?; ii) What types of recreation features are important to visitors?; iii) How do visitors feel about trail closures and other management actions for managing bears and people in parks?; iv) What are the trail preferences and current patterns of use of trails in the Lake OYHaraara and how might these coincide with potentid grizzIy bear habitat?; v) 1s it possible to spatiaily represent social data and how can the outcornes potentially affect management decisions?; and vi) What mesures could be taken to manage the Lake O'Hara area to the benafit of both humans and graybears?

1.4 Organization This report is structured into ten chapters. The first two chapters are comprised of the introduction and setting. Chapter three presents the relevant literature on visitor management models and how they may be applied to wildlife management. The fourth chapter describes the methodology and includes the assumptions and limitations associated with each of the techniques. Chapters five through eight present the resdts of the study, beginning with a detailed analysis of the survey data followed by a segment profiles of the visitors and the hdings of the visitor employed photography (VEP) exercise and trail use assessment. A discussion of how these results relate to the literature are found in Chapter nine. The final chapter presents a discussion of possibIe management options and recommendations for using visitor research in wildlife management studies. CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REMEW

Over the past twenty years, a number of planning frameworks have evolved on how to manage for different visitor opportunities in recreational settings. While some of these models have appeared to be quite similar, others have been quite distinct in their purposes, assumptions and outcornes. For instance, some fhmeworks are intended to provide appropriate activity opportunities while others are meant to optimize certain types of benefits. This chapter will begin with an oveMew of some of the main visitor management fiameworks and will discuss how these social models cmbe applied in wildlife management. The chapter will conclude with a suxnmary of the visitor research tbat has been conducted in the Lake O'Hara area.

2.1 Visitor Management Modeis There are three classes or groups of visitor management models: setting-based; activity- based; and benefit-based models. Each of these in some way have evolved in some way from the U.S.Forest SeMceYsRecreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) fhmework .

2.1.1 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Developed in the late 1970s, the basic tenet of ROS is that outdoor recreationists will choose physical settings according to the type of activity they want to engage in or the type of experience they are seeking (Clark and Stankey, 1979; Driver et al., 1987; Virden and Knopf, 1989; Heywood et ai., 1991). The hework summarizes these different setting and experience preference possibilities within a spectnim of six recreation opportunity classes, each defined by a combination of physical (scenery and types of land use), social (user interactions), and managerial (developments and regulations) conditions (Clark and Stankey, 1979). The central idea is that by offering different combinations of these conditions, settings can be managed to produce a variety of recreationai opportunities. For example, a semi- primitive area that prohibits vehicle access and provides no facilities will offer different kinds of activities and experiences tban another semi-primitive area that permits vehicle access and provides some facility development.

The ROS model has been widely used, paaicularly in inventorying the supply of recreational opportunities and establishing standards and guideluies, for the use of different recreation settings (Clark and Stankey, 1979; Payne and Che, 1997). Most recently, the hework was employed for two visitor opporîunity assessrnent projects in Yoho and Pukaskwa National Parks (Payne and Cline, 1997). These pilot studies were initiated to try and link recreation oppominities with settings in ways that were not possible with an activity-based approach like the Visitor Activity Management Process (VAMP). While Payne and Che (1 997) found that they could spatiaiiy identie recreation opportmity areas in Yoho with a Geographic Information System (GIS) package, they acknowledged some limitations with the ROS application, particularly with respect to the social setting component. The first shortcoming was that the lack of Yoho visitor information inhibited the effectiveness of the fbmework. The second point, which was not identified by the authors, is that the framework cm oniy use social carrying capacity data (i.e. level of use counts) and therefore other visitor experience data cannot be included in the model even if it were available.

Other studies have also indicated limitations of the ROS framework. Manning (1985) discovered the rnodel could not be applied to al1 recreation activities and settings, pdcularly for facility developments such as backcountry lodges, since certain combinations of setting and experience may not be present. Yuan and McEwen (1989) also found that the ROS framework was not appropriate for campground settings since campers demonstrated a wider range of preferred experiences than currentiy accommodated in the hework. Another disadvantage is that it has been found to be "cornplex, data-driven, and weak in addressing the importance of environmental settings in a landscape" (Payne and Graham 1993: 204). Payne and Graham (1993) explain that the model assumes visitors go to a particular type of setting to participate in a certain activity or experience, yet overlooks the fact that visitors may go to an area not because its a particular type of setting (Le. semi-primitive or motorized) but because it contains specific biophysical features (i.e. hotsprings or larch trees). This can be misleadhg to managers if an area contains such unique sites because the setting's specific attractions cannot be inventoried within the ROS classiIication (Molgat, 1995). Finally, the model does not take into account users' wildemess perception. When mapping visitors' perceptions of suitable areas for backcountry activities in New Zealand, Kiiskey and Kearsley (1993) found that visitors perceived the wildemess setting to be larger than what was defïned by the ROS bmework. This hding was aiso supported in the work of Kliskey et al. (1994) which reinforced the need to incorporate user kmwledge and perception data within sethg and expenence-based plamhg models.

2.1.2 Setting-based Models Anshg fiom the ROS model have been a number of setting-based fkmeworks which have focused on the role of setting preferences in visitors choices of places to recreate. Some studies have show that visitors may select a setting not only for the physical attributes the area possesses, but dso for aspects such as the sentimental value of the area or because of the way the area is managed (Schreyer and Beaulieu, 1986; Moore and Graefe, 1994). Contrary to what they had anticipated, Schreyer and Beaulieu (1986) found that visitors at varying levels of experience and commitment did not appear to differ significantly in the types of setting attributes they felt were important in selecting wildland recreation environments. They did hd,however, that since visitors with more experience tended to be more specific about the attributes they identified, fuhue research in the area of attribute preferences should use open-ended rather than use fixed list questions.

Rollins and Rouse (1992) conducted a study in Yoho and Kootenay National Parks to see if park visitors could be segmented into groups or markets according to their setting preferences. The research also sought to determine if a link existed between preferred settings and psychological outcornes. Using the "Backcountry Opportunity Concept" (BOC), an adaptation of ROS, the study identified some significant differences between the three segments C'purist," "rustic," and "semi-nistic"), particularly with respect to their motivations, age, Ievel of experience, and information needs. The study concluded, however, that the linkage between setting preference and motives was not as strong as might have been expected given the ciifferences in preferences for some setting characteristics (Rollins and Rouse, 1992). This result was fairly consistent with the conclusions of Virden and Knopf (1989) who stated that Merwork needed to be done to accurately articulate the systematic linkages between activity, setting, and desired experiences.

2.1.3 Activity-based Models Some models, like the Visitor Activity Management Process (VAMP), have grouped visitors according to the nature and diversity of activities visitors engage in during their recreation experience (Payne and Graham, 1993). It is based on the idea that by grouping visitors according to activity profile, managers can ident* ciifferences in visitors sociodemographic characteristics, equipment, motivations, and setting needs. Daigle et ai. (1 994) also segmented trail users into specific user groups according to the mix of recreation activities visitors participated in while visiting a national forest. Some signincant differences were faund between groups with respect to the distance traveled in miles and hours, length of stay, and substitute location.

Daigle et ai. (1 994) found activity-based profile information to be useful in assisting managers to idenw potential problems or conflicts fiom continual or increased use of the area by specific user groups (Daigle et al., 1994: 9). Likewise, Payne and Graham (1993) explained that this information was used to identie visitor service needs and to assess how the activity relates to the nationai park's policy objectives. Wkle recognizing the merits of activity-based models Iike VAMP, Payne and Cline (1997: 3) exphined that since the activities visitors participate in are not constant over the, it is difficult to monitor changes in visitor activities using activity profiles. This limitation fosters the need for other means of profiling visitors. 2.1.4 Benefit-based modeb Benefit-based models evolved as a resuit of the shortcomhgs of the ROS and some of the other setting and activity-based models (Driver et al., 1983). Implicit in these models is the belief that visitors consume a producf such as a recreation experience, because of the package of benefits or psychological outcomes they anticipate to gain as a result of that product (Haley, 1968). 'While these packages of benefits will Vary between visitors, benefit-based segmentation can be used to group visitoa into different profiles or markets with sirnilar characteristics and behaviours (Haley, 1968; Driver et al., 1983; Calantone and Johar, 1983; Loker and Perdue, 1992; Andereck and Caldwell, 1994; Wright et al., 1996).

Benefit-based segmentation has been useful in rnanaging visiton in recreational settings. McCool and Reilly (1983) found that by segmenthg visitors by their expected benefits, park managers could identiQ ciifferences in visitors' spending patterns. This information was used not only to develop marketing strategies that would apped to difrent visitor groups, but it also assisted in identifiing ways to encourage higher levels of non-resident expendinires in some of the state parks. Driver et al. (1990) stressed that as pressures on wildemess increase, it will be more important to know which benefits are uniquely dependent on wildemess settings and those that are not dependent on the setting. They urge that benefit information can assist managers in determining which recreational opportunities to provide and how to prioritize or allocate areas for the attainment of these benefits. Furthemore, it can also be used to assess whether the types of experiences visitors are seeking are consistent with the experiences intended in the park mission as well as to educate visitors about appropriate behaviours or provide rationale for certain management actions (Driver et al., 1990). Loker and Perdue (1992) found benefit-based segmentation to be advantageous to travel market studies because it was based on both descriptive variables and on predictive factors of visitor behaviour. Andereck and Caldwell (1994) also agreed that benefit-based segmentation was a valuable marketing tool for public parks and recreation agencies, particularly in response to resource reductions. They explained that by being able to iden- changes in market demands, managers can address visitors' needs and target their resources to appropriate market segments. Finally, Molgat (1995: 2) suggested that benefits-based models or inventories cm be used to ccfocuson ident-g the quaiity of landscapes requked for recreation rather than simply focusing on the basic requirements for particular types of recreation."

Park management plans, such as the Luke O 'HmaArea Plan (Canadian Parks Service, 1992) have used benefit segmentation to provide more insight into the needs of different visitor markets. The Lake O 'Hara Area Plan identifies four Merent benefit market segments which hclude the: Outdoor Adventure segment (Le. Challenge Seekers and Wildemess Adventurers); Discover and Leaming segment (Le. passive recreationists and ecotourists); RelaxatiodGetaway segment (i. e. leisure seekers and sightseers); and the package segment (i.e. guided tour groups).

Aithough benefit-based segmentation is emerging as an important theme in recreation management literature, there is still a need for more research on the topic (Driver, 1986; Driver et al., 1987; Watson and Williams, 1995). Driver (1986) suggested that in addition to assessing the importance of difEerent attributes or benefits to visitors, more studies need to measure the magnitude of benefits achieved. Watson and Williams (1995: 17) felt that one of the greatest challenges in visitor expenence research would be to address other aspects of the wildemess experience in addition to solitude. They explain that by understanding the wider range of benefits that a visitor may have or develop with a wildemess area, can assist in assessing the value of their wildemess experience. Finally Driver et al. (1990) have stressed that longitudinal studies are also needed to track changes in benefits over tirne.

2.1.5 Other Visitor Management Models Social scientists have also grouped visitors by factors other than settings, activities or benefits. Calantone and Johar (1984) segmented visitors according to their season of travel and found significant differences in their trip profiles and expected benefits. Similarly, Uysal and McDonald (1989) found that visiton could be segmented by a trip index according to the tength of their stay. Using a trip index for the state of South Carolina, they segmented visitors into three profiles (low, medium and high duration of stay) and detected signifïcant differences in their trip characteristics, particularly with respect to party size, trip purpose and accommodation. Then there have been other studies, like the 1993 Canadian National Parks Survey (Angus Reid Group, 1993), which have grouped visitors into distinct attitudinai segments (Le. Pragmatic Preservationists and Education Advocates) according to a number of traits including motivations, trip behaviour, park usage, and views on nationai park management.

2.2 CoUection of Visitor Experience Information Visitor surveys, visitor employed photography, and trail use assessments are usefbi in collecting visitor experience information for some of the diEerent visitor management models. This section wiil briefly explain the role and value of these techniques in various visitor experience studies.

2.2.1 Viitor Surveys To date, most visitor experience studies have used surveys or interviews as one of the main methods of collecîing visitor experience information. The fact that it diows researchers to reach visitors directiy (whether on-site, phone or mail), gather information on various topics in a stmctured manner, and amalgamate and statistically analyze results are some of the key reasons why surveys are an important data collection tool. Furthemore, when designed and implemented properly, they can provide data that are representative of a large population in a relatively inexpensive manner (i.e. compared to on-site interviews).

Surveys have been widely used in gathering information for ROS studies (Clark and Stankey, 1979; Virden and Knopf, 1989; Heywood et ai., 1991; Payne and Cline, 1997), setting-based modeis (Schreyer and Beaulieu, 1986; Rollins and Roue, 1992; Moore and ûraefe, i994), activity-based models @aigle et ai., 1994), benefit-based models (Calantone and Johar, 1983; Driver et al., 1983; McCool and Reilly, 1983; Loker and Perdue, 1992; Andereck and Caldwell, 1994; Wright et al., 1996), trip profile segments (Uysal and McDodd, IgW), and attitude segments (Angus Reid Group, 1993). Compton (1994) found a survey to be usefid in wildlife management study in order to determine visitors' knowledge and attitudes about human-wildlife interactions in Yellowstone National Park.

Sweyscan also be uxd in conjunction with exercises such as visitor employed photography, to collect visitor experience ioformation,

2.2.2 Visitor Employed Pho tography Visitor employed photography (VEP) or participant photography has been used as a supplementary method to sample Iandscapes in visual impact shidies and to define visitor experiences (Chenoweth 1984; Hull and Revell, 1989; Hull and Stewart 1992; Taylor et al., 1995a; Taylor et al., 1995 b). The technique, which was first used by Cherem (1 973), involves distributing cameras to visitors and asking them to photogmph elements of the landscape that correspond to the research objective (Cherem and Driver, 1983; Chenoweth, 1984; Taylor et al., 1995a). The visitors are then asked to explain briefly their motives for taking the different pictures in a log book or journal (Chenoweth 1984; Hull and Revell, 1989).

Visitor employed photography can be a valuable tool in perception and visitor experience studies involving the user-public. First, the capturing of images by the visitor will show which views of the landscape generate the most attention (positive or negative) in the area. In this respect, the method can be applied to c'psychophysical"paradigms by testing participants in the environment diirectly to measure their environmental preferences (Taylor et al., 1995b). Second, this method is unobtmsive measure of determinhg what (if any) visual factors affect the visitor's recreation experience. And thirdly, without photographs, this technique does not rely upon the visitor's memory recall, which can be inaccurate (Bradbum et al. 1987, as cited in Taylor et al., 1995a). The method is also beneficiai because it allows researchers and those who are using the infornation, to view the landscape through the perspective of the people who use, visit, ancilor familiar with that landscape (Hull and Revell, 1989). This reduces the subjectivity associated with models, such as recreation inventories, that are based on the interpretation of managers or visitors. To that end, the method dows resource managers to inventory less tangible aspects of the area, such as ident-g unique features (Le. trail quality) or sensitivity to changes in particuiar features (Molgat, 1995). Finally, since research has shown an outdoor recreation experience cmbe quite dynamic in nature (Hull, Stewart, and Yi, 1992), these different expenences cm be captured in the VEP exercise.

VEP data aiso has the potential to aid in remote sensing or mapping perceptually exciting nodes (Cherem and Driver, 1983; Taylor et al., 1995; Taylor et al., 1995b). Taylor et al. (1995a) found that &er conducting the VEP exercise in Rocky Moutain National Park, a local hiking club who had an intimate knowledge of the ma, were able to record the longitude and latitude coordinates of the photos, and input them into a GIS data base to show the location of the features in the park.

There are a few limits to VEP's application to visitor experience dies. First, the exercise requires a small or self-contained area to ensure that the research method is fairly controlled in order to rninimize the incidence of lost or stolen cameras (Taylor et al., 1995b). Second, since visitors only have a limited number of exposures, some besmay be "spent" or "saved" by respondents to the point that oppoaunities rnay be rnissed (Taylor et ai., 1995b). In response to this problem, Molgat (1 995) suggests that visitors should be allowed to delete certain photographs for replacement with written descriptions up to the allowed user total. Finally, when using the VEP method, it may be usefui to not only assess what features are important to visitors' experience, but to also evaluate how the features affect visitors' experience or why the feature is significant relative to other physical features (Molgat, 1995). These additional questions may provide more insight into how the objects in the photos reflect the nature of the experience. 2.23 Trail Use Assessments Other ROS studies, iike the Yoho National Park Visitor ûppommity Assessrnent demomtration project (Payne and Che, 1997) and Parks Canada Human Use Level studies (Parks Canada, 1996b) have used level of use data from û-aii and vehicular counts for experience data. This has provided a mechanism to Merquanti@ visitors' hiking behaviour (i.e. when and where visitors travel on &ails), monitor the overall use of an area, and provide more insight into where competing land uses rnay overlap.

2.3 Applying Visitor Experience Information to Wildlife Management As mentioned earlier, managing wildlife in national parks or other recreation settings has primarily been ecologicalIy based with little consideration of the human component of those areas. This has been seen through some of the existing wildife management decision support models (Glacier Bay National Park, 1996) and park bear management plans. For instance, Alaska's Denali National Park deveioped a "Guide to Decision Making in Response to Bear- Human Interactions" to 'ballowmanagers to reach consensuses on the Park's responses to a variety of bear incidents before they occmed" (Glacier Bay National Park, 1996: 3). The model documents several possible incidents in fkont and backcountry settings fiom single or repeated detection of a bear. In the latter, the model recommends "initiating an information tree and advise campers of the observations and designate areas as "camping not recommended" (Glacier Bay National Park, 1996: 3). Sirnilar responses have been noted in different national park bear management plans. While this decision tree model is proactive in some respects (i.e. imposing seasonal closures in areas with high concentrations of bemes), it is primarily based on what to do when there is a bear-human contact and not how to manage the area to avoid encounters. Some management plans, however, are beginning to acknowledge the importance of integrating social information with wildlife management.

The Yoho National Park Management Plan encourages an interdisciplinary approach to wildlife management by coordinating the management of wildlife with the management of park visitors and other park resources (Canadian Parks Service, 1988). Furthet, it states that management actions will be "directed toward preventing, mitigating and counteracthg humans' ifluences on park wildlife"; "bears wilI be given high prionty for protection"; and the "interest of the species wiii take precedence over visitor use" (p. 40).

The Lake O 'Hara Area Management Plan also discusses the importance of working to strengthen the relationship between visitors' park experience and the ecological integrity of the Lake O'Hara area by transIating the enjoyment, appreciation, and understanding of the area into active participation in the area's protection (Canadian Parks Service, 1992: 19). The Lake O'Hara vision statement states that it "will be managed as part of a regional ecosystem and it will be actively incorporated into biophysical studies as well as visitor impact management of the area" (Canadian Parks Service, 1992: 6).

More recently, the integration of social idormation with ecoIogicd data in a spatial format has also been aided by the use of Geographicai lnfarmation Systems (GIS)software. This spatial representation of data has been used to design decision suppon models for resolving complex resource management issues (Fry et ai., 1992; Hutchinson and Schryver, 1992; Brown et al., 1994; KIiskey et al., 1994; Harris et ai., 1995). Fry et ai. (1992) used visitor attendance data within a GIS model to investigate the potential threats tourism was having on the wildlife in Rondane National Park. Brown et al. (1994) used a GIS Decision Support System to address tradeoffs between forestry and wildIife values in a trans-boundary area of Mount Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks. Using a sensitivity andysis, the study compared the location of econornically valuable tirnber with suitable caribou habitat areas. Similady, Harris et al. (1 995) showed the value of a GIS-based recreation use model in understanding conflicts between recreationists and mountain sheep. The model incorporated data from a visitors survey (user behaviour and preferences) and biological data (mountain sheep habitat and movement comdors) and analyzed the information in spatial terms. The benefit of using the software was that by overlaying different layers of social and ecological data, researchers could predict which areas were more susceptible to a conflict between hurnan recreational use and sensitive wildlife habitat use. This is particuiarly useful if there is a complex array of interactions or if the area is so large that the area will not be known.

In addition to using visitor behaviour (ie. trds hiked) and preferences data, information about visitors' attitudes can ako be important in managing visitors and wildlife. Barbee (1990) discusses the significant dethat people management cmhave in educating visitors about the implications of their actions on the park environment and the dangers inherent in travelling in the wild country. In conjunction with this point, Harris et ai. (1995) found that by collecting somation about trail users' awareness or perception recreation impacts on wildlife, the data could be used to educate visitors about mountain sheep conservation and management strategies associated with the issue. Compton's (1 994) article also provided insight of how understanding visitor attitudes and knowledge about human-wildlife interactions could be beneficial in protecting the safety of visitors and wildlife. He had aiso found that a large majority of park visitors were concerned more about the safety of wildlife than they were about the safety of visitors (Compton, 1994: 7).

Visitor expenence infomation can also be beneficial to miaimizing safety risks in recreation settings (Stankey and Schreyer, 1986; Compton, 1994; Kelly, 1996; Parks Canada, 1996~). Parks Canada's Visitor Risk Management Plan (Parks Canada, 1996~)explains that by using visitor profiles, managers cm detennine the charactenstics or traits that make certain people more susceptible to a hazardous incident (Le. slippery trails or wildlife encounters etc.). Furthemore, since idormation messages can aiso be a source of risk, it is important to understand some of the following: the point in the trip cycle visitors receive the information; source of information, the consistency of the message with other communication pieces; and the types of visitor profiles the messages are targeting (Braithwaite and McCool, 1989; McCool and Braithwaite, 1989; Parks Canada, 1996~). 2.4 Past Visitor Research Conducted in the Shidy Area Prior to this study, two other visitor sweys had been conducted in the Lake O'Hara area The £i.rst sweytook place in 1972 (Parks Canada, 1973) and was designed to collect information about how visitors learned about the area; the trails hiked; perceived crowding; accommodation; length of stay; mode of traosportation; and place of residence. Seventeen years later, a second study was conducted to not only update some of the data fiom the 1972 survey, but also to determine user views and preferences toward present and altemate visitor management techniques (i.e. restrictions on types of activities) and to assess visitors' satisfaction with trails, facilities, and services (Praxis, 1990). In addition to the Lake O'Hara surveys, two recent backcountry surveys were conducted in 1990 and 1995 (Rollins, 1991; Parks Canada 1996a) for al1 of Yoho National Park. Fhdings from these four shidies will be referred to in the discussion chapter of this report to identi@ potentiai trends in the visitor data collected to date in the area.

While these studies have been comprehensive in gathering information about visitor demographics, trip information and satisfaction, and visitor market segments, there are still a number of gaps in visitor information. Although the Yoho Trail Use Plan stated that "Lake O'Hara managers seemed to know more about its day-use visitors than other areas in Yoho National Park "(Canadian Parks Service, 1987, p. 38), it stated that there were still a number of "significant socio-economic data gaps" pdcularly with respect to visitor expectations, characteristics, preferences and the service needs of different Visitor Activity Groups (VAG). Sirnilarly, the Yoho Management Plan (Canadian Parks Service, 1988) also identified a number of concems with respect to park visitor information. These concems Uicluded: inadequate monitoring of visitor motivation, attitude, behaviour, and distribution in the area; scarcity of scientific documentation about visitor impacts on wildlife and other resources; and lack of information on visitor needs and expectations. As well, managers were unclear of the implications of changing visitor demographics (Le. aging population, increases in international visitors) on service and facility demands . 2.5 Conclusion to Litetature Review This chapter has provided an overview of the main types of visitor management frameworks and has discussed how visitor experience information within these models can be applied to broder wildlife management iÏameworks. It also has demonstrated that past research in the area of managing for visitors and wildlife in parks and protected areas is sparse and hgmented. There is an evident need for visitor research that will not only update some of the existing visitor experience information, but that WUaiso collect information that can be incorporated within wildlife management decision support models. Addressing this gap wili be critical if measures are to made in balancing the increasing pressures of human use in parks and protected areas with the needs of wildlife. Chapter three will provide a brief description of the study area, Lake O'Hara. CHAPTER 3: SETTING

Lake O'Hara represents one of the most spectacuiar settings in Canada's mountain parks. Nestled in the eastern corner of Yoho National Park (see Figure l), this 76 km2. area provides exceptionai views and exampies of turquoise alpine Mes, cascading waterfds, glacier-clad peaks, blanketed alpine meacîows, and deep forested vrtlleys (Canadian Parks Service, 1992). These features dong with the am's diverse array of wildlife, rich human history, and well- maintained üail system have attracted visitors fiom al1 over the world year &r year. This chapter will begin with a brief account of these features foilowed by a description of the types of accommodation and facitities found in the area.

3.1 Features of Study Area 3.1.1 Natural Environment The diversity of views, Iakes, streams, flora, fauna and geological formations are just a few of the features that characterize the Lake O'Hara naturai environment. A more detailed description of the types of features and attributes that influence visitors' experience in Lake O'Hara will be discused in Chapter seven of ihis report.

3.1.2 Recrestional Environment The Lake O' Hara area offers a range of recreation opportunities for the summer, fall, and winter seasons. Hiking is the most popular summer and fa11 activity in the area. The Lake O'Hara Trails Club and Parks Canada trail crew jointly maintain the 80+ km of backcountry traiis that are renowned for their quality, diversity of terrain, and difficuity (see Figure 2). The spectacuiar peaks of Mt. Lefroy, Victoria, and Hungabee also draw many climbers and rnountaineers to the area.

Canoeing and recreational fishing are the main water-based activities in Lake O'Hara. Canoe rentals are offered through the Lodge to allow visitors to paddle around Lake O'Hara. Visitors are aIso ailowed to fish in certain sections of Cataract Brook and Lake O' Ham fkom mid-Jtdy to the end of October. This restricted season, dong with catch tirnits and bait ban regdations, has been implernented to reduce human impact on the aquatic resources (Canadian Parks SeMce, 1992).

Lake O'Hara is also a popular cross country skihg destination during the winter months. During the winter of 1990-91, an estimated l5OO-2OOO people skied into Lake 07Haraand most of these visitors were day users (Canadian Parks Service, 1992).

Since the area is zoned as Zone II (Wildemess) and Zone III (Natural Environment) to protect the ecological integrity of the area (Canadian Parks Service, 1992), mountain biking, hoaeback riding, and motorized vehicles are not permitted.

3.1.3 Heritage Resources The area has a local history tracing back to the late 1800s when the area was first surveyed and includes a rich trail building history by figures such as Lawrence Grassi (Canadian Parks SeMce, 1992).

3.2 Accommodation And Facilities The Lake O'Har-a area receives approximately 75% of Yoho National Park's backcountry ovemight use and most the backcountry day-use in the park, despite the quota restriction (Canadian Parks Service, 1988). The main accommodation and day use facilities consist of five buildings: a campground; Alpine Club of Canada (ACC) trail shelters; a backcountry lodge; and a day shelter. Figure 2. Lake O'Hara Hiking Traiis and Facilities

Trails

1 Al1 Souk 12 Linda Lake Beeline 22 Odaray ~ighlbe 2 Big Larches 13 Lhda lake 23 Odaray Plateau 3 Carnpground 14 level McArthur 24 Odaray Prospect 4 Cataract Brook 15 Lower Morning Glq 25 O'Hara 5 Cathedra1 Basin 16 Mary lake 26 Oesa - 6 Don Quixote 17 McArthur cut off 27 Upper Morning G. 7 Duchesney basin 18 McArthur Pass 28 Yukness ledges 8 East Opabin 19 McArthur valley 29 West Opabin 9 Grandview 20 Odaray cut off 30 Cathedd Lakes 10 Highline McArthur 2 1 Odaray direct 3 1 Opabin Highline 1 1 Wiwaxy / Huber Ledges 3.2.1 Lake 09HaraCampground The 30-site campground is operated by Yoho Nationai Park, Originally in the alpine meadows, the campground was moved in the late 1970s due to the adverse impacts it was having on the area's vegetation and terrain. The site is equipped with separate food and garbage storage lockers, grey water disposai, pit privies, firewood, water purnp, picnic tabks, and two kitchen shelters with wood stoves.

3.2.2 Elizabeth Parker and Abbot Pass Huts The Elizabeth Parker and Abbot Pass Huts are operated by the Alpine Club of Canada. The Elizabeth Parker Hut is in the Alpine Meadow and accommodates 22 guests plus two custodians. It is used in the summer and winter mon& by visitors. It is equipped with cooking facilities and wood platfoms in the sleeping quarters. The Abbot Pass Hut is situated between the col of Mount Victoria and Lefroy and can accommodate approximately eighteen hikers and climbers,

3.2.3 Lake O'Hara Lodge Built in 1926, the Lodge facility consists of the main building with eight guest rooms, 10 lakeside log cabins, and two panaview cabins. During the summer months the site operates as a hiking lodge with a capacity of 60 persons/night. The accommodation capacity of the Lake OYHaraLodge is an anomaly as the normal maximum capacity of backcountry lodges is 40 persons (Canadian Parks Service, 1988).

The Lodge also operates a backcountry ski lodge at a reduced capacity of 16 guests during the winter months (February and March). Since the bus service does oot ru in the winter, visitors niust ski in dong the 11 km. access road.

3.2.4 Le Relais The day shelter, Le Relais (French for "meeting place"), is the most ment building in Lake O' Hara. Constructed in 1989 and operated by the Lake O'Hara TraiIs Club, the shelter is the focal point for &y users. During the summer months, visitors can purchase snacks, postcards, guidebooks and other souvenirs at the shelter and also attend evening programs offered by the Trails Club and Parks Canada Hikers can also obtain up-to-date trail information fiom the shelter and can warrn up by the wood stove on cold or rahy days. Although the shelter is open during the winter months, the service is limited to king a warm-up hut or shelter for backcountry skiers.

3.2.5 Bus Shuttle Service Public access into the area is controlled by a quota system. There is a day-use quota of 36 visitors taking the shuttle bus into O'Hara in order to protect the hgde environment and to avoid crowding. The quota is estimated to meet 25-35% of the demand (Canadian Parkç Service, 1992). Since private vehicle access is restricted into the area, visitors can reserve a spot in advance on the Lake O'Hara Shuttle bus. The bus operates annually hm June 19 through to October 1 and makes four trips a &y up (8:30 am., 10:30 a-m.,4:30 p-m., and 7:30 p.m.) and down (7:30 a-m., 9130 a.m., 3:30 p.m., and 6:30 p.m.) the access road. The pick-up and &op-off locations for day and ACC users is at Le Relais with two other stops at the campground and Lodge. The quota, however, does not take into account visitors hiking into the am CHAPTER 4: METHODS

In order to leam more about visitors' hiking experiences, feature preferences, attitudes, and patterns of use of trails in rhe Lake O'Hm area, three methods of data coilection (on-site visitor swey, visitor employed photography exercise, and trail use assessment) were used. This chapter will review the purpose, objectives, approach and limitations associated with each of the techniques.

4.1 Visitor Survey 4.1.1 Purpose and Objectives An on-site survey was admhistered in the summer of 1996 to develop an understanding of the qudity of visitors' hiking experiences in Lake O'Hm More specifically, the objectives of the survey were to: i) identify and characterize the visitor experience; ii) develop an understanding of what motivates parks visitors to hike in Lake O'Hara and the extent to which these motivations were achieved; iii) determine visitors' use and recreational preferences for trails; iv) assess how people feel about trail closures in parks for safeS and ecological reasons; and v) cotlect current demographic visitor information.

4.1.2 Survey Approach The survey was administered as an on-site survey for the following reasons: i) Visiton' experiences wouid be fiesh in their minds; ii) A surveyor would be present to answer questions if the visiton needed clarification on questions; iii) Response rates of on-site surveys are higher than mail surveys; iv) Relatively low costs of administration; and v) Data could be collected readily and entered on a daily basis. 4.13 Pretest of Survey Development of this survey involved several steps. A focus group survey was designed and administered during the 1995 field season to pre-test the validity and wording of questions for the final swey. This response dong with suggestions fiom the study's Steering Cornmittee, was used to fïnalize the 1996 version of the visitor experience survey. This instrument was pre-tested to Parks Canada employees and Lake O'Hara visitoa during the last two weeks of June 1996.

4.1.4 Sampling Strategy The survey was administered fiom Jdy 10 - September 27, 1996. Parks Canada staff informed visitors about the study and noted that they may be asked to participate in the study. The surveys were handed out at four locations in Lake O'Hara: the Lodge; Le Relais &y shelter; Elizabeth Parker Hut; and the campground before each of the shuttle bus departures.

Since the availability of each visitor group (&y visitors, lodge guests, campers, and Alpine Club of Canada (ACC) Hut users) prior to their departure varied, they each had a different sampling strategy. These strategies ensured the sarnple was random and stratified.

4.1.4.1 Day Visitors Sampling took place twice a &y at the Le Relais &y shelter. Surveys were administered to the day visitors starhg an hour and fifteen minutes before the scheduled 3:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. bus departures. Since the survey took visitors an average of 15 - 20 minutes to complete, surveys were not handed out later than 20 minutes before the bus was scheduled to depart so visitors would have sufficient time to complete and retum the surveys. Some campers were also surveyed at the day shelter if they were departhg fiom Le Relais.

4.1 A.2 Lodge Since the Lodge guests stayed in lakeside cabins, panaview cab& or roorns in the lodge building, reaching this subgroup of visitors at one central location was difncult other than at meal tirne. Rather than intrude on me& or iritn.de on the pnvacy of the guests, the iodge management requested that surveys be arlministered daily at tea tirne (3:00 - 4:30 p.m.) in the Lodge's dining room. During tea tirne, surveys were handed out to visitors who were leaving on either the 3:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. bus that day or who were departing the next morning. These guesis were asked to complete the survey at the end of their hiking experience. In cases where the guests were departing the next day but wouid not be at tea the fol10wing day, they were also asked to complete the survey at the end of their hiking experience the next &y.

4.1.43 Campground Departing campers were sunreyed at 3:30 p.m. and 6:30 pm. at the campgraund by a second researcher. Surveying was conducted at the cooking sheIters, picnic tables, and the campground bus stop. The campground was then surveyed a third time between 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. to reach the campers that were leaving the next morning or aftemoon. In these cases, the campers were given the same hctionsas the lodge guests who were departing the next &y. This strategy was adopted rather than surveying the campers in the morning because degthe pre-test of the survey, a number of campers refused to complete the surveys because they were either: rushing around packing up their tent in gear, making breakfiast, or were in the process of waking up.

4.1.4.4 Elizabeth Parker Hut Visitors that stayed in the Elizabeth Parker Hut were sampled at the Le Relais Day Shelter for the 3:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. departure buses. Direct sarnpling took place at the Hut around 7:00 p.m. each evenhg as well for guests leaving the next monring.

4.1.5 Respondent Selection The 'next birthday' dewas used to select one individual per group for the survey. individuals under the age of eighteen years of age and Park employees were excluded f?om the sample. Once the respondents were selected, the following script was provided to ensure that there was consistency:

%oad morninglafternooa, my nnme is X, and I am workting for Park Canada on the Lake OyHsraSocio-Eeologid Study. Did yon hear about the reaearcb project on pur bus ride up to Lake O'Hara?''

If 'y-' response, go to & If 'no' response, the foUowing background idormation was pmvided: Well, over the pnst couple of y-, Park Cundn and Simon Fmer Unive~sityhave been reserrching the use of Lake 09Hunby people and bous. 1am mpresenn'ng the upeaplewpart of the stndy and 1am coucerned with Iookieg at the Mtor hihing aperience in Lake OWm. 1 am doing thie twu ways:- the fint is that I bave pdup mil colllttecs amund a namber of tm% ta get an iden as ta the level of um of the hiîsin thh src~The secoiid way Q thmugh am on- site visltor experieoce survey."

B. Tbe iurvey dl take about 15 mh~tescornpleta WüI you be digto t.ke the time to fia thai out before the bus &es? Yuur coopemîion is appmchted and for your information, a report outlinhg the resiilfs of this stuày wiiî be avaiîabIe nert year in Le Relais. Yoa can return your completed sumys to the researchers or Le Relais, campground, lodge, or shattle bus emptoyees. Thank you again and have a safe trip home.

4.1.6 Data Analysis The data were manually entered into an Excel Spreadsheet and were then û-ansferred to a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) file where the data was analyzed using a combination of descriptive and multivariate statistics. An alpha apriori -05 was used for al1 anal y sis.

4.1.7 Issues and Limitations The main limitation of the on-site survey method was that people were often tired at the end of the day and were not always receptive to filling out a survey, particularly when they realized the length of the questionnaire. 1 explained to visitors that the swey was long to satisQ the research questions of the shidy's different stakeholders. Most visitors seemed to understand this and were quite cooperative as reflected in the high response rate.

Another shortcoming of the sampling strategy was that certain visitors were automatically excluded fiom the sample. For instance, since the Lodge was only sampled during tea tirne, guests that did not attend tea could not be surveyed. Also, ciay visitors who hiked in and out of O'Hara may have been excluded fiom the survey sample since king in contact with these individuals would have ken difficult for the author.

4.2 Visitor Employed Photography 4.2.1 Purpose and Objectives A Visitor Employed Photography (VEP) study was conducted to examine the importance of Lake O'Hara as a hikùig destination for visitors. Specificaily, the three core objectives for using this technique in the study were: i) to determine the types of features (e.g. facilities, landscapes, traïl conditions) that influence visitors' hiking experience in Lake O'Hara; ii) to assess the extent to whether the feature had a positive or negative impact on their visit to Lake O'Hara; and iii) to compare the features or atîributes that innuenced visitors' experience in Lake O'Hara with the features that were important to visitors in the on-site survey and Recreation Feahire Inventory focus group sessions.

4.2.1 Methods The methodology and anaiysis framework for this exercise were modified fiom pst VEP studies. Due to the costs of purchasing the cameras, developing the film, and mailing copies of the photographs to the participants, the sample size was limited to twenty-two participants. Consequently, the VEP exercise was viewed as a pilot study to help develop and cohthe survey information. Twelve of these participants were fiom the 1995 fieid season and the remahhg ten were fiom the 1996 field season. The carneras were distributed penodically during the months of July, August and September of both field seasons.

Participants were selected randomly from the three swey locations (Le Relais, campground, and Lodge) and were asked to participate in the exercise. The surveyor ensured that there was an even breakdown between the dflerent accommodation sites, Visitors were totd that their involvement in the VEP exercise would assist park managers in determinhg the types of features that most positively or negatively affect visitors' hiking experiences in Lake O'Hara. As an incentive to participate in the exercise, visitors were told that a copy of their pictures would be mailed to them at the end of the summer.

Visitors that agreed to participate in the exercise were given a pend, a fifteen exposure disposable camera, and a log book. For each photo, the participants were asked to write the folIowing on the correspondmg page in their log book: the location where each picture was taken (e.g. narne of trail); whether the scene evoked a positive or negative reaction; and the feature of interest. The type of features the visitors were asked to take pictures of was not specified to ensure that the photos would not be limited to certain feaîures. They were also asked to write their name and address on the back page if they wanted to receive copies of their pictures. A copy of these instructions was included on the last page of the log book. The sunteyor kept a record of the cameras handed out and the location where the participant was approached.

At the end of the exercise, participants were asked to rehirn the disposable cameras and log books to either the Le Relais day shelter, Lodge, or Lake O'Hara bus driver at the end of their hiking experience. The carneras and log books were collecteci at the end of each day and were sent to Lake Louise for developing. Double copies of the pictures were developed and one set was sent to the participants and the other was used for the data anafysis.

4.2.3 Issues and Limitations While there are a number of benefits to using the VEP method, there are also limitations that should be noted. Three main shortcomings were observed using this exercise in the study. The first was the small sample size because of the costs of purchasing the disposable carneras and film processing. Therefore, it ca~otbe assumed that the features of interest of the participants refl ect ail the Lake O'Hara visitors. The exercise simply allows us to use an alternative rnethod to leam more about the visitor expenence in park and backcountcy settings and identify the location of certain features of interest on trails. Second, a couple of visitors commented that things had been positive to their hiking experience in past Lake O'Hara visits but they were unable to include them in their photographs (Le. mountain goats or yellow larch trees) since they did not see these features when they did the exercise. Since this exercise was based on the visit that they phcipated in the exercise, future uses of VEP could dow visiton to vurite in some the feahrres that they did not see but were important to theu experience. Finaily, due to the experimental nature of this exercise, a detailed follow up survey for VEP participants was not developed. If this methodology were to be used again and if there were suflïcient resources to do so, a more detded foilow up survey for VEP participants could be developed to probe more deeply into the types of recreation features or attributes that effect not only visitors' overall experience in the area, also why visiton favow certain traiis over others.

4.3 Trail Use Assessrnent 4.3.1 Purpose and Objectives The level of use data were gathered to examine the preferences and curent pattern of use of trails in the Lake O'Hara area. These data were used with the visitor survey to give park managers information about visitor movements through potential grizzly bear habitat by showing visitor preferences for hiking destinations, routings, and preferred trail conditions. Specificaily, the objectives were: i) to determine gaps and possible trends in attendance data for the Lake O'Hara area; ii) to identfi the demand and intensity of use for trail segments; and iii) to determine which trails are most preferred by visiton.

4.3.2 Methods During the 1995 field season, preliminary work was done to test and calibrate different methods for gathering the level of use data. This work was conducted due to the uncertainty about the accuracy and capabilities of the monitoring equipment. Active infrared trail counters, 35 m.camera attachments, digital cameras, trail monitor video cameras, and high angle video cameras were tested during the 1995 field season in different combinations of each other. In response to concerns about the cos4 Ievel of maintenance, reiiability, and obtrusiveness of the equipment, it was recommended that the active infirared trail counters (TrailMaster (TM) 1500) be used in conjunction with the 35 mm cameras to ver* the data on the counters.

Six trail counters and five camera attachments were set up dong the Wiwaxy, Linda Beehe, Grandview, McArthur Hïghiine, West Opabin and AU Souls trail segments in 1995 and these sarne locations were selected for the 1996 field season. As well, four additional counters and one camera attachment were installed at four of the five trail monitor locations (East Opabin, Oesa, Linda Lake, and Yukness Ledge) recommended in the 1996 study interim report. These locations are presented in Figure 3. Due to the Iimited supply of cameras, the cameras were used for trails that were more popdar.

The counters and cameras were strategically pIaced on trees at a height where the movement of animais (mainly marmots) would not trigger the counters and at places where a distance of at least 10 feet down the trail could be seen through the camera viewfinder. The triggering of the counters by larger animals, such as mountain goats, wolverines, or grizzly bears, was not a concem since they were not known to move dong these segments of the trail. The counters and carneras were aiso wrapped with 1 1/2 inch chicken wire to ensure that the wires were not nibbled at by marmots or ground squirrels and so that shrubbery could be attached to carnoufiage the equipment hmhikers.

The counters and cameras were programmed to record the date and time of each event and the cameras were set for a one minute delay between event counts so that pictures would encompass more than one individual in a hiking group. Figure 3. Trd Counter Locations

Legend Trail Counter Locations * Warden cabin & Lake O'Hara Lodge m Trails - Alpine Club f3 Roads - Campground A Shce the Ievel of use work in 1995 was intended to test and calibrate the equipment, the trail use assessrnent for the study was based on the data collected during the 1996 field season.

4.3.3 Downloading and Analysis of Data The counter data was initially downloaded every &y for the more popular trails (Le. Oesa) and every second or third day for the less popular hails (Le. Linda Beeline) during July. This kequent downloading was required to change the 36 exposure film f?om each camera so that there would be a consistent set of photographs to verfi the data on the trail counters. Once the cameras were taken down in August, the counter data was downloaded every four or five days. The data was downloaded fiom the counters using a Trail Master R data collecter, and then the information was transferred onto a cornputer using Trail Stat R software.

Once the film was developed for each of the counter, the black and white photographs were used to ver@ the reliability of the counters. Since both the cameras and counters were time stamped, the photographs were used to derive the following information: double counts (i.e. fiom a pole or backpack), undetected counts (i.e. two individuals wallcing side by side yet only counted once), researcher-induced counts and deliberate counts fiom visitors seeing the cameras. These counts were subtracted fiom the trail counts and were used to detennine the measurement error and to recalibrate the raw trail counter data, For trails that did not have a camera, an average of the measurement erron was taken and this was deducted fiom the daily trail counts. In addition, there were three occasions when unusually high counts were found for a trail (i.e. 300 counts in 2 hours). Shce these odd counts were atîributed to branches waving in front of counter or heavy rainfall and winds in the more exposed areas, the counts were not included in the analysis. Finally, the photographs were used to determine an estimate of group sizes and the direction of movement of the hikers dong the ûail segments. Many fdse counts registered on the counters were attributed to visitors investigating the counters although the trail monitoring program was well publicized around the area with posters and verbal messages oc the buses by campground staff. Al1 three means of publication asked visitors to continue walking past a counter andlor camera and not to wak around them as it would alter the accuracy of the results. Although the Oesa and West Opabin tended to be more visible to visitors (i.e. sound or flashing light of a camera), most visitors indicated to me that they had not seen the counters dong the trails. Once the data on the counters were noted as fairly accurate, the cameras were taken down to reduce this investigation error.

Samphg error was calcuiated at a 95% confidence level fox al1 the level of use estimates. The standard error of the mean, sample size, and alpha (.OS) were used to calculate the confidence interval for weekend and weekday totals for each trail segment. This confidence intemai was then added and subtracted to the total passages to provide the high and low ranges for each trail. The error margin approach was adopted rather than the confidence level approach to calculate the total passages for the ten counters. This method involved multiplying the standard error of the means by two and dividing this amount by the mean number of passages. This number was then divided by 1-f where f was equù to the hction of the population used in the sample (Parks Canada, 1996b).

The reliability of the trails counts were rated overai1 faû. to good according to the arbitrary error rnargin rating scale in the 1995 Parks Canada Human Level of Use Studies (Parks Canada, 1996b). The data for the Yukness and McArthur Highline trails, however, was quite poor due to the susceptibility of these counters to heavy precipitation and snowfall. Also, on two occasions, visitors had moved the Yukness trail counter which resuited in a loss of data for seven days out of the season.

4.3.4 Issues and Limitations Aithough the photographs were usefui in determining the direction of travel of hikers, it was not always possible to determine which hikers made a return trip on the trail. Therefore, I recorded the total number of events going up and down fiom the photographs. Through this information, it could be deterrnined that almost twice as many hikers went up rather than down the Wiwaxy, Ali Souls, and Linda Beeline trails. Due to their high level of use and the ditficulty in changing the nIm more than once a day, it was difficult to derive conclusions kom the up and down numbers of the Oesa and West Opabin Trails. Since not ai1 hikers completed the Alpine Route nom the Oesa traii or hiked up to the Opabin Plateau, the total numbers of hikers passing by a counter location (see Table 44) includes visiton who hiked back and forth on the trail in the same day. Similady, identimg the number of return trips on the McArthur and Odaray Highline Mswas not possible so the numbers may be higher than if these trails were circuit trails. As for group sizes, this was a difficult task, particularly when individuals within groups had different hiking abilities. As a resuit, some members could have passed the counter locations at different times or passed the counter in close distance to other groups. Therefore, because of these gaps, the analysis did not look at group sizes. Actual group size can be inferred kom the visitor survey data in Chapter 5 of this report.

Caiculating for error counts on the West Opabin, East Opabin, and Linda Beeline trails during the beginning of the season was complicated by defects in three of the cameras. Also, heavy precipitation and snowfdl on the Yukness and McArthur HighIine trails created many one- time errors in the early part of the season. However, this problern was pamally mitigated by ensuring a shelter was placed around the equipment.

Finally, since placing a counter on every trail segment was not possible (Le. Cataract Brook, Cathedra1 Basin, Duschenay Basin), the data only reflects the total number of hikers that passed by or visited each counter location during the survey period of July 1 - September 28, 1996. Since many visiton hiked more than one trail during their visit, the total number of passages does not show the number of individuals hiking in the Lake O'Hara area during that period.

The next chapter will present the first of four results chapters, beginning with the quaiity of visitor experience data fiom the visitor survey. CHAPTER 5: QUALITY OF EXPERIENCE

This chapter will provide a sumrnary of the information collected about the quality of visitors' hihg experience in Lake O'Hara. More specifically, it will display results of visitors' demographic information, motivations and benefits for hiking, trip profiie information, and visitors attitudes about different management actions. The chapter wiii conclude with a content analysis of visitors' closing comments fiom the survey.

5.1 Response Rates A total of 899 on-site surveys were cornpleted and retumed, yielding a response rate of 94 percent. The results show a hi& level of validity with a 95% confidence level, subject to a 2 5% error margin.

Overall, the total number of visitors to the Lake O'Hara area in 1996 varies depending on whose records were used, as overail use was calculated on some occasions as number of visitors and on others as user nights. When the smey sampie was divided by accommodation group, the sample proportions were found to be relatively similar to the actual nurnber of visitors (see Table 1).

Table 1. Breakdown of Visitors Surveyed By Accommodation Group

' Accommodation Group % of Survey Sampie % of Total Visitors* Day visitors 43 46

1 ACC 1 9 1 15 1 I Lodge guests 1 15 1 17 Source: M. Laub, Lake O'Hara Lodge owner

Due to this discrepancy in visitor numbers, we presented the data in an unweighted format based on the survey sample proportion since weighting the data to the number of visitors or to the number of user nights would present a different picture of visitors. 5.2 General Visitor Profile The following section presents a demographic, travel pattern, and activity profile of al the respondents who completed the survey.

5.2.1 Dernographies The demographic analysis of the survey sample will be based on the following factors: origin, group size, age, and gender.

5.2.1.1 Origin More than two thirds of the visitors were from Canada and 64% of them resided in Alberta or British Columbia. Residents fiom 37 U.S.states made up the second largest group followed by international visitors. Non-North Americans represented sixteen different couutries, including Gennany, the United Kingdom, and Holland (see Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Country of Origin

5.2.1.2 Group Size and Composition Close to half the respondents were travelling with a spouse or partner and 23 percent were with their family (see Table 2). Although the average group size was 3.3, this number was skewed by the fact 7% of the groups consisted of seven or more people (see Figure 5). The typid (mediadmode) group size was two.

TabIe S. Group Composition

Type of Group 1 % of Respondents*

Friends Family Children Aione Organized group/club Business associates 1 * Percentage of respondents exceeds 100% since visitors could indicate more than one group category

Figure 5.

Group Size of Visitors

OYl I 1 l I 1 i l One Three Five Seven TWO Four Six 8 or more

5.2.1.3 Age and Gender The percentage of male respondents slightly outnurnbered the fernales. The ages of the respondents were normally disûibuted between the ages of eighteen and more than seventy- four years of age (see Figure 6). The oldest respondent was 80 years of age. 5.2.2 Travel Patterns Forty-eight percent of the respondents were repeat visitors to Lake O'Hara and the mean number of visits in ten years was 4.4 times. Twelve percent of these respondents had visited . Lake O'Hara 10 or more times in the past ten years (see Figure 7).

Figure 6.

Gender of Respondents Age of Respondents

Male ______-_____ 25 ------__ 2a ------15 ------

10 4% 5 -

Mean ege = 41

Figure 7.

Frequency of Visitation in Past Ten Years

--1496-

First time epeat 52% 48% 12% ------T-ci. 5.2.2.1 Accommodation Fifty-seven percent the respondents had stayed ovemight in Lake O'Hara and over half of these visitors stayed in the campground. Also, some respondents had indicated they stayed in more than one accommodation type during their visit. For instance, visitors who spent one night in Abbot Pass hut may have spent the rest of their trip in the Elizabeth Parker Hut or campgound (see Figure 8).

Figure 8. Breakdown of Visitors by Accommodation Type

ACC 15% Lodge 27% Overnight 57% Campground 58% ------

5.2.2.2 Length of Stay Although the average length of stay was 2.1 days, the average number of nights varied between the types of accommo&tion. This difference could be partly due to the fact that the lodge has a minimum number of two night stay while the campground and ACC huts do not have a minimum night requirernent but they do have a maximum number of nights a party can stay per visit (see Table 3).

Table 3. Average Length of Stay for Each Accommodation Type

1 Accommodation Tvw 1 Mean Nmber of Niehts 1

1 CCHut 1 2.1 1 1 Abbots Hut 1 1.4 1 5.2.3 Motivations and Benefits for Hiking Visiton were £ktasked to indicate how important different reasons or motivations were for choosing Lake O'Hara as their hiking destination. Twenty motivation reasons were measured and reported for the population overd. The top five motivations were: view and enjoy natural scenery; explore the natural environment; see a naturd environment unchanged by humans; enjoy the variety of hiking trails; and enjoy a place that is special to me. Conversely, the least popular motivations were: test and develop my hiking abiiïties; develop or enhance an environmental ethic; lemmore about human history; enjoy the tradition of aflfluai visits; and close to where 1 live (see Table 4).

Respondents were aiso asked to indicate the extent, fiom 0- LOO%, that they achieved each of the above motivations or benefits. The five benefits that were most achieved by visitors during their hiking experience were: view and enjoy natural scenery, get physical exercise, explore the natural environment, enjoy a place that is speciai to me, be with friends and family, and enjoy the variety of hiking trails.

A cornparison between the mean importance and percentage achievement scores show some fairly consistent results. Those motivations that were more important to people generally had the highest achievement or performance results and those that were less important had lower achievement results. It was interesting, however, that for viewing wildlife in a nadsening, the mean achievement score was lower than wodd be expected given its placement on the importance list. This could be because other marmot, pika, ptamigan, gray jay, and other bird sîghtings, few visitors viewed wildlife such as mountain goats or bears. This ranking inconsistency has been similady noted in other recent visitor surveys in Canadian Mountain Parks (Wright et al., 1996). This probably represents consistentiy dBerent expectations than are possible to achieve.

Visitors also had the opportunity to write in other motivations for hiking in Lake O'Hara. Although 29 different reasons were Iisted in total, some of the more popular responses included: recommendations fiom someone, good hiking destination to bring visitors to Canada, unique experience at the Lodge, achieve moutaineering objectives (climbing Yukness, Victoria or Lefioy), do artwork (e.g. photography, sketching, writing, painting), and the iimited use of area.

Table 4. importance-Performance Cornparison of Reasons to Hike in Lake O'Hara REASONS TO HIKE IN LAKE O'HARA Mean Mean % Importance Achievement Score* Scoref* View and enjoy naturai scenery 4.60 93.1 Explore the natural environment 4.15 88.2 See a naturai environment unchanged by humans 3.98 76.6 Enjoy the variety of hiking trails 3.70 80.8 Enjoy a place that is special to me 3 -69 85.1 Get physical exercise 3.54 88.4 View wilWe in a naturd setting 3.52 54.1 Expenence new and different things 3 -47 77.4 Do something chalienging 3.37 79.8 Experience solitude 3.39 65.6 View plants and trees 3.35 79.9 Have a chance to relax 3.33 75.0 Be with fiienddfamily 3.20 84.2 Learn more about the naturai environment 3.07 58.5 View geology/geomorphology 2.89 70.1 Test and develop my hiking abilities 2.78 70.3 Develop- or enhance my own environmental ethic 2.75 63.9 Lem more about the human history of the area 1.96 43.4 Enjoy the tradition of annual visits 1.94 56.0 close to where 1 live 1 1.81 50.7 * Scale ranges from 1 = 'not important' to 5 = 'extremeIy important'. I ** Mean % Achievement is the average percentage achievement of respondents.

To aid with the analysis, factor analysis was used to group the twenty motivations in Table 4 into cornmon factors or subsets of motivations. Each motivation was organized according to the factor category with the highest value. Using this approach, we identified six main motivations: educational; adventure/physical fitness; social; environmental; naturaüscenic; and relaxation (see Table 5). Table 5. Factor Anaiysis of Major Motivations for Hiking in Lake O'Hara Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor [education J [adventure/ [social] [environment] [naturai/ 6 physical scenic] [relax] fitness) EDUCATION View plantdtrees View geology Lem about human history of area Leam about environment View wildiife ADVENTURE/ FITNESS Challenge Experience something new Get exercise Develop hiking abilities SOCIAL Annual visits Frienddfamily Close to home Variety of hiking traiis Enjoy speciai place ENVIRONMENT Have solitude See unchanged environment Environmental ethic NATURAWSCENIC Expiore natural envuonment Enjoy natural scenery RFLAX Relax .O7 13 .O7 [ 35 1

From the six major reasons or motivations identified in Table 5, the natdscenic motivation was the main reason for visitors hiking in the Lake O'Hara area (see Table 6). Table 6. Major Reasons (SubseWFactors) for Hiking in Lake O'Hara Reason/lMotivation* 1 MeamImportance 1 *fi?" NaturaVscenic motivation 4.37 Environmental motivation 3.37 Relaxation motivation 3.33 Adventurelphysical fitness motivation 3.29 Educat ional 2.96 Social motivation 2.87 * Narnes or labels for these five items are arbitmy and were derived fiom main themes of each factor in Table 4. ** Scale ranges £kom I=not important to S=extremely important

5.2.4 Activity Profile Visitors comrnody participated in at least two activities during theu visit to Lake O'Kara The most popular activities were day hiking, photography, and visiting the "Le Relais" day shelter. Studying wildnowers, canoeing on Lake O'Hara, and mountaineering were among the 'other7 activities in which visitors engaged in (see Figure 9).

Figure 9.

Activities Visitors Participated In During Visit

Day hiking Photography visa Le Relais Wildlife watching Evening program LuncMea Lodge Ovemight hiking Fishing Guided Walk

20 40 60 80 Percentage of Respondents 5.2.5 Trail Closures A grizzly bear hazard assessment was conducted of the Lake O'Hara area in the SUIIlfner of 1993 by wildlife biologists Wayne McCrory and Erica Mdam. In response to the recommendations of the assessment, the McArtbur Valley and Odaray Plateau area were seasonally closed between the period of May 1 to November 30 to protect important grizzly bear habitat and to reduce hurnanhear conflicts. The survey asked visitors when they learned about the seasonal closures, the eEect the closures had on their hiking experience, and their opinions about Merent management actions to manage Lake O'Hara for visitors and wildlife.

5.2.5.1 Awareness of .Closures Forty-two percent had been aware before thek visit while 12% were not aware of the closures when the filled out the survey at the end of their visit (see Figure 10).

Figure 10.

When Visitors First Learned of Seasonal Bear Closures

Prior to Visit

,*%%

While visitors mainiy learned about the closures fkom previous visits to Lake O'Hara, the main sources of information about the closures were: the Lake O'Hara information board at the base of the hill; the Field Information Centre; guidebooks; campground site booking confirmation package; and general tourist information. Some of the 'other' sources of information were the Yoho web page, newspaper, television, and Information Centres in Banffand Jasper. Visitors who were not aware of the closures before boarding the Lake O'Hara shuttle bus, suggested that they had leamed either about the closures fiom the park attendant's speech on the shuttle bus (39%) or during their visit (7%). Closure notices at the campground, Warden cabin, and day shelter (Le Relais) were the main means visitors £kt learned of the closures during their visit (see Figure 11).

Figure 11.

How Visitors Learned About Bear Closures Prior To This Visit

Previous visit Field lnfo Centre Bottom of Hill Phone Reservation Guidebook Campsite Confimation RelativeslFriends Word of Mouth Lake Louise lnfo Centre Lake O'Hara Newsletter Heard about past incident New LOH topo map

Other O 5 10 15 20 25 30 Percentage of Respondents

5.2.5.2 Avoidance of Trails Near Closure Areas Most of the visitors (78%) did not avoid hiking in areas that were near the bear closures (see Figure 12). Figure 12.

. m. visitors' Avoidance of Trails Near Ciosures Reason

Did Nat rscommended Respect for bear

With ywng chiid Limiiacœs

Percentage of Respondents

Those that did avoid trails near closure areas, however, mainly avoided the Highline McArthur, Low Level McArthur ,Odaray Highline/Grandview, and Linda Lake trails (see Table 7). Visitors indicated that they avoided these trails because of the risk of encountering a bear and the proxirnity to the closure areas. Respondents also indicated that they had avoided these trails because they had thought the ûaîls were closed, park employees on the Lake O'Hara bus had recommended they not hike the trails, and there were better altemate trails. Also, 4% of the visitors said they avoided the trails for respect of the bears and their habitat. A few of the visitors said that they had avoided the Cataract Brook, Cathedrd Basin, and the Opabin Highline trails during September when they were wamed not to hike these trails when signs of bear activity (i.e. diggings and scat) were seen. Since these three trails were not in close proximity to the closure areas, some visitors appeared to be confused with the location of the closure areas. Table 7. Trails Visitors Avoided Near Closures

Low Level McArthur 16.7 1 1 1 14.7 1 Grandview 1 1 Lake 9.8 1 Linda Trail I1 t Upper Moming Glory 1 6.9 1 AI1 Souls 2.9 McCarthur Pass 2.9 Cataract Brook 2 Lower Morning Glory 2 1 Big Larches 1 1 1

% of Responses may exceed 100%since some visitors indicated more than one trail

53.5.3 Avoidance of Trails in Closure Areas Most visitors (83%) did not plan to hike in the closure areas. Odaray Prospect was the most popular trail(72%) for visitors who had planned to hike the closure areas while only 19% intended to hike McArthur Pass. Approxirnately 13% of the visitors also confused other trails (Le. Grandview) that were not within the closure areas to be closed.

5.3.5.4 Previously Hiked Closure Traiis Close to 49 percent of the respondents had previously hiked Odaray Prospect while 39% had hiked the McArthur Valley traii (see Figure 13). The mean number of times visitors had hiked Odaray Prospect was 3.8 times, but this was slightly skewed by the fact that 4% had hiked the trail 15 or more times. Visitors had commonly hiked the Odaray Prospect trail one or two times. Although almost half of the visitors had hiked McArthur Valley trail once, the mean number of times was 2.6 (see Figure 14). Figure 13.

Percentage of Visitors Who Had Previously Hiked the Closure Trails

Yes Yes 48.,5% 39%

51 -5% Odaray Prospect

Number of Times Visitors Previously Hiked Closure Trails

/ + 1 8 7 l 1 l One Three Five 11-15 >20 Two Four 6-1 0 16-20

As with other questions on trails hiked, visitors were not always accurate in ident-g trails they did or did not hike or the number of times they had hiked a trail in the pst. As a result, a specific trail in a given area (e.g. McArthur Valley), may have been misidentified as any trail in the general McArthur area (eg. Lowline McArthw or McArthur Pass). 5.3.5.5 Effect of Closures on Hiking Experience For each of the 12 possible effects the bear closures could have on visitors' hiking experience, most (>60%) respondents said that their hiking experience was 'not at al1 affected' by the closures. Visitors may be most affected by the closures with respect to access to specific viewpoints, scenic areas, and other areas through cIosures, as weil as variety of trails available and opportunity to view unique features along trails. Visitors were least aEected by the ability to appreciate vegetation and trees, select hikes that were challenging, or choose shorter or longer hikes (see Table 8).

Table 8. Level of Effect Closures Had on Visitors' Hiking Experience (% responses)

[ Tnil Aftributes Mean Nat Somewhat Moderately Very Extemely Score* 1 2 3 4 5 Access to specific viewpoints 1.7 6 1 21 9 7 2 Variety of mils available 1.6 60 24 11 4 -5 Access to scenic areas 1.5 65 2 1 1O 4 1 View unique features dong trail 1.5 70 10 5 2 [ 13 4 Access to other areas through closure 1.5 69 16 9 4 2 Abiliry to avoid other hikers 1.4 74 15 7 2 1 Ability to view wildlife 1.3 79 12 6 2 1 Select longer hikes 1.3 80 10 6 3 1 Select hikes that were more challenging 1.3 8 1 10 6 2 1 Select hikes that were less challenging 12 85 9 5 1 1 Select shorter hikes 1.2 86 8 4 1 1 Ability to appreciate vegetatiodtrees 1.2 86 9 3 1 .5 * Scale ranges fiom l=not at al1 affected to 5=extremely affected

5.4 Opinions Towards Management Priorities, Actions and Impacts Visitors were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a series of statements about closures as a management action to reduce confiicts between bears and visitors. The strongest Ievel of agreement was associated with the statements "visitor use should be managed to protect high value wildlife sites," "visitor use should be managed to protect animal rnovement corridors," and ccclosuresare acceptable to rninimize the chance of a beartvisitor encounter." Half the respondents strongly disagreed with the statement "I am against trail closures rcgardless of the reasons for closing the trails". Visitors were quite evenly distributed in their views about the role of education in managing visitor use as an alternative to closures (see Table 9). . Table 9. Visitor Attitudes About Using Closures to Muiimize.. Human and Bear Conflicts Statement Meaa Scores* Visitor use should be managed to protect high value wildlife sites. 4.2 Closures are acceptable to minimize the chance of a beadvisitor 4.1 encounter. Visitor use should be managed to protect animal movernent corridors. 4.1 Bears should be given priority over people in park management actions. 3 -9 Trails should remain closed as long as bear movements are unpredictable 3.7 in the area. 1 am willing to sign a persona1 safety waiver before ente~gan area with 3 -4 known hazards. Closures should only occur for a few weeks each season when the bears 3.3 are active in the area. 1 prefer education to manage visitor use rather than closures. 3.1 Al1 traits should remain open with well-communicated hazard waniings 2.5 to hikers. There are not enough bears in the area to justify the closure of areas. 2.3 I am against mil closures regardless of the rasons for closing the trails. 1.7 Scale ranges fkom l=strongly disagree to 5= sîrongly agree

Factor analysis was used to group the attitude statements into two main factors or themes). Factor 1 is based primarily on park management actions (i.e. closures, rnanaging visitor use) whereas Factor 2 places more responsibility on the visitor (i.e. personal safety waiven & hazard warnings). Visitors showed more agreement to direct Park control or management actions (mean = 3.43) than to the visitor responsibility aspect of managing the area

Visitors were in support of closures as a park management action as reflected in the high factor scores. Remembering to take the opposite meaning of the sentence when there is a negative factor value is important in interpreting the data. For instance, the statement "1 am against trail closures regardless of the reasons for closing the trails" had a value of 9.64, which means visitors were not against closures whatever the reason. Similady, visitors were less receptive to having education as an alternative to closures as a means to manage visiter use (see Table 10).

Table 10. Factor Analysis of Attitudes About Management Actions Attitude Statement Factor 1 Factor 2 Park [Visitor Responsibitity] Control] i PARKCONTROL ' Manage visitor use to protect animal .84 -. 10 movement comdors Manage visitor use to protect wildlife .78 .O0 sites Priority to bears over people .74 -.O4 Closures to minimue humanhear 30 -.28 encounters Closures if bear movements .66 0.35 unpredictable Against closures regardless of reason 9.64 -36 Not enough bears to justi@ closures w.60 -36

VISlTOR RESPONSIBIUH Visiton sign personal waiver .O4 -62 Keep aii traib open with hazard -39 -69 warnings to hikers Education over cIosures -37 -67 Closures only when bars active in -.IO -63

5.4.1 EfTect of Ratioode on Visitors' Acceptance of Management Actions Visiton were dso asked in two different questions to indicate their preference for different management actions to protect park visitors' safety and to protect wildlife. Nine of the management actions were the same for both questions. This was asked to see if their preferences for management actions would differ between the two rationale. The management actions included closures, education, quotas, trained guide, and time restrictions. Visitors showed slightly more opposition to permanent closures than they did for temporary closws (i.e. weekly or seasonal). Respondents appeared to be slightly more in favour of trail closures ifthe rationale was to protect wildlife rather than to mhimk the risk of a wildlife/hurnan encounter (see Figure 1 5 - 17).

Figure 15

Visitor Attitudes About Potential Management Actions Cornparison of Mean Responses' for Safety and Ecological Reasons Figure 16

Visitors' Attitudes About Different Types of Trail Closures Risk of WildlifeJHuman Encounter

Close weekl

(m~eryopposed ~Opposed mlndifferent 1 [nln favour mVery much in favour

Figure 17.

Visitors' Attitudes About Different Types of Trail Closures Protect Wildlife

Close weekl

1 i~eryopposedmOpposed ilndifferent loln favour mVery much in favour A factor analysis was conducted to group the management actions into three themes: 'closure'; 'educate'; and 'group'. As mentioaed earlier in this section, the names of the factors were arbitrarily arrived at by the dominant therne or category between the similar variables. As such, the 'closure' fitctor consisted of both permanent and temporary closures. It dso consisted of 'no action required' which in essence rneant respondents wanted to see sorne type of action taken as reflected in the negative value. The 'educate' factor included using information signs dong trail and educational programs to dowusers to decide. Finaily, the third factor 'group' involved redcting daily tirne of travel, regdation of group size, and requiring groups to be lead by a trained guide (see Table 11).

Table 11. Factor Analysis of Management Actions for Human Safety and to Protect Wildlife

EIUlMAN SAFETY PROTECT WILDLIFE Management Action Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 ~-UPI [Closrire] [Edacatel [Groupl Hike in groups of 6 or .86 more Restnct time of travel -72 Groups led by trained .77 guide Close trail 17 permanent1y Close only seasonally -.O0 Close only weekly .13 Openhuild aitem. .3 6 trai 1s No action required .O4 - Erect warninglinfo .O6 1 signs Inform visitors with .O4 educational programs * Question pe&iningattributeof hike in groups of six or more."

The three factors for each variable (human safety and protect wildlife) were correlated to see if there was a strong relationship between the two variables. The results in Table 12 reveal that a strong variable by variable correlation (r value close to 1) existed between the trail closures, group and education factors and therefore there does not appear to be a significant difference in visitors' acceptance of different management actions whether it is for human safety or ecological reasons. In other words, if a trail were to be closed on a temporary basis (Le. weekly periods) visiton would be genedly in just as much favour if it were to reduce the risk of a hurndwildlife encounter than if it were to protect wildife.

Table 12. Correlation Between Management Actions for Safety vs. Ecologicai Reasons 1 1 Factor 1 1 Factor2 1 F~r31 1 fao-l fEauael E-upl

Factor 1 fGroup1- - .O6 -.O0 I .62 Factor 2 ~~10s~.75 .O2 -.If Factor 3 @ducatel -.O I .70 .O5

5.5 Visitor Comments

Forty-five percent of the respondents wrote additional comments at the end of their survey. These written comments were grouped and analyzed according to seven main themes: natuml beauty of area; trails; fees; quotas; reservation system; facilities and services; and visitor/wildlife management in Lake O'Hara (see Table 13). Although a some visitors had commented about the survey being too long, other visitors who were happy to see that this study was being conducted. Some visiton also said that weather was also a factor in their selection of trails during their visit to Lake O'Hara. Visitor/wildlife management and natural beauty of the Lake O'Hara area were the main themes addressed in the verbatim comments. Five percent of the comments commended the parties and stakeholders responsible for protecting and managing the Lake O'Hara area

Table 13. Themes of Visitor Comments

Theme : % ofResponses* Rank VisitodWildlife Management 25 I Natural Beauty of Area 13 2 Quota 9 3 Signage 7 4 Facilities and Services 7 4 Trails 4 5 Fees 2 6 * % of responses rnay add up to more than 100% since some comments addressed more than one theme The following points (three or more comments) were suggested fiom visitors: place distance markers on traii sîgns; indicate level of difficulty of trd (i.e. easy-moderate or challenging) at traühead; improve trail markings dong Yukness Ledge, Al1 Soul's, Wiwaxy, and Abbot Pass trails; add another sink to the campgroumi; erect signs to remind campers to dump their water or wash their dishes at the grey water disposal area and not at the wel pump; add more picnic tables; add another bus departing Lake OYHaraaround 5 or 5:30p.m.; expand visitor interpretation program; do not allow dogs into the area; continue to limit access to ara; do not increase park fees; and enforce desconcerning luggage restriction.

The twenty-five percent of the comments referred to the management of visitors and wildlife in Lake O'Hara were further sub-divided into six dif5erent themes. Several comrnents were grouped in more than one category (Le. visitor may support closures with education). The "balance" theme refered to comments that encouraged Parks to balance the needs of both the visitors and wildiife (see Figure 18).

Figure 18. Major Themes of Visitor/Wildlife Comments

Support Closures

Wildlifc Priority

Against Closurcs

Education

Balance

People Priority

O 10 20 30 40

% of Responses hmthe HumadWiIdlife Comments Foay percent of the responses were in support of closures and thirty-nine of these viewed wildlife as the priority. Interestingfy, almost halfof the comments in suppoa of closures were for ecologicd reasons while the remaining 32 percent were equally divided between visitor safety considerations and a combination of ecologicdsafety ratiode. Only four percent of the respondents believed that people should have prionty in park management. A sarnple of the verbatim comments in each category in Figure 19.

Figure 19. Sample Visitor Comments

Support Closures

"1 am willing to accept the personal risk of hiking in bear habitat. Howevec, 1 strongIy believe that wildlife, including bears, should be protected. There are plenty of trails to hike; hikers can give up some mils to protect the needs of wildlife."

"To my thinking, the envuonment and flora and fauna take precedence over visitor use. 1 do not think 'educating people' is effective enough, so that closures and restncted admission are the only way O'Hara area is well-managed."

" 1 favor a rnixed management philosophy of closures when danger is present. Restrictions when possible, education or guiding when nsk is simply inherent."

Wildlife Pnority

"Protection of the environment and the wildlife is the absolute most important aspect of a national park. People are privileged to intrude into the animaldplants home. We are the guests. We should treat each visit (whatever is open) as a privilege, not a right."

"We agree that Lake OYHarais the "jewel of the Rockies" and it is wondefil to see. However. if human beings are disnirbing the natural habitat of the animals that were here first, we should not be here. There are many other places in the Rockies that we can go. Lake O'Hara is certainly a great place to hike! But we'd be happy to never corne again if it meant saving the Grizzly Bear."

"1 think that wildlife, especially endangered wildlife Iike the grizzly bear, should be given priority in the parks even if it means permanent ûail closures. People have an opportunity to go elsewhere, the bears do not. With shrinking habitat outside the parks, we have to put more emphasis on preservation in the parks rather than developrnent." Against CIosures "it is presumptuous, paternalistic and a gross error to assume that you should make decisions for others by closures. Raîher you should describe conditions (educate) and recommend and then lave the decision to me! I'm not stupid and don't need or want your protection. But 1 greatly value your expertise and advice."

I do understand the closure of the Odaray Prospect, and 1 hope it is temporary. 1 wish it could be open with a requirement'that hikers be in groups of six for their own protection, or travel in the middle of the day if bears are more active early morning or late evening. I understand the need to keep bears and people apart, but after al1 the work and expense to develop the trails in this exceptionally beautifhl area, I do not like to see bars put before people when there are so many other place s bears could inhabit where there are no people for them to encounter."

"1 would open (ail year) the Upper Morning Glory Trail and extend Odaray Highline to Odaray Prospect and trying in with Upper Moming Glory Trail. The number of bears using McArthur Pass is quite few (less than four a year?). They certainly do not stay long since food supplies are sparse. In essence they are passing through. The chances of an encounter with an educated/careful hiker is minimal. 1 think the Odaray Plateau closure is a case of overreaction."

Education "Education is the most important element in protecting visiton and wildlife; howe-~er,there are obviously situations that require closures. It should be made clear to visiton that there are nsks when encomtering wildlife and that park's use is at our own risk."

"1 strongly believe that Park Canada would be more effective of educatïng people on how to live with the wildlife (Le. bean) instead of closing areas. We must fidways for wildlife and humans to CO-exist. If we do not, over time the wildlife will be squeezed into smaller areas and vimially end up in zoos. On this trip 1 witnessed three occasions where visitors were feeding wildlife. I think Parks Canada has to enforce these laws more strictly as in most cases it is these actions that cause future unpleasant humadwildlife encounters."

"Visitor use in any management plan should consider differences between tourists (with presumed little knowledge of wildlife (local ecosystems) and locals with presumed more knowledge of the important issues (i.e. closures, quotas) at hand. Either way, both groups need an increase in education tailored to the deficiencies each admits to."

Balance People and Wildlife Interests "In general, 1 agree in managing the numben of people to access the area and to minimize the beadhuman contact. I disagree with permanent closures except where there is evidence of annual use of bears. On the whole 1 feel a balance has been served!"

"A balance needs to be struck. To date it seems about right. Limited closures, if really necessary are okay but limitations on access rather than total prohibitions are best"

" 1 believe wildlifehan interaction can be managed effectively. 1 do not agree with many natur;iiists/environmenb~ist'sapproach of 'zero tolerance'." People Priority "Grizzly bean and people do not mix. Park are for people. Areas should NOT be set aside for bear exclusive use. Lack of human activity will only expand grizzly temtory."

"1 believe the bears should be moved out of any areas where human encounters are possible. 1 am opposed to restncting human activities because of wildlife."

"1 would be disappointed to see mils permanently closed due to bears in this area. Are there not other alternatives (i.e. moving the bear?)." - To provide more insight into some of the key findings of overall visitor experience, attitudes, opinions and preferences, the next chapter wiU present detaiied cornparisons of the different Lake O' Hara visitor groups using cluster analysis. CHAPTER 6: SEGMENT PROFILES

This chapter wil present the results fiom the three segment profiles beginning with visitors differentiated by country of origin foliowed by section two which will focus on visitors differentiated by kt-time and repeat visitation. Finally, the last section will profile visitors by accommodation differentiation.

6.1 Country of Origin A comparison of visitors by country of origin was conducted to determine if there were significant differences (pc.05) in the survey responses of visitors. The categories of Canadian, American and non-North Amencan were used for the anaiysis. Overall, 68 percent of the respondents were Canadian, 22 percent were American, and the remaining 10 percent were non-North American in origin. Although both t-tests and cross tabulations were conducted between country and ail major survey questions, this section will only discuss the signincant differences.

6.1.1 Trip Characteristics As expected, Canadians were significantly more likely to have visited Lake 07Harabefore than either Americans or non-North Americans (see Table 14).

Table 14. Significant Differences Between Country of Origin and Trip Characteristics Canadians Amencans Non-North Siguifimutce Americans [-OS] Repeat Visitor Yes 57.1 39.6 5 -9 .O00 No 42.9 60.4 94.1

6.1.2 Activity Characteristics

Both Americans and non-North American visitors were significantly more likely to engage in photography than Canadian visitors while North American visitors were more likely to participate in evening programs than non-North Americans. This could be due in part to the fact that since North American visitors were more likely to be repeat visitors to Lake 07Hara, they might be more aware of the evening programs. Finally, Ameriwns were signincantiy more likely to have lunch or tea at the Lodge than the other origin of visitors. Since 41% of the lodge guests were Americans, this finding was expected (see Table 15).

Table 15. Significant- Dif3erences Between Countrv- of Oriein- and Activitv Partici~ation. 1 ( Canadian [ Amencan Non-North PigninCSnce 1 American Photography 75.7 82.6 89.7 -004 Evening Program 22.7 25.8 11.5 .O27 Lunch/tea at hdge 16.8 32.1 11.5 .O00

6.13 Hiking Preferences

Significantly more Canadians and non-North Americans were likely to hike for long distances and tirne lengths whereas Americans were most likely to hike for a halfday on trails between 3.1-9 km. Canadians were significantly more likely to prefer high alpine routes and hikes with large elevation gains while Americans and non-North Americans tended to prefer non- alpine routes with moderate elevation gains. Canadiaus and non-North American visitors were signif~cantlymore Iikely to choose hardened maintained trail surfaces while Arnericans were likely to desire softened unmaintained surfaces(see Table 16).

6.1.4 Hiking Plans The plans of visitors to hike certain kails differed slightly based on the country of origin Amencans were significantly more likely to plan to hike Odaray Prospect or McArthur Valley than Canadians or non-North Amencan visitors. This finding could be because 60% of the American visitors were first-the visitors and many of them might not have been aware of the closures (see Table 17). Table 16. Signincant Differences Between Country of Origin and Hiking Preferences.

Trail Length 0-3 km 1.4 4.4 IL1 3.1-6 km 13.7 21.4 14.3 6.1-9 km 40.2 37.9 28.6 9. I km or more 44.7 36.3 54.8 Time Spent Eikiiig 1 hr-2 hrs 1.5 5.3 4.7 1/2 day 36.1 40.2 24.7 whole day 62.3 54.5 70.6 Eievation Gain Large 48.0 30.9 40.7 Moderate 49.7 65.4 54.7 Relatively Level 2.4 3.7 4.7 Atpine Route Alpinehiph 79.1 71.7 68.3 elevation Lower-rnid 20.9 28.3 31,7 eievation Triil Suace Maintained Hard 49.0 37.1 46.8 Unmaintained 5 1.O 62.9 53 -2 Soit

Table 17. Significant Differences Between Country of Origin and Intention to Hike in Closure Areas. r Canadian American Non-North Signifieance ' American iPcw Plan to Hike in CIosure Areas 15.4 1 23.5 11.7 .O23 6.1.5 Park Management Actions North Americans were significantly more iikely to support closing hils weekly for visitor safety reasons than non-North Americans (see Table 18).

Table 18. Significant DiEerences Between Country and Management Actions for Visitor Safety. Canadian American Non-North Significance American WOS1 Cbse Tm1 Weekiy 3.65 3.67 1 3.29 .O26 Scale l=very much opposed, S=very much in favour

North Americans were signifïcantly more likely to suppoa weekly irail closures to protect wildlife while non-North Americans were significantiy more likely to support groups led by a trained guide (see Table 19).

Table 19. Significant Differences Between Country of Origin and Management Actions for Ecological Reasons. Canadian Anteriam Non-North Signüicance American wog , Close Traif Weekiy 3.75 3.84 3.21 .O00 Groups Led By Trained 2.10 2.12 2.70 .O00 Guide Scale I=very rnuch opposed, 5=very much in favour

Americans were significantly more likely to agree with managing visitor use to protect high value wildlife sites (see Table 20).

Table 20. Significant Dflerences Between Country of Origin and Attitudes About Management Action. Canadian Amencan Non-North Signincance American [Pcw Manage visitor use to protect 4.1 8 437 4.27 .O26 high value wildiife sites. Scale l=very much opposed, 5=very much in favour 6.2 Prior Visitation Segmentation Some signifiant diffêrences were obsel-ved between first-time and repeat visitors, particularly with respect to trip characteristics, hikllig preferences, and questions about closures.

6.2.1 Trip Characteristics Repeat visitors were signifïcantly more likely to stay in Lake O'Hm for more days and to have larger group sizes than first time visitors. Table 21 reveals that repeat visitors were also significantly more likely to be oIder (~44.8)than bttime visitors (x=37.9).

Table 2 1. Sigmfïcant Differences Between Prior Visitation and Trip Characteristics. Repeat Fi& Time Prob. [pc05] Length of Stay 2.45 1.85 .O00 Group Size 3.60 3.15 .O06 Age 44.8 37.9 .O00

Repeat visitors were significantly more liicely to participate in overnight hiking, evening programs, and lunchka at the lodge than first-time visitors. This could be due to them having more of a familiarity wiîh the area (see Table 22).

Table 22. Significant Differences Between Prior Visitation and Activity Participation Sipificame

Overnight Wng .O33 Evening Program 26.0 18.4 .O07 Lunchka at hdge 23.8 15.6 .O02

6.2.2 Hiking Preferences Repeat visitors were significantIy more tikely to be attracted to lakes and streams whereas first time visitors tended to have a stronger preference for seeing waterfds during their hike. Repeat visitors were also significantly more likely to take longer hikes with respect to tirne and length of trail. Alpine meadows were most preferred by repeat visitors while first tirne visitors were significantly more likely to prefer open forests. The fact that repeat visitors preferred alpine meadows corretated well with theu preference for alpine routes. Furthemore, it codd be hypothesized that repeat visitors' strong preferences for longer hikes and alpine routes may be due to theU familiarization with the area and haWig done mid-lower elevation routes, and shorter trails on previous visits (see Table 23).

Table 23. Signincant DBerences Between Pnor Visitation and Hiking Preferences 1 1 Repept 1 Fht-time 1 Signifiernce 1

route High routes 80.6 72.3 .O06 Mid-Lower routes 19.4 27.7 ; TheSpent Eiking A 1 hr-2 hrs .7 4.4 .O00 1R day 32.2 39.3 whole &y 67.1 56.3 TmiI Length 0-3 km .7 3.2 .O06 3.1-6 km 14.3 16.6 6.1-9 km 43.2 34.2

Water Featwes Lakes 70.1 61.4 .O05 A Streams 13.0 11.7 WaterfaIIs 16.8 26.9 Elevation Gain Large 483 39.2 .O09 Moderate 50.0 57.0 Relatively Levet 1.7 3.7 Forest Typelcover Heavily Forested .8 5.4 .O00 Open Forests (i.e. 28.7 35.8 larch) Alpine Meadow 70.5 58.7

6.2.3 Park Management Actions As expected, repeat visitors were significantly more likely to learn about the trail closures before their visit whereas first-tirne visitors tended to leam about the closures on the Lake O'Hara shuttle bus. Fust-the visitors were significantly more likely to become aware of the closures during their visit than repeat visitors (see Table 24). Table 24. Signincant Differences Between Pnor Visitation and Awareness of Closures Rept . Fir&time Signifiumœ [pros1 Awareness of Closures 1 Not aware 6.3 16.3 ,000 Prior to visit 51.7 32.1 On Shutîie Bus 35.1 43.9 Other 7.O 7.7

There were some significant diBeremes observed between prior visitation and the effect closures had on visitors' hiking experience. Although closures overail were seen not to have a large affect on visitors' hikuig experience (see section 4.3.6 of this report), repeat visitors in particular were significantly more likely to be affecteci by the closures with respect to: variety of trails available, access to scenic access, access to specific viewpoints, and ability to view unique features dong the trail than first time visitors(see Table 25).

Table 25. Significant Dserences Between Pnor Visitation and Closure Affect on Hiking Experience. Repeat First Tme Significance rm TdVariety 1.79 1.42 .O00 Scenic Access 1.73 1.35 ,000 Viewpoints 1.92 1.46 .O00 Access other Areas 1.64 1.43 .O02 Trees 1.27 1.14 .O03 Less Challengiog 1-27 1.18 .O43 Unique Features 1.70 1.39 .O00 Scale ranged fiom l'not at al1 affected to 5=extremely affected

First time visitors were significantly more likely to agree with managing visitor use to protect hi& value sites and bears than repeat visitors. Furthemore, first time visitors were also signincantly more iikely to support closures for a few weeks each season when bears were most active in the area (see Table 26). Table 26. Significant Differences Between Pnor Visitation and Attitudes About Closures. Fint Time SignEcance 1~451 Weeks Bears Are Active in 3.20 3 -43 .O04 Area Bears Givem Priority Over 3 -80 3.97 .O27 People Prokt High Value Sites 4.16 4.29 -019 Scale ranged fiom 1=strongly disagree to S=strongly agree

6.3 Accommodation Segmentation Visitors were segmented according to day use and the dif5erent accommodation types. As can be seen in the country of ongin and prior visitation segmentation profiles, visitors fkom the different accommodation profiles were mainiy differentiated by their trip characteristics, activity participation, hiking preferences, and awareness of closures. Accommodation groups were the only segmentation profile to display a significant ciifference in the trails they hiked.

6.3.1 Visitor Profile Non-North Americans and Americans were most likely to be &y users. Canadians were significantly more likely to stay in either the Mrnpground or the ACC facilities while Americans were significantly more likely to stay in the iodge. The non-North Americans that did stay ovemight were significantly more likely to stay in the carnpground than the Lodge or ACC facilities. Lodge guests and ACC hut users were signincantly more Likely to be repeat visitors than day users or campgound users (see Table 27).

Table 27. Significant Differences Between Accommodation and Demographic Characteristics. Day Campground ACC Lodge Significance Use WOSl Country of Ongin .O00 Canadian 64.2 78.7 70.8 56.4 .O00 American 23.6 10.7 20.8 40.6 .O00 non-North Arnerican 12.2 10.7 8.3 3 .O .O00 Repeat mitars 40.1 46.7 52.1 71.2 .O00 6.3.2 Trip Characteristics Ai1 lodge guests hiked during their visit while ACC visitors were less likely to day hike than other groups. On the other hand, ACC visitors were significantly more likely to participate in more physicaily challenging activities such as rock climbing and ovemight hiking. As expected campers and day users were signifîcantiy more iikely to visit Le Relais than other users because Le Relais was the pick up/drop off site for day users and campers used to relax there on wet or cold days. Similady, lodge guests were significantly more likely to attend Iunch andlor tea at the Lodge since that was their central location. In addition, the Lodge has limited seating capacity during lunch for other visitors outside of their guests. Lodge guests were significantly more likely to fish than the other three visitor groups. Campers and lodge guests were significantly more likely to attend evening programs than the other accommodation groups (see Table 28).

Table 28. Significant DiEerences Between Accommodation and Activity Pa Day Campgrouad ACC Loage Sinifiicance Use iFW D~YHiking 98.2 983 79.5 100 .O00 Evening Program 1.1 36.9 19.2 51.1 .O00 Wildlife Viewina 58.3 71.2 45.2 82.0 .O00

Lunch/tea at 11.6 6. I 12.3 75.2 .O00 - Fishing 1.1 4.4 2.7 9.8 .O00

Lodge guests were significantly more likefy to have hiked more trails during their visit than the other accommodation segments. This couid be because Lodge guests tended to have longer visits and therefore had more time to hike a greater number of trails. As expected, ACC users were significantly more likely to have hiked Abbot Pass and as a result were more inclined to have hiked the Oesa trail since it is en route to Abbot Pass (see Table 29). Table 29. Significant- DifTerences Between Accommodation and Trails Hiked. Loage Significance [pro51 1-3 4.8 493 1.5 .O00 7.1 22.1 13.7 18.8 .O00 Cataract Brook 11.1 22.1 6.8 12.0 .O00 Cathedra1 Basin 1.1 7.5 4.1 12.8 .O00 : Cathedra1 Mes I .6 9.9 4.1 21.8 .O00 Duchesaay ,5 3.4 2.7 4.5 .O00 Don Quixote 1.3 9.2 2.7 15.8 .O00 MeO'Hara Circuit 57.0 78.2 64.4 92.5 .O00 Oesa 48 .S 70.7 80.8 84.2 .O00 Linda Beeline 1.8 8.5 5.5 28.6 .O00

1 I Highline MeArthnt 15 .O 54.4 41.1 72.2 .O00 Lowlhe McArthur 11.3 403 28.8 45.1 .O00 Vpper Momhg Glory 3.2 7.1 6.8 17.3 .O00 1lower Manhg 2.9 10.5 12.3 25.6 .O00 Glory Grandview 4.5 20.7 24.7 33.1 ,000 ûpabin Highline 23.2 46.3 34.2 52.6 .O00 East Opabin 30.9 56.8 41.1 81.2 .O00 West Opabin 36.1 58.8 52.1 72.9 .O00 Wlwaxy 22.4 44.6 35.6 38.3 .O00 Yukness 32.7 53.7 1 42.5 53.4 ,000

6.3.3 Hiking Preferences ACC users and Lodge guests were significantiy more likely to hike with a destination in mind and day visitors and ACC uses tended to hike trails that had specific viewpoints. Campers and ACC hut visitors were significantly more likely to prefer high alpine routes and large elevation gains whereas Lodge guests and day users were most likely to choose non-alpine routes and moderate elevation gains. These feature preferences are consistent with the tendency of ACC users and campers to be sigaincantly more likely to hike alpine trails than non-alpine trails. Finaliy dl the users except Lodge guests were significantly more likely to prefer hikes of 9.1 km or more (see Tabie 30). Table 30. Significant Differences Between Accommodation and Hiking Preferences. Dayuse Clmpground ACC

Desünation With views 85.8 86.3 94.2 Without specific 14.2 13.7 5.8 views Alpinelnon- 1 nipine route 70.3 85.2 92.8 , Ngh Mid-Lower 29.7 14.8 7.2 TdlLength 0-3 h 3.8 -7 .O 3.1-6 km 14.5 13.9 12.7 6.1-9 km 34.8 3 8.2 38.0 9.1 km or more 46.8 47.2 49.3 Elevation Mn Large 33.5 55.5 58.9 Moderate 61.7 43 -8 39.7 Relatively Level 4.8 .7 1.4 ' j SC~II~C OpportcInities Specific 10.2 6.6 18.5 Viewpoints Diveaity 89.8 93.4 81.5 Viewpoints

6.3.4 Park Management Actions Day visitors were significantiy more likely not to be aware of the closures while ACC visitors were most likely to lem about the closures on the shuttle bus. The campers high awareness of the closures couid be because they are told about the closures in their reservation confirmation letter before their visit. Day users were significantly more likely to avoid trails near closures while lodge guests were significantly more likely to plan to hike the closure areas before their visit. This latter observation could be due to the fact most of the Arnerican Lodge guests were first-time visitors and therefore were not aware of the closures before their visit (see Table 3 1). Table 3 1. Significant Ornerences Between Accommodation and Awareness of Clo 1 Day 1 Carnpground f ACC 1 Lodge 1 Sigaiinrance 1 1 Use I EWOSl Awareiiess of Closares Not aware 19.7 4.5 8.5 5.3 .O00

Pnor to visit 34.0 48.6 39.4-. 48.1 -000 On Shuttle Bus 39.5 39.9 493 34.6 .O00 mer 6.8 6.9 2.8 12.0 .O00 Avoid Trails Near 32.1 15.6 18.8 11.0 .O00 Closnres Pbto Hike In 10.6 16.5 18.2 31.5 .O00

Campers were significantly more likely to support permanent and seasonal trail closures to protect visitors' safety while day and ACC users were significantly more likely to support seasonal closures. Day users were significantiy more likely to support having Lake O'Hara visitors hiking in groups of six or more (see Table 32).

Table 32. Significant Differences Between Accommodation and Management Actions for Visitor Safety . Day Campground ACC Lodge Significance use w-051 Ciose Tm3 Permanentfy 2.56 2.99 2.79 2.46 .O00 Close Seasonally 3.53 3.84 3.93 3.19 .O00 Hike in Groups of Six or More 2.08 1.74 1.92 1.86 .O0 1 ScaIe l=very much opposed, 5=very much in favour

Although most of them disagreed with this management action, day users were significantly more likely to support restncting the time of travel to protect wildlife than the other three accommodation groups (see Table 33). They were also significantly more likely to support 'no action' as a management technique. No other significant differences were noted between the other accommodation groups and management actions to protect wildlife. Table 33. Significant DifEerences Between Accommodation and Management Actions for - Daytise Campground ACC Lodge Signincance ' IFosi No Action 2.15 1.86 1.95 2.14 .O08 Restrict Time of Travel 3.00 2.72 2.79 2.72 .O26 Scale l=very much opposed, 5=very much in favour

There were a number of significant ciifferences between accommodation groups and attitudes about closures. Campers and ACC users were significantly more likely to support managing visitor use to protect animal movement conidors and high value wildlife sites and accept closures to reduce the chance of a beadvisitor encounter. Day users were signincantly more likely to support keeping trails open with well-communicated hazard wamings although it scored quite low (1.8 1 on a 5 point scale). Lodge guests were significantly more likely to agree to some extent that "there are not enough bears in the area to justify the closure of areas." Ali the accommodation groups, except the lodge guests, were more likely to support giving bears priority over people in management actions. Finally, although al1 the accommodation groups expressed a hi& disagreement with the statement "1 am against trail closures regardless of the reasons for closing the trail," day users were significantly more iikely to agree with closures under depending on the reasons for closing the trail (see Table

Table 34. Significant Differences Between Accommodation and Attitudes about Closures. Day Campgrouad ACC ' Lodge Signifiaance Use WOSl Protect Movement Corridors 4.1 1 4.23 4.23 3.93 .O10 Chance of Minimue Encounter I 4.05 4.15 4.24 3.83 .O06 Against Trail Closures 1 1.81 1.58 1.67 1.83 .O06 Open Trails with Hazard [ 2.64 2.33 2.59 2.57 .O15 Wamings Weeks Bears Are Active in Area 3.47 3.11 3.40 3.30 .O0 1 Few Bears to JustiQ Closures 2.30 2.1 1 2.14 2.62 .O00 Protect High Value Sites 4.21 432 4.31 4.03 .O10 Bears Given Priority Over 3.91 4.01 4.00 3.52 .O00 People I I 1 I I Scale I=strongly disagree, 5=strongIy agree 6.4 Benefit-Based Profiles A cluster analysis was perfonned on the twenty motivationshenefits that were identified as reasons for visitors hiking in Lake O'Hara. This analysis was used to develop naturai, as opposed to a priori, groups of individuals with shared motivations. These visitor segments were then used in conjunction with a prion methods of grouping visitors (i.e. country of ongin, accommodation type, and previous Visitation) to outhe the different profiles of Lake O'Hara visitors.

A four-chter solution was selected since it can retain the most variation between groups with statistically signincant sample sizes. While the top motivations (e.g. view scenery, explore environment, see unchanged environment, and special place,) ranked consistentiy high across dlclusters, the clusters were narned according to those motivation variables for which the rank order of cluster loading scores (not the mean responses) was significantly different between clusters. This naming stage, however, is arbitrary and subject to different interpretatiom. The study identified the four clusters to be: the Discovery Enthusiasts (fiends and familyfnew tbgs); Relaxation Enthusiasts (wildlifehelax); Learning Enthusiasts (solitude/view plants and animais); and Challenge Seekers (exerciselchallenge). These clusters are presented in Table 3 5.

Discovery Enthusiasts were the largest Lake O'Hara visitor market segment followed by the Relaxation Seeker cluster. Discovery Enthusiasts were significantly more likely to be North Americans who were travelling with fiends and family. TheK groups were significantly larger (mean=3.43) and included children. Learning Enthusiasts were significantly more likely to be Canadians who were travelling with their family and children. This segment was also significantly more likely to have longer visits (mean=2.6 1 days) while the Relaxation Seekers tended to stay the shortest. Generally, Relaxation Seekers segment were significantly more likely to non-Canadian males who were either travelling alone or with a spouse whereas Table 35. Ranked Benefit Items Associated With Each Cluster.

Motivation Cluster 1 Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Cluster 4 Rank 4 Discover Challenge a = 289 - - - nt123 View Scenery 4.68 1 1 1 4.42 1 SpeciaI Place 3.97 4 13 4 3.63 2 Explore Environment 4.26 2 2 3 3 .S6 3 Friends/Family 3-71 6 17 14 3.33 4 Unchanged Environment 3 3 2 3.22 5 Trail Variety 5 5 S 3.13 6 Get Exercise 8 10 9 3.06 7 Challenge 9 11 10 2.85 8 View Wildlife 10 4 8 2.82 9 Solitude 11 7 6 2.67 10 Relax 13 8 12 2.65 11 Plants Trees 12 9 7 2.56 12 New Things 7 6 13 2.5 1 13 Geology 15 14 16 2.28 14 Develop Hiking Abilities 16 15 18 2.15 15 Lem About Naiural 14 12 14 2.12 16 Environmental Ethic 17 16 10 1.88 17 Annual Visits 19 20 17 1.58 18 Human History 18 18 19 1.56 19 IClose To Live 20 -19 - 20 1.45 -20 Mean response based upon a scde ranging fi% I = not important; : * Cluster rank is an ordinal rank of the importance of the benefit items in each cluster Chailenge Seekers were significantly more likely to be Canadians who were travelling with family or a tour group. Challenge Seekers were also significantiy more likely to have a larger group size (mean=3.57) as demonstrated in Table 36.

Table 36. Significant Differences Between Benefit Clusters and Selected Demographic and Trip Variables. Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Claster 3 Cluster 4 Siguiticance Discover Rek Learn Challenge [fi051 Country of Origin Canada 75.0 50.6 87.4 73.0 .O00 USA 21.1 25.0 11.6 19.7 Non-North-Amencan 3.9 24.4 1.1 7.4 Gender Male 49.1 58.9 49.5 713 .O02 Female 50.9 41.1 50.5 28.7 ILength of Stay 2.15 1.96 2.61 2.05 .O07 Group Size 3.43 2.70 3.40 3.57 .O02 Graup Alone 5.7 10.2 2.1 4.9 .O02 Spouse 42.8 58.1 47.4 45.9 Children 43 3.6 63 --3.3 Friends 25.8 15.6 18.9 19.7 - Family 19.4 7.8 242 20.5 Group tour 2.1 3.6 1.1 4.1 Business colleagues .O 1.2 .O 1.6

Cluster 1,2 and 3 were significmtly more likely to choose to hike with a destination rather than without a destination. Cluster 1,3, and 4 were significantly more likely to choose a diversity of viewpoints rather than specific viewpoints (see Table 37). Table 37. Significant Differences Between Benefit Clusters and Hiking Feature Preferences. CIuster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Significance Discover Relax Learn Challenge [pdq

Deshtion- ~ With destination 88.4 91.0 93.8 80.2 .O09

Without a destination 11.6 9.0 6.3 19.8 I Scenic

O~aortunitiesa Specific 5.6 153 6.7 7.6 .O06 Diversity 94.4 84.7 933 92.4 Although most visiton said that closures did not affect their experience, Learning Enthusiasts were significantly more likely to be afFected in their ability to view unique features. Both Discovery and LedgEnthusiasts were significantly more iikely to support management actions that placed a prionty of bears over visitors and Discovery Enthusiasts were aiso signifïcantly more likely to agree with managing visitor use to protect high value wildlife sites. Challenge Seekers were significantiy more likely to be wiliing to sign a personal safety waiver before entering an area with known hazards. This could be because since they were travelling mainly in groups and with ad&, they tended to feei more confident about their safety than visiton travelling with children, alone or with just one other person (see Table 38).

Table 38. Significant Di8 :remes Between Benefit Clusters and Attitudes about Closures ICluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Signifieance Discover Reh Learn Challenge [p(05] I

waiver Protect high value sites Aff& of Closnres View unique features

The succeeding chapter wiil present the results conceming the types of features that made Lake O'Hara an important hiking destination for visitors. CHAPTER 7: DEFINING THE HIKING EXPERIENCE

Visitors' hiking experiences in Lake O'Hara were defined by identi-g the features that were associated with some of theû favourite traiis. The results presented in this chapter were collected fiom the visitor employed photography exercise and visitor survey.

7.1 Response Rate Two hundred and seventy-five pictures were taken in total (149 in 1995 and 126 in 1996) by the twenty-five participants.

Most of the visitoa that were approached for the exercise were quite receptive about participating in the study. Those that were not interested in pdcipating explained that they were visiting Lake O'Hara to relax and did not want to have the responsibility of working. One participant group incorrectly interpreted the exercise to be directed strictiy at trail conditions. The overall response rate for the exercise was 8 1%.

7.2 Photographic Subjects The photographs were analyzed according to the information written in the comesponding log books. In cases where information was not written for a selected photograph, the picture was not used in the analysis to avoid subjective interpretation by the researcher. As a result, 258 out of the 275 photographs (94%) were used for the dysis.

The features of interest were organized into 11 categones that included general view, water, mountiiins, geologic formations, glaciers, vegetation, wildlife, trail quaiity, and built features (see Figure 20). Figure 20.

VEP Features Of lnterest

Some of these categones were then Mersubdivided into more descriptive themes (i.e. water was divided into lakes, streams and waterfd shots). Although photographs were taken fiom seventeen trails in the Lake O'Hara area, the pictures were predominantly fiom the West Opabin, Highline McArthur, Lake O'Hara Circuit, Lake Oesa, and Wiwaxy trails. Haif of the photographs taken were divîded between the themes of water and trail quaiity. Visitors mainly cornrnented that they liked the colour of the alpine lakes, the views of lake reflections, and the fact that the streams looked so clear and clean. Erosion control masures (Le. rock stairs and hardened paths), width of trail (fairly narrow due to little off-trail use), and trail maintenance (Le. generally clear of debns) were some of the rasons why visitos were impressed with the trail quality of the area (see Figure 21). Figure 2 1. VEP Features of lnterest By Sub-Category

Slides mi'ities Streams , 1 , Meadows I

O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Number of Photos

Two thirds of the respondents took at least one photograph of water scenes whiie only one third took at least one photograph conceming trail quality. Similarly twice as many respondents (91%) took five or more photographs of water scenes while only 45% five or more photographs concerning trail quality. This illustrated that aithough half of the photographs taken were associated water and trail qudity, a few of the respondents tended to take most of their pictures about üail quality rather than taking photographs of a variety of features. The other features or attributes thai were considered to be most positive to visitors' hiking expenence were mountain views, wildlife (birds, pikas, and mmots), generai view or scenery, waterfalls, and glaciers. 7.3 Visitor Experience and Photographic Judgment Visitors were also given the oppottuaity to explain in the photo log book about why certain scenes positively or negatively affected their experience. When visitors did comment on their photographs, they ofien discussed the scenery or view of the area. Some of the following words were used to describe the scenery: "beautifid," "viewpoints without guardrails," "peaceful and quiet," "awesome," '%leanand pristine," "spectacular panoramic view of mountains," "diverse landscape," and ''maguificent display of changing colours." Seven percent of the photographs, however, were associated with negative scenes. These scenes were mainly concerned with traii quality, signage, general view, and buiit features. More specifkally, the photographs were taken of: litter; obtrusive and poorly interpreted signage; loud tourists; amount of development in Lodge area; uneven rock bridges; muddy low-level trails and erosion; fding rocks fiom scree slopes dong Lake O'Hara Circuit trail; and scarred landscape by the Oesa switchback trail (see Figure 21). A summary of the main suggestions made by visitors is Iisted in Figure 22.

7.4 Features of Trails Hiked Table 39 provides a cornparison of the features of interest visitors selected for each trail fiom the VEP exercise and "most favourite trail" question in the on-site visitor survey. Although for the most part, the features themes are sirnilar, there are incidences (Le. Cathedra1 Lakes and Higblitle McArthur) where visitors referred to features Like "ease" or "remoteness" which were not used in the VEP features. VEP participants often focused on physical attributes since it was difficuit to photography characteristics such as "ease" or "remoteness." Figure 22. Main CommentslRecommendations from VEP Exercise

1. "Continue to limit access and control access to this sensitive area." 2. "Restrict development in lodge ares" 3. '%ducate people to allow future generations to respect this area. Perhaps have a ten minute video on the bus ride up to explain the fkgile environment at Lake O'Hara."

4. Some of the respondents were impressed with the fact these trails have been actively used for over 50 years and indicated "continue doing a good job with trail maintenance and erosion control measures."

5. "Secure rocks on scree slope of O'Hara Circuit trail and ensure rock bridge on Circuit trail is even."

6. 'Continue to encourage visitors to drop grave1 on tarp on O'Hara Circuit trail for the Trails Club."

7. "Fallen logs and timber help restore the nutrient. to the soil." 8. Although some of the respondents felt that the inil signs and markers were "subtle and effective", others felt the signs should be less obtnisive (Le. "no fishing" sign). A couple of visitors commented that they liked the "stay on trail sign" with the picture of the boot rather than "big squared lettered signs." Visitors enjoyed seeing bilingual information about the nad envuonment.

9. Two respondents indicated that they preferred rock paths or stairs to "pressure treated wood" paths. A couple of visitors also preferred to have Iow level trails re-routed to higher levels to minimize impacts.

10. "Provide a better explmation at trailheads for bear closure areas to reinforce the reasons why the area is closed (Le. not for autocratie reasons). This will be part of educating people."

II. Although hiken enjoyed seeing marmots, birds, and other wildlife, they felt that the marmots in particular were "ioo habihüited and expected to be hand-fed." ûverall they felt the park should encourage visitors not to feed wildlife.

12. Respondents valued having lockers in the campground to cc bear pmof the campsite, however one individual felt these ccshouldbe larger to hold bigger packs." Table 39. Main Features of Interest for Visitors of Seiected Lake O'Hara Trails r Trail 1 VEP 1 Vmitor Survey 1 1 (Favourite TdFeatares)* Al1 Souk 1 Mes, peaks, trees, snow, valley vïew, lake, alpine, peaks, td quaiity I Big Larches lakes, mil quality Cataract Brook tdiquality Cathedral Mes flowers East Opabin trail quality, view, lake, bridges lake, view nüdlife, streem, lnrches 1 Grandview trail qdity, peaks, glaciers L Highline McArthur lakes, peak, trail quality, wildlife Lake O'Hara Iakes, trail, peaks, waterfalls, Circuit bridges 1 Linda Lakes trail quaiity, wildlife, flowers Iake, peaks, wildlife, trail guality, ~ flowers Low Level trail quality floweru, lake, view, mil, meadows McArthur Oesa trail quality, waterfalls, peaks, lake, waterfaf ls, view, trail quality, lakes ~eaks Opabin Plateau wildlife, peaks, glaciers view, lake, flowers, peaks, trnil quaw Shaeffer Lake lakes, mountains view, wildllife, larch West Opabin lakes, wildlife, peaks lake, view, peaks, traii quaiity Wiwaxy peaks, lakes, view, waterfalls view, lake, challenge, alpine, trail q adity Y ukness view, lakes, trees, glaciers, trail view, lake, wildlife, peaks, trail aualitv aualitv Abbot Pass * not applicable view, huts, peak, alpine, challenge Cathedra1 Basin * not applicable view, remote, lake, peak, flowers Upper Moming * not applicable meadow, lake, peak, waterfall, Glory stream hwer Morning * not applicable view, lake, bail quality, Stream GIory 1 1 Sleeping Poets ( * not applicable 1 view, wildlife, larch 1 * represents trails that were not represented in the VEP exercise ** words in bold represent features not mentioned by VEP participants

7.4.1 Feature Preference Comparisons

7.4.1.1 Focus Groups A sample of 200 Lake O'Hara visitors was selected for focus group inte~ewsduring the 1995 season. The interviews, which lasted about 45 minutes, were coordinated to gather data about the natural features that visitors considered to be most important to their recreational experience at Lake OYHara. The results fiom this exercise were used to compare with the findings of the VEP exercise and the on-site survey. Although the feature preference ordering was slightly different for each of the three exercises, the results suggest that irai1 quaiity, vegetation, mountains, and water or lakes were most important to visitors' recreation or hiking experiecce in Lake OYHara. Seeing wildiife was important to VEP and survey participants, however it was one of the teast important features to the visitors in the focus groups. The focus groups tended to place a higher importance to vegetation than the other groups did (see Table 40).

Table 40. Cornparison of Top Five Features for the VEP, Survey, and Focus Group Exercises

VEP f 19% & 1996) 1996 On-Site Survey Wost Recreation Inventory Focus Favonrite Trail Featpres" Gronps 1995 lakes general- view/scenery trails trail quality lake vegetation mountains wildlife lakes - wildlife mountains mountains general view/scenery trail quality general view/scenery

7.5 Features of Closure Trails Since visitors could not use the closme areas, the ody means of asking visitors about the features that were important to them in the closure trails, Odaray Prospect and McArthur Valley, was through the survey. Table 41 iilustrates the main features of interest for these trails as indicated by the respondents who had previously hiked them.

Table 41. Top Five Most Preferred Features of Closed Trails

Odaray Prospect McArthur Valley view view waterfalls lake circuit circuit larc h flowers alpine route glaciers 7.6 Hiking Preferences

To probe Merinto the types of features or attributes visitors choose when selecting a hikùig trail, the visitors were asked in the on-site survey to select the conditions that they would most prefer when choosing a hiking trail on a typical &y. They were given a list of nine key attributes and were asked to select only one condition per category to help in understanding their hiking preferences more clearly. Overail, visitors tended to prefer the following conditions: whole day hiking; reach a specific destination; alpine meadows; diversity of viewpoints; alpine or hi& elevation routes; and traiis to view lakes (see Table 42).

Respondents were divided, however, between choosing moderate or large elevation gains; unmaintained sofiened or rnaintained hardened traii surfaces; and 6.1 - 9 km or greater than 9 km hikes. When visitors commented on this question, they said that they were in favaur of maintained hardened trail surfaces to prevent tramphg of vegetation, particularly in the alpine meadows. Some respondents, however, felt that by hardening the surface, the trail would Iose its naturd character.

When asked to rank the importance of the nine trail features in Table 42 dong with the number of people seen, visitors indicated that scenery, destination, elevation, and alpinehon- alpine routes were their four most important features when deciding where to hike in Lake O'Hara (see TabIe 43). Table 42. Preferred Conditions for Visitors' Selecting a Hiking Trail % of Reswnses Scenic Opportunities divenity of viewpoints specific viewpoints

Destination reach specific destination without specific destination

EIevation moderate elevation gains large elevation gains relatively Ievel

Alpinehon-alpine mute alpinehigh elevation non-al pineAow-m id elevation

Trail surface unmainbined softened maintained hardened

Time Hiking whole &y half day 1 hr to 2 hrs

Length of hike > 9.1 km 6.1 -9 km 3.1 -6km 0-3h

Type of foresdarea cover alpine meadow open forests heavily forested

Water features trails to view Iakes trails to view waterfaIls trails along streams of Hiking Table 43. Ranking- Most Preferred - Preferences Feature 1 % ofRaponses Scenic oppominities 16.1 Destination Elevation Alpinelnon-alpine route Length of hike Water features The spent hiking Type of forest cover Number of people seen Trail surface

More detaiied information pertaining to the 1996 attendance data and the resdts of the mil use assessrnent are summarized in the next chapter. CEAPTER 8: LEVELS OF USE

This section will present a summary of the Lake O'Hara attendance figures that have been collected during the 1995 and 1996 field seasons along with the results of the 1996 trail use assessment.

8.1 Area Use Summary Lake OYHarareceives approxirnately 75% of Yoho's backcountry overnight use as weil as most of the backcountry &y-use despite the quota system (Canadian Parks Service, 1988: 60). There has, however, been considerable uncertainty as to the actual number of visitors that have visited Lake OYHaraeach year since the first visitor survey of the area in 1972. This observation was noted when attendance figures fiom Parks Canada, Alpine Club of Canada, and the Lake OYHaraLodge were compared. Large discrepancies in the actual visitor counts were noted between the sources (i.e. a 2,451 difference in the 1996 season total) and as a result the 1996 data should be interpreted with some caution (see Figure 23).

Another problem with the existing attendance data was that some years accounted for visitors in people counts while other years were based on user nights, so calculating any trends fiom the information accurately was difficult. The gap between the people counts was particularly odd since one wouId anticipate that with the quota system in place, the numbers wodd be relatively consistent fiom year to year. Furthemore, data collected from the O'Hara carnpground and Elizabeth Parker Hut suggested a general nsing trend that may be due to fuller tents dorincreased mid-week use in Septernber (pers. comm Marcus Eyre, Yoho Park warden, 1997).

The Lake O'Hara Area Plan notes that (Canadian Parks Service, 1992: 20) "although the total nurnber of people visiting the area during the sumrner and fa11 has not increased dramatically Figure 23. Lake O'Hara Sumrner Attendance Figures (1972-1 996)

* Sources: 1972 Figure (Canadian Parks Service, 1973); 1988-89 Figures (Praxis, 1990); 1990 Figures (Canadian Parks Service, 1992); 1996 Figure collected during the 1996 field season fiom ACC, Lake O'Hara Lodge, and Parks Canada records. during the past twenty years, the increase in visitors accounts for an increase of 2,500 visitors- days per year (fiom 12,000 in 1972 to l4,SOO in 1%JO)." The Plan attributes this increase to higher occupancy rates during the peak season and visitors staying for longer periods. It was of interest that despite the late snow melt in July of 1996, the total number of visitors did not seem to be afTected. Since visitors must reserve a site about three months in advance, it is Iikely that many of them may not have known about weather conditions until they anived in the Park when it would be too late to tum around especially for those that have tmvelled long distances.

8.2 TraiIs Use Assessmen t Approximately 30,888 visitor passages were recorded at ten counter locations in Lake O'Hara during the 1996 field season. Oesa received the most use out of al1 the trails, however, again some passages may incorporate return trips. West Opabin, East Opabin and Highline McAtthur also experienced higher levels of use compared with other Ws. The precision of the Yukness level of use estimates tended to be low since it had fewer sample days and high variance within the data. This variance was largely due to the traii's level of exposure and difficuities with the equipment(see Table 44).

Table 44. Total Number of Hikers Passing By Counter Locations During 1996 Summer Season TA1 Segment Totai Error MPrgine Error Intemai pa=w- Oesa 8597 13 7456 to 9738 West Opabin 4682 16 3934 to 543 1 East Opabin 4330 20 3473 to 5 187 Highline McArthur 3806 35 2477 to 5135 Odaray Highline 2464 22 1916 to 3012 Wiwaxy 2275 19 1846 to 2704 Yukness 1377 73 367 to 2387 Linda Lakes 1241 28 892 to 1590 Al1 Souk 121 1 24 926 to 1496 Linda Beeline 904 28 651 to 1157

Oesa and Linda Lake were the only trails to have a higher level of use July because they had been the only ûails (outside the Lake O'Hara Circuit trail) that were snow tracked since late June (see Table 45).

Table 45. Cornparison of Monthly Totds for 1996 Summer Season Trsiil Segment 1 JuIy Atigust September Oesa 13721 3103 1774 West Opabin 1287 1913 1482 East Opabin 1071 2038 1221 HighlineMcArthur 946 1812 1048 Odaray Highline 760 1199 505 Wiwaxy 859 905 511 Yukness 250 677 450 Linda Lakes 579 405 258 AI1 Souk 432 464 3 14 Linda Beeline 311 350 243 ALL SEGMENTS 10216 12865 7806 The affect that the late summer season had on the remaining eight trails, particularly the higher and more exposed trails like Yukness and Highline McArthw, can be seen in Figures 24 and 25. These two trails were not accessible until the first and second weeks in July because of deep snow (up to waist deep) and Ail Souls was not recommended due to avalanche warnings. Furthemore, the East Opabin trail was closed until July 15 for environmental reasons (i.e. flooded sections of the trail) and levet of use monitoring for the West Opabin trail was defayed until July 10 since someone had vandalized the counter on the first of July. In response to the lower attendance in September, ail the tdsexperienced fewer passages during that month.

Figure 24.

I Monthly Paasages for Alpine Route Tails

August Monîh Figure 25.

I 1 Monthly Totals for Trail Segments I

1 -a 1 +West opabin 4.bt Opabin -. -. Hghhe McArthur +. Odaray Hghhe l +LndaLakes .+.LiidaBeehe 1 U J 1 Jury August Sep- -Y ukness i -Al1 Souk +WN=Y

8.2.1 Intensity of Use The study period (June 19 - October 1) consisted of a total of 104 population days (30 weekend days and 74 week days). Six out of the ten trai1s had higher mean weekend day counts than weekday counts. However, except for the Odaray Highline and Oesa trails, the difference in the means was only by a value of one. After the Labour Day weekend (September 2), the total level of use of dl ten trails declined by an estimated 100 counts a &y (see Table 46). Table 46. Cornparison of Weekday and Weekend Use of Trails ( Trail Segment 1 Tmeof 1 Sample 1 Average 1 Confidence 1 1 Week Oesa Weekend Oesa Weekday West Opabin Weekend West Opabm Weekday East Opabin Weekend East Opabin Wkday Highline Weekend McArthur HighIine Week&y MCMUT Odaray Highline Weekend OdarayHighline 1 Weekday Wiwaxy 1 Weekend I '"riYaxy~1 Yukness Weekend 1 1 I Yukness Weekday 1 37 29 22-35 Linda Lakes Weekend 25 15 10-2 1 Linda Lakes Weekday 62 14 11-17 AI1 Souk Weekend 24 1 15 11-19 1 1 AU Souk Weekday 1 61 1 14 12-16 Linda Beeline Weekend 1 24 IO 7-12 1 I I 1 1 Linda Beeline 1 Weekday 1 57 1 12 1 10-14 1 8.3 Level of Use from Visitor Suwey Five questions fiom the first section of the visitor survey were used to gather Ievel of use data that could be incorporated with the trail counter anaiysis. More specificaiiy, visitors were asked if they had hiked on their trip, the trails hiked, trails visitors wanted to hike but were unable to, iength of hike, and favounte trail.

83.1 Hiking Experience Ninety-nine percent of the respondents had hiked or walked during their visit to Lake O'Hara. The texms walking and hiking were deliberately used together in the survey since a trip dong certain trails had different connotations to sorne visitors (i.e. a 'hike' versus a 'walk' around Lake O' Ham). 83.2 Traiis Hlked The top four trails hiked were Lake O'Hara Circuit, Oesa, West Opabin, and East Opabin (see Table 47). The ordering of these trails, except for the Lake O'Hm Circuit trail since there was not a trail counter on it, was fairly consistent with the most popular trails hiked fiom the trail counter data in Table 46.

Table 47. Trails Visitors Hiked During Their 1996 Visit Compared with Past Survey Data % of Survey Trail Counter 1989 Respondents mRank Rank* Survey MeO'Hm Circuit 70 1 Oesa 64 3 West Opabin 50 - East Opabin 48 - Yukness Ledge 43 7 Highline McArthur 39 4 Opabin Highhe 36 2 WiwaxyNuber 33 - Ledges Low Level McArthur - Odaray 6 HighlineIGrandview* * Cataract Brook " AI1 Souk - Linda Lake " Lower Moming Glory - Linda Beeline - Cathedral Lakes - Upper Morning Glory - Abbot Pass - Don Quixote - Cathedra1 Basin - Big Larches - Duschenay Basin -

** Odaray and Grandview were lumped together since the survey instrument only indicated Odaray Highline, yet some visitors checked it because they ttiough it included Grandview.

Similarly, when compared to the trails visitors indicated they hiked in the 1972 and 1989 Lake O' Hara visitor sweys, Lake O' Hara Circuit, Lake Oesa, Highline McArthur, Opabin Highline, and Odaray/Grandview were the top five contenders. In the 1 989 swey, 13% of the respondents had hiked Odaray Prospect which placed fifth in the ranking before Odaray/Grandview.

The cornparison of trail counter ranking to survey ranking for trails hiked suggests that with the exception of the problematic Yukness td counter, there is a relative consistency in rank orders. In order to project level of use on trails for which trail counter data did not exist, a regression analysis (without the Yukness &ta) was calculated between the trail counter and survey ranbgs. The regression equation computed an r value of .95 showing a very strong correlation between the two rankings. This regression equation was used to generate projected levels of use for trails. In addition to the regression computed levels of use, we had neither counts nor swey data for eleven trail segments, as it was difficult to identiQ their use of hlsat this finer scale of resolution. To project use levels for these segments, a combination of panel of experts and nearest neighbour approaches were used to assign use levels to these segments. These finai levels of use were displayed as 10 equal interval use classes fiom 1 being the lest heavy hiked to 10 being the most heavy hiked trail (see Figure 26)-

8.3.3 Traiis People Wanted to Hike But Were Unable To Al1 Souk (27%), Wiwaxy (19%), Highline McArthur (1 5%), Odaray Highline/Grandview (13%), and Yukness Ledges (12%) were the main trails visitors had wished they could have hiked but did not get the chance to. The most common reasons for not hiking a desired trail was lack of the, wet or icy trail conditions, cold or rainy weather, or proximity to bear closures (see Figure 27). Figure 26. Visitors' Use of Lake O'Hara Hiking Trails in 1996. Figure 27. Reasons For Not Hiking Desired Trail

Lack of time 54% \

I -- -Poorweather Trail condition 8% 11% Overail, visitors tended to spend an average of 5.7 hours of hiking per &y during their visit and just more than 13 percent indicated that they had hiked for eight houor more (see Figure 28).

Figure 28.

Average Time Visitors Spent Hiking Per Day During Their Visit

Hours per day hiking msan = 5.743

8.3.5 Favourite Trails Oesa, Yulaiess Ledge, and Wiwaxy were the top three favourite trails in Lake O'Hara. A cornparison was done with alpine hails (AU Soul's, Abbot Pass, Wiwaxy, and Yukness) and non-alpine klsaccording to the most favomite tmil hiked. The 21 non-alpine trails consisted of only twice the total of the four alpine trails weighted responses (see Table 48). Similarly, over four hesas many people had hiked the non-alpine trails (3840) than the alpine trails (872). Table 48. Most Favourite Trail Hiked

Trail Segment Weighted # of Rank Responses* Oesa 1689 Yukness Ledge 1267 Wiwaxy/ Huber Ledges 1101 Highline McArthur 994 Opabin Highline 899 West Opabin 879 Lake O'Hara Circuit 815 East Opabin 644 Odaray 452 Highline/Grandview** Ali Souis 3 88 10 Low Level McArthur 284 11 Abbots Pas 160 12 Cataract Brook 157 13 Linda Lake 84 14 Cathedra1 Lakes 80 15 Cathedra1 Basin 69 16 Lower Morning Glory 45 17 Alpine Circuit (general) 39 18 Linda Beeline 35 19 Upper Morning Glory 32 20 Big Larches 3 1 2 1 Duchesnay Basin 2 1 22 Schaeffer Lake 2 1 22 Don Quixote 16 23 Alpine Meadows 12 24 Sleeping Poets 8 25 Data was weighted by assig ng a value (i.e. 5 r number 1 favourite trail, 4 for number 2 favourite trail etc.) and rnultiplying this value by the total number of responses for each trail. The weighted responses reflect the sum of each mils position in visitors' ranking of the trails. ** Odaray and Grandview were lumped together since the survey instrument only indicated Odaray Highline, yet some visitors checked it because they though it included Grandview.

Visitors' ûail preferences can also be represented spatiaily by using geographic information systems (GIS) software. Figures 29-32 iiiustrate examples of how visitors' selection of trails cmVary between benefit cluster segments. For example, Figures 29 and 30 illustrate that the ~i~~ 29. Motivation for Trail Selection: Discovery Enthusiasts Figure 30. Motivation for Trail Selection: Learning Enthusiasts Fime 3 1. Motivation for Trd Selection: Challenge Seekers

Oesa trail (yellow for Learning Enthusiasts and white with blue border for Discovery Enthusiasts) was the most popular trail selected while Challenge Seekers most preferred the Yukness Ledge ûail (green trail in Figure 3 1).

The implications of these results, as well, as those in Chapters 5-7, will be discussed in the following chapter. CHAPTER 9: DISCUSSION

This chapter wili discuss some of the main findings of this study according to the study's six core research questions. As well, possible trends and implications of the results on fiiture visitor research wiil be discussed.

9.1 What Type Of Visitor Experience Are Hikers Currently Receiving In Lake O'Hara?

9.1.1 Visitor Profile Men the 1996 Lake OYHaravisitor data were compared with hdings of past visitor studies in the area (Parks Canada, 1973; Praxis, 1990; Rollins, 1991 ; Parks Canada, 1996a), some potential trends were evident (see Table 49). First, the proportion of Canadian visitors appears to be decreasing (68% in 1996 compared with 73% in 1989) while the number of American and non-North American visitors has increased by 2 and 3 percent respectively. To this end, the number of countries represented by international visitors was the most diverse for the area These findings coincided with Yoho National Park Service Plan (Canadian Parks SeMce, 1990) projections of increases in the cultural mix of visitors and those travelling fiom merdistances. Furthemore, a recent socio-economic analysis report by Parks Canada (Parks Canada, 1997) have projected that the proportion of U.S. and international visiton to Canada's western national parks (particularly fkorn Japan, France, and Pacific Rim countries) would continue to increase. This increase in the international visitor data base may have implications for the laiiguage in which certain services and communication materials are provided.

Although the age groupings were different, the percentage of visitors in the 25-34 year category remained the same while the number of people in the 18-24 and 35-64 year age categories have increased (i.e. 64% of the visitors were 35-64 fiom 57% in 1989). Conversely, the number of visitors in the 65 years and over category decreased (6% fiom 1 1% in 1989). Interestingly, Lake O'Hara visitors tend to be older than Yoho backcountry visitors overall (Le. 47% of Yoho hikers were under the age of 34 in 1995 compared with 30% for Lake O'Hara in 1996). Monitoring shifts in visitor profiles wilI be important in order to target interpretation and education messages effectively.

There appears to be a considerable increase in the percentage of visitors who participated in photography and wiidiife watching activities in 1996 compared to previous Lake O'Hara visitor studies. This finding was anticipated due to results of other recreation studies (Tourism Canada, 1995; Wight, 1996; Parks Canada, 1997) which have found an increase in "nature based" tourism activities like wildife viewing, guided walks, hiking, and photogxaphy. As seen in other studies, viewing wildlife in a naîurai setting was aiso important to visitors but received a low mean achievement score (Wright et ai., 1996; Parks Canada, 1997). This fïnding demonstrates visitors are arriving to the area with some expectations that are not necessady possible to achieve. Consequentiy, park information materials on the area should communkate to visitors what types of wildlife they might see (i.e. pikas, marmots, gray jays, ptarmigans) and that seeing other types of wildlife (i.e. moutain goats, grizzly bears) are quite rare. TO that end, visitors should be educated about proper backcountry ethics and discouraged &om trying to seek out wildlife, approaching them, or feeding them. The importance of the area as habitat for wildlife should also be communicated.

The group size of Lake O'Hara visitors appears to be shifting to smailer sizes (3.3 in 1996 fiom 3.7 in 1989) although the mean group size was still higher than those of other backcomtry areas (Parks Canada, 1997). In tems of implications, if'smaller group sizes are desired to decrease environmental impacts, they should be encouraged. However, if larger group sizes are preferred for safety reasons, management may need to address this issue.

Although a number of recreation studies have discovered a trend towards a decline in overnight backpacking and an increase in day use of hiking trails (Barbee, 1990; Tourism Canada, 1995; Parks Canada, 1997), the average Iength of stay for Lake 07Harahas remained fairly constant, 1 project that due to the uniqueness of the area (i.e. quota system) and the planning that is involved to visit the area (i.e. reservation system), the average length of stay will Iikely remain steady.

FinalIy, there appears to be a decrease in the percent of repeat visitors (48% in 1996 from 59% in 1989). However, the percentage of Lake O'Hara repeat visitors continues to be higher than the rates iÎom the 1990 and 1995 Yoho National Park surveys (Rob.199 1, Parks Canada 1996a). The relatively high percentage of repeat visitors wiii likeIy continue due to the fact those that have been returning, have been doing so for a number of years. Since fïrst tirne visitors to the area are less informed about the management of the area, the rationaie behind different actions (i.e. closures, quotas) should be cornmunicated to them in pre-trip materials. Simitarly, education needs to be targeted at repeat visitors, particularIy clients of the Lodge, since they were significantly more likely than the other accommodation segments have the attitude that %ere are not enough bears in the area to justi@ the cbsures of areas". 1 believe Parks Canada should work with Lake O'Hara Lodge management to ensure that consistent messages are communicated to visitors about the management of the area.

A smaryof the visitor profile trends discussed in this section can be seen in Table 49. Table 49. A Cornparison of Existing Lake O'Hara and Yoho Visitor Profiles Lake O'Hara Gke OpHnra 1 Yoho Yoho Lake OWan Visitor Survey Visitor Survey ' Backcountry Backcoun try Visitor Survc (1972)' (1989)' Survey (1990)' Suney (1995)' (1996)' AGE no data avuifuble 18-24 - 5% 19-30 - 20% 18-24 - 14% f 8-24 - 8% 25-34 - 22% 3 1-40 - 33% 25-34 - 33% 25-34 - 21% 3549 - 39% 41-50 - 26% 35-44 - 3 1% 35-44 - 25% 50-64 - 18% 51-64.18% 45-54 - 1 1% 45-54 - 23% 65+ - 11% 65-1- -2% 55-64 - 3% 55-64 - 12% 6S+ - 6% 65+ -5% GENDER 5 1% male no &fa avuifable 50% male 56% male 49% fernale 44% fernale 44% fernale 6% no response 66% Canadian 73% Canadian no &ta availabfe 64% Canadian 68% Canadiar (52% Alta & BC) (8 1% AIta & BC) 16% U.S.A (64% Alta & 1 3 1% U.SA 20% u.s.A 11% Germany 22% USSA 3% international 7% International 9% Other Overseas 10% Intematic REPEAT 42% repeat 59% repeat 4 1% repeat 26% repeat 48% repeat VISITATION MOTIVES nature appreciation, enjoy sening, 1 no abta mailable 1 enjoying nature, get 1 enjoy natural getting away, and observe nature, away from crowds, scenery, see & relaxation exercise, family exercise and 1 explore andbackcouoûy 1l l1 relaxation 1 environment, experience enjoy biking ti ACTIVITY 90% hiking 86% hîking 71% no &ta muilable 97% hiking 49% sightseeing 45% sightseeing photography 78% photogral 17% clirnbing 3 1% wahg 55% camping 65% wildlife 13% fishing 10% clirnbing 44% nature study watching 6% photography 19% climbing 4% f~hing 4% fshing 6% fishing ACCOMMO- 62% Day 43% Day no &tu mailable Al1 overnight hiken. 43% Day DATION 23% Campers 23% Campers 33% Campers 13% Lodge 22% Lodge 15% Lodge 2% ACC 11% ACC 9% ACC TRIP 2.7 nights Avg. 2 nights 1 na dora waiioble daYs LENGTH l 2. GROUP TYPE 49% Family Typical size of 2. Mean size = 2.6 Mean size = 3. AND SIZE Mean size = 3.7

1 Parks Canada 1973. Lake O'Hara Area Visitor Survev - 1972 Summer Season. Policv and Planning Research Division, Western Region. 2 Praxis. 1990. Lake O'Hara Visitor Survev. Report prepared for the Canadian Park Service. ' Rollins RB. 199 1. Yoho National Park 1990 Backcountw Survev. Report prepared for Parks Canada 4 Park Canada. 1996. Yoho Backcountw Trails Survey: Overnight Visitors Semi-Primitive Trails 1995. Business Services Group, Calgary Service Centre. 5 Kelly, D.P. and P.A. Wright. 1997. The Lake O'Hara Socio-ecolorrical Studv: Social mort. Report prepared for Yoho National Park, Parks Canada. ... - ; 9.1.2 Motivations and Benefits for Eiking The results of this study were quite consistent with some of the hdings pertaiaing to the benefits and motivation studies (Driver, 1986; Virden and Knopf, 1989; Yuan and McEwen, 1989; Driver, 1990). Some of the most important reasons for visitors choosing Lake O'Hara as a hiking destination (i.e. viewing natural scenery, experiencing nahue, and physical exercise) were fairly consistent those identined in past Lake O'Hara surveys (Parks Canada, 1973; Praxis, 1990) and other national park backcountry surveys (Parks Canada, 1997). It was interesting to see that "experkncing solitude" had only the 10th highest importance mean out of the 20 listed motivation attributes. I had anticipated it would rank higher since it has oflen been profiied in visitor expenence fiterature as one of the main motivations or benefits to visitors in wildemess settings (Manning, 1986; Watson and Williams, 1995; Parks Canada, 1997). Since "getting away" appears to be an important motivation for visitors in recreation studies (Parks Canada, 1997), it would be interesting to include this as an attnbute in fûture Lake O'Hara surveys to see how it ranks in relation to the various nahirayscenic motivations.

While relaxation and social interactions (i.e. "be with firiends/family'y)dïd not appear to be as important to Lake O'Hara visitors as it has been to visitoa in other recreation studies (Yuan and McEwen, 1989; Virden and Knopf, 1989; Driver et al., 1990; Rollins, 199 1; Parks Canada, 1997), respondents did indicate it was one of the main benefits achieved durlig their visit. This example also illustrated the importance of measuring both the importance and magnitude of benefits achieved since some benefits achieved may be different than these sought by visitors (Driver, 1986). Consistent with the hdings of backcountry studies by Schreyer and Beaulieu (1986) and Moore and Graefe (1994)' the sentimental value of the area was one the main motivations for visitors choosing Lake OYHaraas a destination. This was due in part to the relatively high percentage of repeat visitors or others who were drawn by the unique management of the area (i.e. restncted vehicle access, tmil quality, quota).

Benefit-based cluster analysis was useN in linking the types of experiences visitors were seeking with their attitudes on issues associated with the Parks Canada mission. Although the variables fkom this study's cluster analysis were labeled diEerently than the visitor segments identified in the Lake O'Hara Plan (Cananian Park Service, 1WZ), there were some similarities in the visitor benefit profiles. In particular, the Outdoor Adventure segment seems to resemble the Challenge Seekers cluster; the Discovery and Learning segment may be similar to the Leaming Enthusiasts cluster; and the Relaxation Getaway segment resembles elements of the Discovery Enthuçiasts and Relaxation Seekers clusters.

Each of the benefit segments demonstrated distinct characteristics, particularly with respect to their demographics, trip profiles, and attitudes about wildlife management. For instance, the Discovery Enthusiasts and Leaming Enthusiasts were signincantly more likely to support management actions that placed a priority of bears over visitors while Challenge Seekers tended to prefer signing a personal waiver and assuming their own risk when entering an area with known hazards. Segrnenting visitors by factors such as country of origin, pnor visitation, or accommodation can also have implications on visitor/wildlife management in the area. This type of idormation can assist managers in targeting communication messages to groups who may be less supportive of management policies or strategies (Barbee, 1990; Compton, 1994; Harris et al., 1995). Furthemore, while the Discovery Enthusiasts are currentiy the main benefit cluster followed by the Relaxation Enthusiast and the Challenge Seeker, it will be interesthg to monitor any shifts in visitation levels of these visitor segments.

9.2 How Do Visitors Feel About Trail Closures And Other Management Actions For Managing Bears And People In Parks?

Overail, respondents were supportive of managing visitor use with trail closures to protect wildlife and minimize a humadbear encounter. This supported the fïnding of a 1993 national study of Canadians' Attihdes Towards Canada's National Parks (Angus Reid, 1993)' that showed 90% of Canadians supported limiting human access to protect plant and animal species within protected areas and national parks. As well, the 1995 Yoho Backcountry Trails survey (Parks Canada, 1996a) concluded that %various types of restrictions and closures were supported by backcoutry visitors and that these should continue to be used whenever appropriate" (p. vi).

While visitors showed support for closures, they did show slightly more opposition to permanent closures than they did for temporary closures (i.e. weekly or seasonal basis). This finding was congruous with the 1995 Yoho study which found visitors supported permanent closures with alternative sites being opened or seasonal closures such as those existing in some areas of Lake O'Hara ('E'arks Canada, f 996% p. vi). Other national park backcountry surveys have also had similar results (Park Canada, 1997). Lake OYHaravisitors, however, did not want closures to be the only management action. Close to a quarter of the visitw cornments indicated that they would prefer to be educated about the issues as well so that they could make their own informed decisions. A similar finding was obseived in the 1989 Lake O'Hara survey (Praxis, 1990), although it was not specific to management actions for bearlvisitor conflict. The respondents had expresseci that they did not want to have controls imposed upon them, although they strongly supported restricting the types of activities on trails and the use of zones for certain activities.

Another interesthg result was that respondents generally disagreed with having hikers travel in groups of six or more, although, the "You are in Bear Country" brochure recommends that people travel in groups of six or more for safety reasons. This finding could be due to the fact that a number of bulletins around the Lake O'Hara area discourage large groups in order to reduce ecological impacts. As weU, a number of visitors cornmented that seeing so few people on trails, as a result of the quota system, contributed to their positive hiking experience in the area. Managers should try to ensure consistent messages are communicated to visitors with respect to group sizes.

Despite the fact that the mean responses for visitors' acceptance of different management actions for human safety or ecologicai reasoas differed, there was not a statisticaily signifiant difference in visitors' acceptance of the actions according to the rationaie. This finding was interesting since one of the signincant findings of the Compton (1994) was that more visitors were concerned about the safety of the wildlife than the safety of park visitors. As a resuic 1 had anticipated a significant difference in visitors' acceptance of management actions according to the wildlife and visitor safety ratiode. This finding suggests that future communication messages about management actions should include both rationale to educate visitors about the relationship between visitor behaviour and the long-term protection of wildlife and their habitats (McCool and Braithwaite, 1989; Canadian Parks Service, 1992).

9.3 What Types Of Recreation Features Are Important To Visitors? While the ordering was slightiy different, the five main features that positively contributed to visitors' hiking experience (water; trail quality, mountains, vegetation, and wildlife) were similar to the Taylor et al. 1995a and 1995b studies. As well, in al1 three shidies, the negative features were mainly associated with either human impacts (Le. people feeding wildlife, litter) or management features that individuals did not like (i.e. intrusive signage).

The features of interest visitors selected for each trail in the VEP exercise were found to be quite consistent with the results of the on-site survey. The visitor suwey reveaied that visitors favourite features varied by trail segment and in some cases, the reasons went beyond specific physicai features (i.e. waterfalls or mountain peaks). For instance, the ease of hiking the Lake O'Hara circuit was important to some visitors while the fact that some of the trails were circuit routes was important to others. This finding confirms the value of using a visitor survey in conjunction with a VEP exercise to document non-physical features. It also shows that since features may be site specific, management actions pertaining to visitors' use of ûails should be made on a trail by trail basis.

One interesting finding fiom the survey and VEP exercise was that while water features were important to visitors overall, it received a relatively low rating in relation to other reasons for choosing a trail (Le. scenic oppomuiities, destination, and elevation). I was surprised by this finding since the final destination of some of the favowite trails (Le. Oesa, Opabin Highiine and Lake McArthur) are alpine lakes. This finding also supports the need for preference research in visitor experience studies since the features managers or mearchers may think are important to visitors, may in fat be different.

Visitors who had previously hiked the closure trails indicated that view, watedcdls, and circuit were some of the main feahires of interest for Odaray Prospect and view, lake, and circuit were the top three features for the McArthur Valley/Ottertail hail. Although it was difficult to replace the closure trails with other trails, some visitors were able to name ûails that came close to offering the same experience as the closure trails (Le. Opabin Highline and Grandview were seen to offer sirnilar experiences as Odaray Prospect). Therefore, traiIs that contain similar experiences or different combinations of features (Le. view, circuit, waterfais, and lakes) should be suggested to visitors who want similar recreation experiences as these &ails provide. This, in conjuction with educating visitors about the rationale behind management actions, can increase visitors' acceptance of strategies, like trail closures.

Finallys without the use of open-ended questions, as suggested by Schreyer and Beaulieu (1986), some of these features would have not othenvise been docurnented. To that end, the ranking of attributes and the measuring of sub-categories within these attributes (Le. unmaintained vs. maintained trail surfaces), shodd be used to provide a deeper understanding of visitors preferences.

9.4 What Are The Trail Preferences And Current Patterns Of Use Of Trails In The Lake O'Hara Area And How Might These Coincide With Potential Grizzly Bear Habitat?

Interestingly, some of visitors most favourite trails (Oesa, Yulaiess, and Wiwaxy/Huber Ledges) were not necessarily &e most hiked. This could be due to the fact that some of the most hiked trails (i.e. Lake OYHaracircuit or the Opabin circuit trails) may be considered as trails en route to their more favourite trails. As well, since many of the most hiked and popular trails were not near the two closure areas and since visitors generally did not avoid trails near the closure areas, the closing of Odaray Prospect and McArthur ValleylOttertail did not appear to skew this finding. Consequently, if the closing of the Odaray Prospect and McArthur Valley/Ottertail trails are seen to benefit the wildlife of the area, the areas should not be respened on the account of visitors, since those areas do not appear to coincide with the trail preferences of the majority of hikers.

The inconsistencies in the attendance data between information sources collected by Parks Canada and withthe same source (i.e. using people counts in certain years and user night counts in other years) made it difficult to determine possible trends or changes in attendance levels. Similarly, while the most popular trails hiked by visitoe (O'Hara, Oesa, and Opabin circuit trails) in the survey were found to be fairly consistent with the most hiked Wsfor the trail counter data, it was di£ncult to accurately assess the pattern of use because of sampling variations and trail segment measurement variation. These issues should be taken into consideration for future trail use assessments.

9.5 1s It Possible To Spatially Represent Social Data And How Can The Outcornes Potentially Affect Management Decisions?

This study has shown that layers of visitor data can be included within GIS decision support models. By representing the trail preferences of different benefit classes, I demonstrated the potential in representing data beyond just visitor use impacts (Hutchinson and Schryver, 1992) and trails hiked (Fry et ai., 1992; Harris et al., 1995). This exercise allowed preference differences between benefit clusters to be detected more readily and provided visitor uiformation in a format that could be analyzed with overlays of spatidly represented ecological data (Le. bear movement corridors).

Due to the scope of the study, I did not attempt to spatidly represent the data according to each of the different visitor management models. Instead, 1 showed how trail preference outcomes could vary between the independent benefit clusters. Other ciifferences would likely be evident if visitors were segmented by other profiles (i-e.prior Visitation). Consequently, it is important to understand the underlying assumptions and outcornes associated with each of the different visitor management models when andmg spatiai visitor data to make management decisions.

The next and final chapter will suggest how the findings in this chapter can be applied to the management of the area to avoid future wildKehuman confiicts. CHAPTER 10: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

10.1 Context for Recommendations The recommendations presented in this chapter were derived fiom the data of the study's primary research (e.g. visitor survey, trail use assessment, recreation feature inventory, and visitor employed photography) in addition to secondary research including iiterahue reviews on visitor planning models, visitorlwildlife conflicts, and past visitor studies of the area. The chapter will su-& the hdings and recommendations accordhg to each of the six research questions.

10.2 What Type Of Visitor Experience Are Hikers Currently Receiving In Lake O'Hara?

10.2.1 Visitor Profile There were a few changes in the 1996 profile of visitors compared with pst Lake O'Hara and Yoho National Park studies, particuiarly with respect tu: the increase in number of non- Canadian visitors; the augmentation of photography and wildlife activities; and decrease in average group size of visitors. Shi& in the visitor profile should continue to be monitored. The increase in the international visitor base rnay have implications for the language in which certain seMces and communication materials are provided. Also, with respect to commUIiication materials. Shifts should be monitored in order to target interpretation and education messages effectively. Management may need to claria whether they wodd like to encourage smaller or larger group sizes to ensure consistency in the messages they are delivering to the public.

10.2.2 Motivations and Benefits for Hiking One main objective of the study was to learn more about the type of visitor experiences visitors sought and achieved while hiking in Lake O' Hara. Consistent with past visitor research in the area, the naturai and scenic attraction was one of the main motivations for people visiting Lake O'Hara and overall, visitors indicated that they had achieved most of their motivations. To this end, future visitor surveys should continue to monitor the importance and degree of achievement of visitor motivations to ennire that they are in line with the Park mission. For sake of cornparison, it may be useful to use the same list, but I would suggest replacing the least important and achieved motivation '6closeto where 1 live" with the "to get away" attnbute. Monitoring should aiso be used to identify any succession and/or displacement of cunently provided visitor oppominities. Finally, by grouping visitors according to the benefits they are seeking, managers may be able to target interpretation or education messages to specific audiences. For instance, both the Discovery and Leaming Enthusiasts were significantly more likely to travel with children in their group than the other benefit cluster segments. Consequentiy, some of the messages might be targeted at children as well.

10.3 How Do Visitors Feel About TraiI Closures And Other Management Actions For Managing Bears And People In Parks? Visitors were asked in the survey to indicate their level of support for different park management actions that would potentially affect where and when they would travel on backcomtry trails. This was asked in two questions to see if their preference for management actions would differ if the actions were to protect park visitors' safety or to protect wildlife. The management actions included closures, education, quotas, and time restrictions. The resuits indicated that there was not a statistically significant difference in visitos' acceptance of different management actions whether it was for human safety or ecological reasons. Furthemore, when asked about their level of agreement with a series of statements about the use of closures as a management action, visitors strongly agreed with managing visitor use to protect both movement comdors and high value wildlife sites, and to use closures to reduce the chance of a beadvisitor encounter. Since most visitors indicated that their hiking experience was "not at aii affecter by the current seasonal closures and that they agreed with the current McArthur and Odaray closures, the closures shodd remain in place if it is found that they are needed to protect the safety of both visitors and wildlife. On average, visitors were receptive to different management actions, particdarly when education was used in conjunction with other management strategies. Therefore, it wodd be helpfui to have Park communication materials educate visitors about the rationale of different management actions. These messages shodd integrate social and ecologicai rationale so visitors can understand the role of these factors within the park mandate. Finally, it will be important to examine the attitudes of different visitor profiles (Le. benefit clusters, pnor visitation, accommodation, and country of origin) in order to target marketing and education simtegies to the different niches. For example, Discovery and Learning Enthusiast segments tended to support management actions that placed a priority of bears over visitors while Challenge Seekers were sipificantly more likely to choose management actions where they could assess their own risk (Le. signing a waiver to enter a closure area). Understanding such differences and addressing them in the rationale will likely increase visitors' acceptance different management actions.

10.4 What Types Of Recreation Features Are Important To Visitors? Visitor expenences depend on a combination of settings, activities, past experiences, and recreation features. The visitor employed photography exercise (VEP),on-site visitor survey, and 1995 recreation feature inventory were used to examine the importance of recreation features in visitors' hiking experience in Lake O'Ham

While view, lakes, wildlife, mountains, and trail quality were visitors' favourite features overall, visitors' features of interest varied by trail and by user group. As a result, management actions (e.g. temporary closures) should be examined on a mil by trail basis for different visitor groups in order to determine the effect of management on feature choice and to suggest substitution based on trails with similar features. Since, however, view, lakes, wildlife, momtsins and trail quality are the primary features of importance for hiking overall, the mix of available trail options should be baianced to provide these features.

The feature preference work also showed thai while closed tdsmay be difficult to replace, visitors who had previously hiked the Odaray Prospect or McArthur VaiIey/Onertail trails, were able to identifjr substitutes that came close to offerhg similar experiences. The ability of managers to identify substitutes in conjunction with educating visitos about the rationaie of the management action, can increase visitors' acceptance of closing trai1s that may be contentious to certain groups of visitors.

This study also demonstrated that while scenic opportunities, destination, and elevation are the top three factors that visitors considered when selecting a trail, there are also different conditions within these factors that visitors will prefer in their recreation expenence (Le. diversity of viewpoints vs. specinc viewpoints). It wiil be helpful to look at these sub- categories in conjunction with the feature attributes when rnanaging for visitor use and the quality of experience in recreation settings.

While the VEP exercise did provide valuable information to the study, a couple of changes could be made to the exercise to make it more effective. First, if a project budget aiIowed, the exercise should be expanded to more participants. This would provide more statistical validity to the exercise and as well, features taken by different segments of visitors (i.e. prior visitation, country of origin etc.) could be compared. Second, visitors could be allowed to write in the types of features that were important to them that they did not see. Finally, a follow-up survey could be used to collect additional feature information (i.e. have visiton rank their most favourite features). 10.5 What Are The Trail Preferences And Current Patterns Of Use Of Trails In The Lake OyHaraArea And How Might These Coincide With Potential Grizzly Bear Habitat? 1 would suggest leaving the current seasonal closures of Odaray Prospect and McArthur Valley trail in place for wildiife for a number of reasons. First, visitors' hiking experiences overall were not aKected by the closures. Second, visitors' kail preferences did not coincide with the current closures (potential grizzly bear habitat) and most visitors did not avoid areas near the trail closures. Finally, visitors in general supported the closures in place to protect visitor safety and ecological integrity of the grizzly bear population in the area

There were inconsistencies in the Lake O'Hara attendance data between information sources collected by Parks Canada and within the same source (Le. using people counts in certain years and user night counts in other years). This hding made it difficult for the researchee to determine possible trends or changes in attendance levels. Lake O'Hara and Parks staff should ensure that overall Lake O'Hara attendance data is collected and recorded in a consistent marner each year (Le. using both visitor counts and visitor nights).

Should friture trail use assessments be conducted in the area, 1 would like to conclude this section with a few suggestions. First, in order to allow for an accurate assessrnent of patterns of use (i.e. year to year comparisons), a consistent sampling procedure needs to be developed. For instance, the counters should be checked regulady to ensure that if equipment malfunctions occur, the amount of data lost will be minimized. As well, extemal factors that may affect the trail counter data (i.e. temporary trail closure or heavy snowfdl) should be recorded so fluctuations or discrepancies in trail use can be accounted for. Second, friture research should continue to use level of use data in conjunction with survey data in order to provide additional information on trails hiked (i.e. cases where al1 trails cannot be monitored). Third, it will be beneficial to have an ongoing trail use monitoring strategy that uses common trail segments fiom year to year and addresses information gaps on trails with neitber counter or survey data. These rneasures will also allow managers to apply the data to visitor opportunity assessrnent models (Payne and Che, 1997) and tmii impact monitoring projects (Park Ca~da,1997).

10.6 1s It Possible To Spatially Represent Social Data And How Can The Outcornes Potentially Affect Management Decisions? GIS software can be used to spatidly represent visitor information beyond Level of use data and human land use impacts. It can be used to map visitor feature preferences according to different visitor profiles. This study explained that the outcomes will vary between visitor management models so managers should be sure they understand the purpose, assumptions, and outcomes of the different models before using them to make management decisions. It also revealed that by spatially representing visitor data, the information cm be used with ecological layers of information in GIS wildlife management decision support rnodels. Table 50 presents a summary of research and management recommendations for each of the five objectives. Table 50. Recommendations for Further Research and Park Management- Research Objective Recomrnendations for Further Recommendation for Research Visitor Experience Maintainhg consistency in questionnaire style so infonnation is education messages to the different comparable fkom year to year. visitor profile segments (Le. Continue monitoring importance and benefit profiles). achievement of visitor motivations Clarifying size of groups preferred and shifts in visitor demographic (small vs. large). profiles. Communicating reaiiic lncluding "getting away" as an expectations associated with amibute in visitor motivations wiÏdlife viewing oppominities Opinions about Monitor changes in visitor attitudes Keep Odaray & McArthur Trail Management Actions about ciiffers management actions, closks in Place as long as those particularly those of a contentious areas are seen to protect visiton nature. and wildlife. Communiate to visiton the ecological and social rationale behind the mil closures. Look closely at difference in attitudes behveen different profile segments. Target marketing and education should be used for those niches. Parks Canada may want to work with commercial businesses to ensure consistent messages regarding the management of the area are communicated to visitors. Recreation Feature VEP exercises should be considered Management actions should be Preferences when conducting visitor feature considered on a mil per trail basis. preference research. Trails that contain similar features Future VEP exercises should as closure trails should be consider increasing the number of suggested as trail substitutes. participants, allowing participants to write in feahues they did not see, and providing a follow-up survey to collect additionai feature infonnation. 8 Open-ended questions should be used to gather feam prefwence information. Trail Preferences and Consider expmding trail monitoring Collecting and recordhg visitor Level of Use strategy to trails that were not attendance data in a consistent information sampled (Le. Cataract Brook). manner. Consider using level of use data in conjunction with survey data. Spatially representing Demonstrate how other types of Expand the application of GIS social data visitor information can be spatially models to include both social and represented. ecological data. 10.7 ConcIusion The purpose of this research was to gather visitor experience idonnation that could be used to provide an assessment of different management approaches and decisions pertaining to human/wildlife conflicts. The study incorporated the use of three dinerent techniques (visitor experience survey, visitor employed photography, and trail use assessment) to dernonstrate how visitor information can be collected and appiied to an interdisciplinary wildlife management framework. It also showed the potential in using GIS software as a medium to physicaily overlay social information with ecological data.

Capturing the human dimension of wildlife management is critical to not only the Lake O'Hara area, but to other parks and protected areas that are actively used by both humans and wildlife. Through knowledge of visitors preferences, motivations and responses to different management actions, managers cm be more proactive in the development and implementation of policies pertaining to preventing wildIife/human conflicts while protecting recreation and biodiversity values.

Integrating social and ecological information in a wildlife hework is not an easy task, but this study has illustrated that it is possible. The mechanisms are in place and advances will only be made once resource management professionals are prepared to commit to ensuring that the proper social information is collected and applied in humdwildlife management decision making processes. 1996 LAKE O'HARA VISITOR SURVEY 1p~~meflil our priur ro bqhnhg Ute sumy. I DATE: DEPARTURE BUS: lSURVEY W : LOCATION: l Siinon Fraser University and Parks Canada arc conducting thM survey to leam more about the quality of visiter expetience ar Lake O'Hira, This survey u one cornpanent of fhe ruearch thu is kingdone to dcvelop a decision support mode1 which is intcndcd to prcvent Grizzly bearlhuman conflicu while cilsuring the protection ofGrizzly ban and providing quality visitor opponunitiu. For the questions Jealing with frai1 use, we are interestcd in seking nsponscs fmm people who have hiked and/or walked ihc trails.

Tl~is/lnlset of quatfons asks about tl& visIf tu the Lake OiHara area and the activitla you participurcd in.

1. IN TOTAL, APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY DAYS HAVE YOU SPENT DURING MISVlSlT HIKING IN THE LAKE O'HARA AREA?

1. WHlCH OFTHE FOLLOWCNG ACiïVITtES DID YOU PARTICIPATE il4 DURING THIS VISITTO LAKE O'HARA? (Check al1 those that apply) O Day hiicing d Guided Walk O PhorognphyEvidcography O Evming Pmgnm O Wildlifc wiiching b Visit rite Relais (day use shtlter) 0 Rock climbing (technical) b LuncMëa at Lake O'Han Lodge Cl Ovcmight hiking O Fihing O Olhcr @lase spi@)

3. DID YOU HlKE OR WALK ALONG TRAlLS DURING YOUR VlSITTO LAKE O'HARA? U No (If 'no', plcase go to qucstion 8) O Yts (If 'yes'. plcase go to question 4)

4. USING THE Aï7ACHED TMIL MAP, PLEASE CHECK THE TRAlLS YOU USE0 WHILE YOU WERE ATLAKE O'HARA ON THIS TRIP. (If you hiked a hi1 mon than once during this trip, plcase indicate by wiring the appraxirnate numkoftimts beside the mil nane).

- Abbon's Pass - Highlinc McArthur Trail - Ail Soul's Alpine Route - Low Lcvel McArthur Tnil - Catamct Brook - Uppcr Moming Glory - Cathcdd Basin Trail - Lower Moming Glory - Cathedra1 Mes Trail - Odsny Highline - Don Quixotc TniI - Opabin Highline Scenic TmiI - Duchtsmy Basin Tnil - East Opbin Tmil - Lake O'Hui Circuit Trail - Wcst Opabin Tmil - WCCksaTiail - Wiwwy GapMuber Mges Alpine Rwtc - Linda Lake Beclinc - Yukntu Ltdge Alpine Route - Linda Lake Tmil

S. USlNG THE TRAlL NAME FROM ïHE LIST OF 'IRAILS YOU HlKED IN QUESTiON 4. PLMSE RANK YOUR TPe S EAVOURTRAILS. 1. MOST FAVOURITE

4. S. LEAST FAVOURITE

6. FOR YOUR NUMBER I TRAIL CHOICE M QUESTION S. PLEASE MDICATE THE 3 MOST IMPORTANT FEATIJRES OR ATTRIBUTES THAT MADE IT YOUR FAVOURlTE TRAIL. (Plwt bc specific e.g. vitw of Sevcn Veil Falk)

7. INGENERAL, HOW MANY HOURS PER DAY DID YOU SPEND DURWG THIS VISiT HIKRJG IN THE LAKE O'HARA AREA? houn(dry

8. IF THERE WERE 7RAILS YOU WlSHED YOU HAD HlKED BUT WERE UNABLE TO, PLEASE INDICA~WHICH TRAILS AND WHY YOU WERE UNABLE TO HIKE THEM? (PICU~ WC the mil nMc liom the mip in question 4)

Tai1Nimc/Numbcr Rerson You Did Not Hlkc

9. IN PART A. INDICATE HOW'IMWRTANT WCH SF IIlE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE AS REASONS 1-OR YOU TO HlKE INTHE UKEO'HARA ARW.

IN PARTB. ANSWER TO WHAT EXTENT WERE YOU ABLE TO ACHlEVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS FROM YOUR HIKINC EXPERlENCE BY WRlTlNG THE PERCENTAGE OF AClllEVEMENT FROM I PART B

Eromple Get physical amise Vicw and enjoy natunl sccnery Enjoy ihc tndltlon ofannual visifs Be wiih Mui&funily Do rorncthing dulkaglng View wildlife fn a naturel rtling Have a Amce to relax Gperience new and diffcnnt things Lemmore about the natunl environment Test and devclop rny hiking rbilities Close to whve 1 livc Enjoy the nriety ofhiking traits Lcam more about the human hisiory of rho uci View plants and trcu Set a natuni cnvimment unchtîged by humons Expcricnec solitudc Dcvclop or mhoncc my own cnvimnrnentil eihic View gcoIogy/gtomorphology O 000d* Enjoy a place ih.t is rpccial io me 0':O O 0 0- Explon chc ~iuralenvironment 00000-

Ifiliuc arc othu rckwins why you have visitcd the Lake O'Hm um rhu have net bccn luted above, pkarc lia thcm klowand indicaic bath ihc perccntage ofachicvemcnt and the kvcl ofimporinnce of llio~items.

nicfaliawlng sel of quatlons deal wi~hyour hlklngprefenncrr.

10. WHlLE YOU MAY CHOOSE TO HIKEON TRAlLS FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS, WE WOULD LIKE 'ID KNOW WHlCH OFTHE FOLLOWING CONDITiONS YOU WOULD WHEN SELEClïNG A TRAlL FOR HIKING ON A PlPlCAL DAY? (Plcase check- for cach fiup)

Time spent hiking O lhr-2hr o in diy U whole &y

Elcvation O traiis with large elevation gains d iraila wilrnodente elmiion pins O iraiis iha arc relatively level

Destination - O hiking to -ch ,destination in mind O hiking wilout r specific destination

Type of forestlata cover E3 hcivily forad U opfwab (i.c. Id) d alpine meadow

Tmil surface U maintaincd hudmcd surfacc (c.g. rock stain) 0 unmainiaincdsonencd suflacc (cg. dirt and mil) Sccnic oppmnitics O specific mnic pmspcm or viewpoints U divmity ofscenic prospu or viewpoints

Waiu faiurcl O Traiis to view lakts O Trails along mums OTrailr ta view rmQTalb

I1. HOW IMWRTANT ARE EACH OF THE FOLLOWMG FEATURES 1D YOU WHEN DEClDMG WHERE TO HlKE IN UKEOeHARA. [Plase mkihe il& fmm ihe mmimmt faturc (1) io thc laut important fcaturc (1 O)]. -Tirne spcnt hiking -Ekvation -Destination -Type afî~arer covv -Tnil suflke -kgth of hike -Sccnic oppartunitics -Alpindnon-ilpine mute -Numbcr ofpcople seen -Wata femm

II. PARKS CANADA OFTEN TAKES MANAGEMENTAWONS 70 PROfECT PARK VISITORS' SAFETY. THESE MAY AFFECT WHERE AND WHEN YOU CAN TRAVEL ON BACKCOWYTRAILS. TO WHAT DEGREE DO YOU FAVOUR MCHOF THE LlSTED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS IN ORDER M ~IllfVlhflZETHE CHANCES OF YOU BECOMING INVOLVED WITH A WILDLIFUHUMAN ENCOUNTER? (Check for ach km) E

Close irail permanently Close irail iernpatarily on a seasonal basb (ix. May - Nov.) Close irail tcrnponrily on a wcckly bssk Open I build alicniative mils Requirc hikcn ui travci in gmups of six ormore Ratrict daily lime of iravel Ered waming signs dong irails (cg. Bar in Area) Requirc gmups to k Idby a tnined guide rducaibnal programs to illow usur ta make infonncd dccisioru No action requid

II. PARKSCANADA OFTEN TAKES MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 'CO PROTECTTHE ENVIRONMENT. 'i'lESE MAY AFFECT WHERE AND WHEN YOU CAN TRAVEL ON BACKCOUMRY TRAIS. ïr] WHAT OEGREE DO YOU FAVOUR THE LISTED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS IN OROER TO PROTEff IVILDLIFE! (Check for each item) a

Close irail permanently Close irail ternpondy on a sasonal basis (Le. May - Nov.) Close mil tcrnporarily on a wcckly baru Open I build atkmative tnils Restricî daily lime of îmvcl Erect information signs along irails Requirc groups to bc lcad by a tnined guide I?dncationaipmprns to allow usas to make informed decisions No action requircd 1 J. AT WHAT POINTOF YOUR VlSIT DiD YOU FlRST BECOME AWARE OF THE SEASONAL UEAR CLOSURES AT LAKE O'HARn? (Check ody one) d Was noi awin ihai rhwc wek closur&

DID YOU AVOlD HIKINGIN AREAS THAT WERE- THE BEAR CLOSURES? u No O Y- (If 'yer', plcase idcntify the triils yau avoidcd from die map in question 4 and srhy yau did so)

TnlI Namc Ruuin for Avoidlng Tmil

HAD YOU PLANNED ON HIKING THE TRAlLS IN THE CLOSED BEAR AREAS AT LAKE O'HARA? iJ No (if 'no', go fo question 18) O Va(If 'yu',plcase spccify which trait 1

17. IF YOU INDICATED M QUESTfON 16 7HAT YOU HAD PLANNED ON HlKING ONE OF MEBEAR CLOSURE TRAIES; PLMSESPECIFY BELOW WHlCH FEATURES YOU WERE LOOKING FOR

18. HOW DID THE SEASONAL BMRCLOSURES AT LAKE O'HARA (MCAR7HUR VALLEY AND ODARAY PLATEAU) EFFECT YOUR HlKlNG EXPERIENCE WlTH REGARDS TO: (Check ont for each item) Not ar al1 Somcwhat Modenlely Very E'tircmely Effecied Effecied EfCcctcd Effcctcd Efïectcd

Variety ofmils available Acccss 10 scenic arcas Acccss 10 specific vicwpoin~ Acceu to other arcas through closure Ability IO apprcciate vegcfation/trees Ability to view wildlifc Abifiiy to avoid other hikcrs Select hikes chat werc marc challcnging Select hikcs that wcn leschatlcnging Select shortcr hikcs Sclect longer hikes Vicw* unique fcatures dong tnil

19. FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, PLEASE CHECK THE BOX THAT MOST CLOSELY REPRESENTS YOUR OPINION TOWARDS EACH STATEMENT.

AI1 taib should remain open with wcll-communicated hazard O d O 0 warnings to hikm. C'losures should only occur for a few weeks cach xason when O00 O0 i11c knnare active in the area. i am against irail closures regardless of the reasons for closing the mils. 0 O O O O C'losums arc acceptable io minimizc the chance ofa kartvisifor O0 O O 0 ciicounter. Vidor use shoutd be manrged Io pmtett animal movcmcni corridors. b O 0 0 Tails should remain closed as long as bear movcmcnts arc 00 O O 0 iitipreâiciable in the am. Ucan should be givcn priority ovcr people in park management actions. O O O O O '!iierc arc no{ enough bcars in ihe amio justify the closun ofarcas. 0 O d O O Iam willing to sign a persona1 safety waivcr befort cntcring an 00 O O 0 arca wiih known hazards. Viritor UK should k managed to protcct high value wildlife sites. O O O 0 '0 1 prcfer cducation to manage visitor use rather than clonrrrs. QUO O0

0. HAVE YOU VlSlTED LAKE O'HARA BEFORE? O No O Yu 2 I IN THE PASTTEN YEARS. APPROXiMATELY HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU VISITE0 LAKE 1'1 IARA (not including ihis trip) ?

21. IlAVE YOU HlKED ON THE FOLLOWING TRAILS? I ) ûâaray Prospcci O No O Ycs (Iîya. approximatcly how many times? 3 Il) McAnhur Vallcy/O[te~ail O No 0 Ycs (If ycr. spproximately how many tirnes? A

2;. PI.EASE IDENTIFY A FEW OF THE TRAlL FEATURES ANDIOR CHARACTERlSTlCS THAT A 1-I'RACTED YOU TO EACH OFTHE FOLLOWING AREAS: I) Odaray Prospect il) McAnhur Vailcy/Oncnail

24. lJSlNGTHE MAP FROM QUESTION 4 OFTHE SURVEY. PLEASE IDENTlFY WHICH TRAIU, 1F .\NY. COME CLOSEST T0 OFFERING THE SAME RECREATIONAL EXPERIENCE AS THE FOLLOWING AltEAS. (Plcase writc the imil name from the mrip in question 4) 1) ûûaray Prospect II) McAnhur Valleymntrtail

In ~lrisfirialscctlori wc would like fo know a lUIIc bit about you.

25. OURING THIS VtSlT, HOW MANY NIGH7S DI0 YOU STAY AT MCHOFTHE FOLLOWING LAKE ( )'I IARA ACCOMMODATlON SITES? (Plcase wriic ihc numbcr ofnights in the space providcd) 0 1 did noi stay overnight in Lake O'Han (plcasc go to question 26)

-Lake O'Hara Carnpgmund -Elizabeth Parker (ACC) hut -Lake O'Hm Lodge -Abboa Pass hut

:fi INCLUDING YOURSELF. HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN YOUR GROUP?

17. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING TERMS BEST DESCRIBES THE CROUP YOU ARE TRAVELiNG WITH? ~i'lrasccheck al1 ihat apply) O Alont Cl Wiih spousdpanner O Wiih children O Wiih friends Cl With family O With organizcd group/club/tour O Wiih business assaciateslcolleaguts

IX. HOW OLD ARE YOU?

19. ARE YOU: O Male O Fcmalc

3). WHERE JS YOUR CURRENT PLACE OF RESIDENCE? Country Provincc/Statc

PLEASE USE THE SPACE BELOW TO ADD ANY ADDlTlONAL COMMENTS.

AUSSI DlSPONSlBLE EN FRANCAIS

î7mtk you for your tlme and coopm(lon ln our Ettjoy rite rat of yoitr drry IN Lakc O'Hura Andereck, K.L., and L.L. Caldwell. 1994. Motive-based Segmentation of a Public Zoological Park Market. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 12(2): 19-3 1.

Angus Reid Group, Inc. 1993. A Stuc@ of Canadian Attitudes Towardr Canada S National Parks. Final Report prepared for Canadian Parks Service, Western Region.

Banff-Bow Valley Task Force. 1996. Banff-Bow Valley.- At the Crossroah - Summary Report. Report to the Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Barbee, R.D. 1990. The Visitor and the Resource: Prospects for Protecting Resources and Enhancing the Visitor Experience. Trends. 27(3): 18-2 1.

Braithwaite, A.M. and S.F. McCool. 1989. Social Influences and Backcountry Visitor Behaviour in Occupied Grizziy Bear Habitat. Society and Nufural Resources. 2(4): 273-283.

Brown, S., H. Schreier, W.A. Thompson, and A. Vertinsky. 1994. Linking Multiple Accounts with GIS as Decision Support System to Resolve Foresûy/Wildlife Conflicts. Journal of Environmental Management. 42: 349-364.

Calantone, R.J. and J.S. Johar. 1984. Seasonal Segmentation of the Tourism Market Using a Benefit Segmentation Framework. Journal of Travel Research. 23(2): 14-24.

Canadian Parks Service. 1987 Yoho National Park Trail Plan.

. 1988. Yoho National Park Management Plan.

. 1990. Yoho National Park Service Plan.

. 1991. Lake Minnewanka Visitor Survey Report, BanflNational Park Strategic Information Section, Western Regional Office.

. 1992. Lake O 'Hara Area Plan.

Chenoweth, R. 1984. Visitor Employed Photography: A Potential Tool for Landscape Architecture. Landrcape Journal. 3(2): 136- 143.

Cherem, G.J.and B.L. Driver. 1983. Visitor Employed Photography: A Technique to Measure Common Perceptions of Natural Environrnents. Journal of Leisure Research. 15: 65-83. Compton, G.W.1994. Visitors and WildHe: New Information on Attitudes, Risk, Responsibility. Yellowstone Science. Winter Issue: 5-8,

Daigle, J.J., A.E. Watson, and G.E. Haas. 1994. N'onalForest Trail Users: Planningfor Recreation ûpportunities. Research Paper NE-685. Radnor, PA: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastem Forest Experiment Station.

Denali National Park. 1996. Bear-Human Canfrict Management Plan.

Driver, B.L. 1986. Benefits of River and TraiI Recreation: The Limited State of Knowledge and Why it is Limited. In: 1st International Congres on Trail and River Recreation Proceedings: 44-58.

Driver, B.L., A.T. Easley, and J.F. Passineau. 1990. Introductory Comments On The Benefirs of Wilderness. In: The Use of Wilderness for Personal Growth, Therapy, and Education. Gen. Tech. Rep. REM-193. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service: 1-10.

Driver, B.L., R Nash, and G.E. Haas. 1987. Wilderness benefits: A State-of-knowledge Review. In: Proceedings - National wïidemess research conference: Issues, state-of- fiowledge, Future Directions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, htennountain Research Station: 294-3 19.

Eyre, Marcus. 1997. Personal Communications. Yoho National Park.

Field, D.R. 1996. Social Science: A Lesson in Legitimacy, Power and Politics in Land Management Agencies. In A. W. Ewert (ed.). Natziral Resource Management: The Human Dimension. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 249-263.

Fry, G.L.,S. Noms, M. Gjelland, and E. Datile. 1992. The Use of Geographic Information Systems in National Park Management: The Rondane National Park Case Study. In Science and the Management of Protected Areas, ed. J.H.M. Williston, S. Bondrup- Neilsen, C. Drysdale, T.B. Hermm, N. W.P.Muaro, and T.L. Pollock, 48 1-483. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Glacier Bay National Park (GBNP). 1996. A Guide to Decision-Making in Response to Bear-Human Interactions at Glacier Bay National Park

Haley. R. 1968. Benefit-Segmentation: A Decision Oriented Research Tool. Journal of Marketing. 23: 30-35. Harris, L.K. et ai. 1995. Multiple Use Management: Using a GIS Model to Understand Conf'cts Between Recreationists and Sensitive Wddlife. Soc- and Namal Resources. 8(6):559-572.

Hull, RB. and G.R.B. Reveli. 1989. Issues in Samphg Landscapes for Visd Quality Assessments. Landscape and Urban Plunning. 17: 323-330.

Hull, RB. and W.P. Stewart. 1992. Validity of Photo-Based Scenic Beauty Judgments. Journal of Environmental PsychoZogy. 12: 10 1- 1 14.

Hull, RB. and W.P.Stewart, and Y.K. Yi. 1992. Experience Patterns: Capturing the Dynamic Nahue of a Recreation Experience. Jodof Leisure Reseoreh. 24: 240-252.

Hutchinson, B. And H. Schryver. 1992. The Use of Geographical Information System (GIS) to aid in analyzing naturai resource and visitor conflicts in Bruce Peninsula National Park. In Science and the Management of Protected Areas, ed. J.H.M.Wiliiston, S. Bondmp-Neilsen, C. Drysdale, T.B. Herman, N.W.P.Munro, and T.L. Pollock, 473- 476. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Kelly, D.P. 1996. Designing a Visitor Risk Management Framework for Lake O 'ha. An unpublished course paper.

Kelly, D.P. and P.A. Wright. 1997. The Lake O 'Haro Visitor Experience Study. Report prepared for Yoho National Park, Parks Canada.

Kliskey, A.D. and G. W. Kearsley. 1993. Mapping Multiple Perception of Wildemess in New Zealand. Applied Geography. 13: 203-223.

Kliskey, A.D., C.C. Hoogsteden and R.K. Morgan. 1994. The Application of Spatial- Perceptual Wilderness Mapping to Protected Areas Management in New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Planning und Management. 37(4): 43 1-445.

Loker, L.E. and ER. Perdue. 1992. A Benefit-based Segmentation of a Non-resident Summer Travel Market. Journal of Travel Research. Summer Issue: 30-35.

Machlis, G. 1996. Usable fiowledge: A Plan for Furthering Social Science and the National Parks. Report prepared for the National Parks Service.

Manfiedo, M.J., B.L. Driver, and P.J. Brown. 1983. A Test of Concepts Inherent in Experience Based Setting Management for Outdoor Recreation Areas. Joumai of Leisure Resources. 1S(3): 263-28 1. ManfÏedo, MJ.,JJ. Vaske, and L. Sikorowski. 1996. c'Human Dimensions of Widlife Management" In A. W. Ewert (ed.) Naturai Resource Management: The Human Dimension. Boulder: Westview Press.

Manning, RE. 1986. Studies in ûutdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Marty, S. 1997. "Homeless on the Range: Grizzlies Sû-uggle for Elbow Room and Survival in BanffNational Park" Cunudian Geogruphic. JaaIFeb 1997: pp. 30-39.

McCool, S.F. and M. Reilly. 1993. Benefit Segmentation Analysis of State Park Visitor Setiing Preferences and Behaviour. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. Il(4): 1-14.

McCrory, W.P.and E.D. Mallam. 199 1. An update on using bear hazaid evaluation as a meam to minimize conflicts between people and bears in recreational situations. In Environment Canada. Grizzly Bear Management Workshop Proceedings, March 20- 2 1, Revelstoke, BC, pp. 57-61.

Molgat, 5. 1995. Assessing Recreation Resource Inventory Methods: A Comparative Analysis of Supply-Based and Dernand-Based Methodologies. A unpublished paper.

Molgat, J. and P. Wright. 1996. Lake O 'Hata Socio-Ecological Research Project Interim Report: Visitor Experience Component. Report prepared for Yoho National Park.

Moore, R.L. and A.R. Graefe. 1994. Attachments to Recreation Settings: The Case of Rail- Trail Users. Leisure Sciences. 16: 17-3 1.

Nepstad, E. and P. Nilsen. 1993. Towards a Better Understanding of HumadEnvirmment Relationships in Canadian National Parks. National Parks Occasional Paper No. 5, Canadian Parks Service.

Parks Canada. 1973. Lake O 'Hara Area Visitor Survey - 1972 Summer Season. Policy and Planning Research Division, Western Region.

. 1996a Yoho Backcountry Trails Suntey: Overnight Visitors Semi- Primitive Trails 1995. Business Services Group, Calgary Service Centre.

. 1W6b. Bench and Old Fort Point Trails. Jasper Day Use Level of Study 1995. Business Services Group, Calgary Service Centte.

. 1996c. Visitor Risk Management Framework. 2nd ed. (Working draft). Department of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa. . 1997. A Socio-economic Analysis of fisitors tu Western Cam& Narional Park and Historic Sites (I989-1996). Business Services Group, Calgary Service Centre.

Payne, R.J. 1997. Visitor Information Management in Carnala's National Pa*. Report prepared for Parks Canada, Huii Quebec.

Payne, R.J. and R. Graham. 19%. Visitor PIanning and Management in Parks and Protected Areas. In Parks and Protected Ateas in Canada: Planning and Management, eds. P. Dearden and R. Rollins, Oxford University Press, Toronto, Ontario, 185-2 10.

Payne, R.J. and E. Cline. 1997. Applying the Recreation Opportunity Spectnrm (ROS)for Visitor Opportunity Assessrnent in the Yoho National Park Region: A Demonsiration Project. Report Prepared for Parks Canada,

Praxis. 1990. Lake O 'Hara Visitor Survey. Report prepared for the Canadian Parks Service.

Piirves, H.D., C.A. White, and P.C. Paquet. 1992. Wolfand Grizzly Beur Habitat Use and Displacement by Human Use in Ban,$ Yoho, Kootenay National Park A Preliminary Analysis. Prepared for the Canadian Parks SeMce.

Rollins RB. 1991. Yoho National Park 1990 Backcounhy Survey. Report Prepared for Parks Canada

Rollins R.B. and J. Rouse. 1992. Segmenthg Backcountry Visitors by Setting Preferences. In J.H.M. Willison et al. Science in the Management of Protected Areas. Elsevier: 485-497.

Schreyer, R. and J.T. Beaulieu. 1986. Attribute Preferences for Wildland Recreation Seîtings. Journal of Leisure Research. 18(4): 23 1-247.

Schroeder, H.W. 1996. Ecology of the Heart: Understandhg How People Experience Naturai Environrnents. In A.W. Ewea (ed.). Natural Resource Management: The Human Dimension. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 13-29.

Stankey, G.H. and R. Schreyer. 1986. Attitudes Toward Wilderness and Factors Aflecting Yisitor Behaviour: A State-of-Knowledge Review. USDA Proceedings of Issues, State of Knowledge: 246-292.

Stewart, T.R. et al. 1984. Judgrnents of Photographs vs. Field Observations in Studies of Perceptions and Judgment of the Visuai Environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 4: 283-302. Taylor J.G., N.R. Sexton, K.J. Czamowski. 1995a Visitor Employed Photography at Rocky Mountain National Park: A Valuation Technique. Park Science. Winter issue: 10- 12.

Taylor, J.G., K.J. Czamowski, N.R Sexton, and S. Flick. 1995b. The importance of Water to Rocky Mountain National Park Visitors: An Adaptation of Visitor-Employed Photography to Nahual Resources Management. Jomc11of Applied Recreution Research. 20(1): 61-85.

Tourism Canada. 1995. Adven~eTravel in Canada: An Overview of Product, Mmket and Business Potenliai. Industry Canada

Uysal, M. And C.D. McDonald. 1989. Visitor Segmentation By Trip Index. Journul of Travel Research. Winter Issue: 3 8-42.

Virden, RJ. and R.C. Knopf. 1989. Activities, Experiences, and Environmental Settings: A Case Study of Recreation Opportunity Spectnim Relationships. Leisure Sciences. 1 1: 159- 176.

Watson, A.E. and D.R. Williams. 1995. Priorities for Human Experience Research in Wildemess. Trends. 32(1): 14-1 8.

Wight, P.A. 1996. North American Ecotourists: Market Profile and Trip Characteristics. Journal of Travel Research. Spring issue: 2-10.

Wright, P.A. et al. 1996. Jasper River Use Shrdy. Prepared for Parks Canada.

Yuan, M.S. and D. McEwen. 1989. Test for Campers' Expenence Preference Differences Among Three ROS Setting Classes. Leisure Sciences. 1 1 : 177- 185. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (QA-3)

O lm. Appiied Image, Inc, An Rights Reserved